GrandAmGT.com Forum
http://www.pfyc.com GrandAmGT.com Premium Memership Signup
RotorsOnline.com   

Go Back   GrandAmGT.com Forum > GAGT - Modifications - Sponsored by RedlineGoods.com > All Go (Performance modifications)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-28-2017, 02:16 PM   #61
AaronGTR
BlingWithBallz
 
AaronGTR's Avatar
 
AKA: Aaron
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Detroit area, MI
Age: 39
Posts: 12,227
Vehicle: 2000 Grand Am GT1 2dr
AaronGTR has made plenty of valid pointsAaronGTR has made plenty of valid points
I also find it funny that earlier in this thread, you claim you more than tripled the stock engine HP on low boost, and that the car should still be capable of 30 mpg or better.

This is all easily disproved with simple math. The stock G6 GTP with the 3900 and 6 spd manual was only rated at 29 mpg highway, so I don't know how you think you are going to better that with more displacement, a bigger cam, bigger injectors, and a pair of turbos strapped on. Just not happening.

The stock engine was rated at 240 HP. Given a standard drivetrain loss of 15% for a FWD manual, that would be 204 WHP. 370 at the wheels is not triple stock HP. It's not even double.

Don't get me wrong, this is an impressive build and would be difficult to accomplish for anyone, and I commend you for succeeding and making it work. I also think that you have a tendency to exaggerate though and talk a big game. There are aspects of this build that I don't think are logical or well orchestrated, and I don't think the time and money spent are worth it for the results.
__________________
The few, the proud, the boosted!
13.788 @ 103.73 mph (3/2011) 320 whp and 300 ft/lbs torque. (3/2011)
See it here. the total package.
AaronGTR is offline  
Old 11-29-2017, 01:00 PM   #62
MilzyZ34
Fastest FWD GA
 
MilzyZ34's Avatar
 
AKA: Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Age: 38
Posts: 935
Vehicle: 1999 Grand Am GT
MilzyZ34 Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to MilzyZ34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegeta View Post
Literally had something to say, so congratulations on responding, but your response wasn't definitive or indicative to knowledge and research. It was reactionary to an issue that commotion knows about but you apparently didn't bother to check into. I didn't rehash this topic, but you wanted to make it sound like I posted a "rumor" to hurt your sales. Results like the build in this thread probably do more damage than anything I could say.
I cannot tell you what was said on any particular conversation with the cam manufacturer, and there were many, but I can tell you that I did sufficient research to know that the new camshafts would not cause any harm to the engines they would be installed in, just as I made sure the cylinder heads, valvesprings, rockers, pushrods, lifters, and piston to valve clearance would also be good to go. As I mentioned above, I am never the person to not plan things out. If anything, I over-plan everything. Just ask anyone who's ever worked for me. What I can tell you is that I knew that based off the fact that the engine came with a roller cam from the factory, and reinforced by the conversations I had with various vendors and machineshops, that I was confident that the engine parts that interface and make contact with the stock cam would all hold up just fine when the engine is assembled with a billet cam.

Looking back, it may have been unfair for me to call your posts "propaganda". Perhaps you were merely bringing up an issue that you saw as a concern for anyone who owned and installed one of our billet camshafts, and had no intention to use this as a device to increase sales of your non-billet camshafts from your store. Maybe you were just doing your due diligence as a concerned enthusiast. Whatever the case, the issues you brought up ended up being a moot point when you were finally made aware that the oil pump drive gears in question were in fact strong enough to be used with a billet cam. I stand by what I said back then too. I didn't believe there to be any problem or concern what-so-ever, but if any customer is worried about it, bring the car here, and I will show you what wear is or is not present on the gear. The only person to take me up on this was Tim Kaczun as mentioned above, and only because he was planning to bring the car to us to have other work done anyways. So from my perspective looking back at what each of us did, it seems to me like we both did our due diligence: You to inform the people about a potential concern, and me to assure them that there is nothing to worry about, which at the end of the day we found to be the case.
__________________
1999 Z34 - Was a Stage 3 3800 Supercharged, but not fast enough so I have some new plans for her.
1999 Grand Am GT Race Car - 12.1 sec ET, STOCK motor, 10 psi
http://www.milzymotorsports.com
MilzyZ34 is offline  
Old 11-29-2017, 01:18 PM   #63
MilzyZ34
Fastest FWD GA
 
MilzyZ34's Avatar
 
AKA: Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Age: 38
Posts: 935
Vehicle: 1999 Grand Am GT
MilzyZ34 Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to MilzyZ34
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronGTR View Post
Are you dense? Of course we didn't know about it at first... we found out after you sold us billet steel cams that wore down the stock oil pump drive gear. That doesn't happen with the cast iron drive gear on stock cams and on the cast blanks that Comp Cams makes.

