3.8L Stroker?
07-25-2009, 08:50 PM
#31
ht tp://www.allpar.com/mopar/33.html
"Jim Gathmann wrote: "when the 3.3 and 3.8 were tested for turbo applications, the engine blew its self to bits. The 3.3 and 3.8 were both used as prototype engines for the Dynasty police cruisers, and the idea was a police package Dynasty- with beefed up parts, a 3.8 and a turbo would be the Mopar replacement to the M-bodies (as they ended in 1989...). The problem was that the 3.3/3.8s would literally break apart on the bottom end during what Chrysler has called 'moderate boost.'"
07-26-2009, 02:59 PM
#33
No one has a program for a 3.8 that would be modded that much that I know of. I guess one of the programmer companies could write something custom but heaven knows what it would cost. Not to mention the porting and all. I think balancing would be a total waste. These engines are balanced very well these days. Head work would probably pick u pa few ponies but the cost again would outweigh any performance benefits, IMO. Just like the stroker example I tried to make. You'd likely have 2 grand tied up in 20 extra cubes. Not frikkin worth it.
07-26-2009, 07:50 PM
#34
JK Super Freak
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Grand Junction, CO
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A competitent machine shop could stroke the stock crank probably farther than you think just with offset grinding. There's your crank. United Engine who makes the Keith Black piston line will make you any piston you want. All you gotta do is call. There's the pistons. I'm sure the stock rods are plenty strong enough. So there's your rods. Sonic checking the block will reveal how much of an overbore it will handle......probably not much. I would think .060 or .080 at the absolute max. Somebody get busy.
The cubic inch formula is as follows:
Bore X Bore X Stroke X .785 X number of cylinders.
The stock bore and stroke in inches is 3.78" for the bore and 3.43" for the stroke. Lets "assume" we can go .080" over with the block. Lets also assume we can get .125" extra stroke from the stock crank.....which is entirely possible for a GOOD machine shop. Lets see what we come up with.
We add the .080" to the stock bore and get. 3.86". We add the .125" (1/8") to the crank stroke and get 3.56.
So bore X bore (3.86 X 3.86) = 14.8996. Then, 14.8996 X a stroke of 3.56 = 53.042576. Then we take our given figure in the forumla (.785) and multiply that by 53.042576 to get 41.638422. Finally we multiply that figure by 6 (the number of cylinders to find we now hava a 249.83053 or a 250 cube V6. All that just to add twenty cubes. I suppose though, twenty cubes would cut lots of grass, wouldn't it?
The cubic inch formula is as follows:
Bore X Bore X Stroke X .785 X number of cylinders.
The stock bore and stroke in inches is 3.78" for the bore and 3.43" for the stroke. Lets "assume" we can go .080" over with the block. Lets also assume we can get .125" extra stroke from the stock crank.....which is entirely possible for a GOOD machine shop. Lets see what we come up with.
We add the .080" to the stock bore and get. 3.86". We add the .125" (1/8") to the crank stroke and get 3.56.
So bore X bore (3.86 X 3.86) = 14.8996. Then, 14.8996 X a stroke of 3.56 = 53.042576. Then we take our given figure in the forumla (.785) and multiply that by 53.042576 to get 41.638422. Finally we multiply that figure by 6 (the number of cylinders to find we now hava a 249.83053 or a 250 cube V6. All that just to add twenty cubes. I suppose though, twenty cubes would cut lots of grass, wouldn't it?
07-26-2009, 08:18 PM
#35
I'm sorry. I was just tryin to be realistic. There are those who are gonna keep tryin no matter what to make power from 3.8 liters of 60 degree V6. It's just not in the cards. Now, it if were something close to the old 90 degree Buick 3.8L, that would be an ENTIRELY different ball game. You just cannot get people to see the difference between 60 VS 90 degrees. they just cannot get their heads around it. The 60 degree engine will just never, ever be what a comparable 90 degree engine will. It's almost like comparing a 2 stroke to a 4 stroke.
07-26-2009, 08:47 PM
#37
07-26-2009, 09:14 PM
#38
JK Super Freak
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Grand Junction, CO
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do agree about Dexcool - lousy stuff.
07-26-2009, 09:21 PM
#39
I spent a lot of years in the retail and wholesale used car business. I never cared for ANY of the above motors and avoided them like th plague. The GM 3.8 I like, a lot. The rest of the above I would not own. My son was just looking at an old S10 Blazer that was in great shape. As soon as he said it had the 2.8 I told him to walk. The only GM V6's worth owning are the 3.8 and the 4.3.
I do agree about Dexcool - lousy stuff.
I do agree about Dexcool - lousy stuff.
07-26-2009, 09:27 PM
#40
JK Super Freak
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Grand Junction, CO
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amen brother. The 2.8, 3.1 AND 3.4 ALL had trouble with intake gaskets leaking coolant into the oil. And, for whatever reason, all it takes is a SMALL amount and POOF rod bearings spin. Also, I never saw why the HELL GM EVER made an engine (3.4) where the FRAME had to be dropped AND an axle removed JUST to replace an alternator. STUPID STUPID STUPID.
On the other hand I took 3.8 V6's in all the time with 250-300k on them. GM was/is as stupid as Jeep.