As for the PCV system... yeah, we can't put a breather on because it wouldn't meet emissions regs... and also because it's f*cking stupid! I've talked with multiple engineers about it (the people who actually design the systems) and there is ZERO performance to gain from deleting it, and it has multiple purposes besides emissions.

So I'll ask again, have you actually measured and tested crank case pressure on any of the cars you've modified? Because if you haven't, you are making a pointless, and possibly negative change based on an unproven myth.
OK, let me simplify this so you understand...

-I made billet cams which we began putting in cars in early 2005. No one ever came to me with any issue from one. Not one customer.

-In 2007 a post was made bringing up a potential concern. I posted that I didn't believe this to be a problem, but encouraged any customer worrying about it to bring their car in for inspection.

-We tore down and inspected Tim Kaczun's car, found there to be ZERO wear after 150,000 miles with our billet camshaft installed (plus the original miles before that), and reported the results. No one else ever brought me a car or oil pump drive for inspection.

-Later you guys became aware that the gear was in fact strong enough to be used with a billet camshaft. And earlier in this post, Ben posted that.

-Then after that you then said that your gear was worn out, which is why I was confused. Ben even just said the gear was not weak, so it was confusing that you now were stating this was the problem with your engine.



Now as far as the breathers. I have a mechanical engineering degree. I started this business in college, and made it official after I got my degree. I have been using breathers on cars since 2002. It's been 15 years, I have seen no adverse effects on any engine since then. In fact even the earliest turbo cars we did back then still have their original engines in them. It's become quite obvious that you disagree with me about the use of the breathers. You're not going to convince me they don't work, and I'm not going to convince you to change your mind either, so can we just agree to disagree on this one?
__________________
1999 Z34 - Was a Stage 3 3800 Supercharged, but not fast enough so I have some new plans for her.
1999 Grand Am GT Race Car - 12.1 sec ET, STOCK motor, 10 psi
http://www.milzymotorsports.com
MilzyZ34 is offline  
Old 11-29-2017, 01:38 PM   #64
MilzyZ34
Fastest FWD GA
 
MilzyZ34's Avatar
 
AKA: Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Age: 38
Posts: 935
Vehicle: 1999 Grand Am GT
MilzyZ34 Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to MilzyZ34
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronGTR View Post
I also find it funny that earlier in this thread, you claim you more than tripled the stock engine HP on low boost, and that the car should still be capable of 30 mpg or better.

This is all easily disproved with simple math. The stock G6 GTP with the 3900 and 6 spd manual was only rated at 29 mpg highway, so I don't know how you think you are going to better that with more displacement, a bigger cam, bigger injectors, and a pair of turbos strapped on. Just not happening.

The stock engine was rated at 240 HP. Given a standard drivetrain loss of 15% for a FWD manual, that would be 204 WHP. 370 at the wheels is not triple stock HP. It's not even double.

Don't get me wrong, this is an impressive build and would be difficult to accomplish for anyone, and I commend you for succeeding and making it work. I also think that you have a tendency to exaggerate though and talk a big game. There are aspects of this build that I don't think are logical or well orchestrated, and I don't think the time and money spent are worth it for the results.
Mileage - the same way that I take a 240hp (192 whp) Grand Prix GTP rated at 18/28 mpg, and yet I can build a 400whp heads/cam/IC/GenV/N* setup, and get 30+ mpg out of it. It's because the modified engine is more efficient at making power. Also you should consider that a G6 weighs roughly 400lbs more than an N-body does.

As far as the results, as I said, I wish I could have zero excuses for a build like this, and show what it could really do. I had to post though because no one has ever done this before, a 3900 swap running on a 3900 PCM, WITH VVT. On top of that, no one will ever build a N-body with the mod list this car has. I have to post about it. Meanwhile, the perfectionist, OCD side of me is kicking myself that I have to have excuses about why it only made x hp, and not it's true potential. It drives me crazy. At the end of the day though, I have to build the car the way the customer wants it, and this is how I was instructed. I was given a precise list of parts to use, with part numbers, and was not to differ from that list, so that's what I did. In making this thread, I hoped to relay my disappointment that I had to make excuses about a small fuel pump, and offer some realistic figures that this car would achieve if the fuel system was not the bottle-neck in the equation. All of these figures are what I truly expect it to do in the right conditions. I don't tend to exaggerate, I usually just let the results speak for themselves, but the estimates I gave should be accurate, but the only way we'd know for certain is if the customer brings us the car to fix the fuel pump issue in the future.
__________________
1999 Z34 - Was a Stage 3 3800 Supercharged, but not fast enough so I have some new plans for her.
1999 Grand Am GT Race Car - 12.1 sec ET, STOCK motor, 10 psi
http://www.milzymotorsports.com

Last edited by MilzyZ34; 11-29-2017 at 03:23 PM.
MilzyZ34 is offline  
Old 11-29-2017, 03:41 PM   #65
Vegeta
WOT-Tech
 
Vegeta's Avatar
 
AKA: Ben
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indiana
Age: 39
Posts: 1,067
Vehicle: 92 Grand Prix "GTP"
Vegeta Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to Vegeta
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilzyZ34 View Post
I can tell you that I did sufficient research to know that the new camshafts would not cause any harm...

I didn't believe there to be any problem or concern what-so-ever...
Sufficient research to let you believe there wouldn't be a problem is not the same as doing enough research to know there isn't a problem. The end result of no issue doesn't change this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MilzyZ34 View Post
Perhaps you were merely bringing up an issue that you saw as a concern for anyone who owned and installed one of our billet camshafts...
Maybe you were just doing your due diligence as a concerned enthusiast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilzyZ34 View Post
Wot-tech didn't exist back then. It was just a guy running 60degreev6.com.
Whatever benefits your point of view most.
Vegeta is offline  
Old 11-29-2017, 03:53 PM   #66
Vegeta
WOT-Tech
 
Vegeta's Avatar
 
AKA: Ben
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indiana
Age: 39
Posts: 1,067
Vehicle: 92 Grand Prix "GTP"
Vegeta Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to Vegeta
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilzyZ34 View Post
Now as far as the breathers. I have a mechanical engineering degree. I started this business in college, and made it official after I got my degree. I have been using breathers on cars since 2002. It's been 15 years, I have seen no adverse effects on any engine since then. In fact even the earliest turbo cars we did back then still have their original engines in them. It's become quite obvious that you disagree with me about the use of the breathers. You're not going to convince me they don't work, and I'm not going to convince you to change your mind either, so can we just agree to disagree on this one?
Research skill level: Infinity

Last edited by Vegeta; 11-29-2017 at 08:43 PM.
Vegeta is offline  
Old 11-30-2017, 10:07 AM   #67
MilzyZ34
Fastest FWD GA
 
MilzyZ34's Avatar
 
AKA: Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Age: 38
Posts: 935
Vehicle: 1999 Grand Am GT
MilzyZ34 Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to MilzyZ34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegeta View Post
Sufficient research to let you believe there wouldn't be a problem is not the same as doing enough research to know there isn't a problem. The end result of no issue doesn't change this.





Whatever benefits your point of view most.
If you read the sentence I typed, I used the verb "know", not "believe"
__________________
1999 Z34 - Was a Stage 3 3800 Supercharged, but not fast enough so I have some new plans for her.
1999 Grand Am GT Race Car - 12.1 sec ET, STOCK motor, 10 psi
http://www.milzymotorsports.com
MilzyZ34 is offline  
Old 11-30-2017, 02:22 PM   #68
Vegeta
WOT-Tech
 
Vegeta's Avatar
 
AKA: Ben
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indiana
Age: 39
Posts: 1,067
Vehicle: 92 Grand Prix "GTP"
Vegeta Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to Vegeta
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilzyZ34 View Post
I didn't believe there to be any problem or concern what-so-ever,
Actions speak louder than words here Mike. If you knew, why were you pulling the gear out to inspect it? Why didn't you have any answers?

Because you cannot and will not admit being wrong.
Vegeta is offline  
Old 11-30-2017, 03:43 PM   #69
young gun
GRAD SCHOOL FUN
 
young gun's Avatar
 
AKA: Erik
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Charleston, SC
Age: 25
Posts: 1,579
Vehicle: 00' GAGT
young gun a trusted member
__________________
2000 - GAGT 14.63@92.9 -Full LX9 with CAI, 65MM TB, 2.5in DP, Borla Cat-Back, Crappy rubber, Magic, Quick tune)

2008 - Kawasaki Ninja 250r - Slip on exhaust, K&N, Jetted, Sprockets, Lowered and the Girlfriend's now

1984 - Honda Nighthawk 700s - Oldest, quickest and quietess
young gun is offline  
Old 12-01-2017, 09:38 AM   #70
MilzyZ34
Fastest FWD GA
 
MilzyZ34's Avatar
 
AKA: Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Age: 38
Posts: 935
Vehicle: 1999 Grand Am GT
MilzyZ34 Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to MilzyZ34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegeta View Post
Actions speak louder than words here Mike. If you knew, why were you pulling the gear out to inspect it? Why didn't you have any answers?

Because you cannot and will not admit being wrong.
because at the end of the day, actions speak louder than words. I can say all day that I KNOW there is no problem, but until I show actual physical proof, the people making the accusations will not give up. For some, even having this proof provided from multiple sources, a decade isn't even enough to exhaust their discontent.
__________________
1999 Z34 - Was a Stage 3 3800 Supercharged, but not fast enough so I have some new plans for her.
1999 Grand Am GT Race Car - 12.1 sec ET, STOCK motor, 10 psi
http://www.milzymotorsports.com
MilzyZ34 is offline  
Old 12-01-2017, 09:54 AM   #71
AaronGTR
BlingWithBallz
 
AaronGTR's Avatar
 
AKA: Aaron
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Detroit area, MI
Age: 39
Posts: 12,227
Vehicle: 2000 Grand Am GT1 2dr
AaronGTR has made plenty of valid pointsAaronGTR has made plenty of valid points
At the end of the day, the stock cam gear didn't end up being strong enough to handle a billet cam, because it wore mine down in less than 40k miles.

DSCN3952.jpg


edit: You've never proven you have a ME degree.... but it doesn't really matter. That doesn't make you an expert on all engine systems, and it doesn't mean you did any actual testing to validate eliminating the PCV system. As I said, I work with people who actually design and test this stuff... they said anyone who deletes the system on a non-race car is stupid.

Same goes for mileage claims.... prove it with empirical data. You don't increase displacement and fuel usage on a car and magically get better mileage because "it's more efficient". Increasing a cars ability to create more HP does not always (in fact it usually doesn't) coincide with better efficiency. Again, this stuff is tested and validated in controlled lab environments with sophisticated equipment and data acquisition.

You're right about one thing though... " no one will ever build a N-body with the mod list this car has." Yes, because most people are smart enough not to waste $48,000 on a 10+ year old piece of **** car.
__________________
The few, the proud, the boosted!
13.788 @ 103.73 mph (3/2011) 320 whp and 300 ft/lbs torque. (3/2011)
See it here. the total package.

Last edited by AaronGTR; 12-01-2017 at 10:03 AM.
AaronGTR is offline  
Old 12-01-2017, 12:49 PM   #72
MilzyZ34
Fastest FWD GA
 
MilzyZ34's Avatar
 
AKA: Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Age: 38
Posts: 935
Vehicle: 1999 Grand Am GT
MilzyZ34 Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to MilzyZ34
Wow, I really have to prove everything. I guess if I can dig through all my old stuff and find my piece of paper, I'll post a picture. It would be public record though right? Just look up the class of 2004 at the University of Dayton.

Lets agree to disagree on the PCV systems. If I was even close to wrong, I would have ran into atleast one issue by now after building hundreds of cars over the last 15 years. Think whatever you want to think, I don't care.

As for the mileage, I don't have access to every single car I've ever built. The customers that own each car are the ones you'd have to ask about mileage. When you install performance parts you add power. An engine is an air pump. The performance parts basically servce to get the engine to move more air. The PCM then adds the appropriate amount of fuel to keep the air fuel ratio at close to an ideal ratio. The amount of power the engine makes is a function of the amount of airflow coming into the engine versus RPM, and the efficiency of the engine at turning that air and fuel mixture into horsepower. Compression, timing advance, when the valves open, how much, and for how long, and many many other factors (things like the geometry of the drivetrain) contribute to this efficiency. So lets say we have an NA car making 200 crank hp, and we do mods to increase it to 300hp. You would think that this would mean it would use 50% more fuel, but because it's also more efficient because of timing advance, compression, cam specs, etc, so it's using less than 1.5 times the fuel used by the original engine, but yes 1.3x or 1.4x times 1.0 is still more than 1.0. Fuel economy though as we think of it is not at wide-open-throttle. It's the average fuel economy driving in the city (with speeds between 0-40mph), and also average fuel economy on the highway at higher speeds. When you drive a car that makes horsepower more effiently, you don't need as much throttle to achieve the same effect, so you can actually gain mpg by not having to wring the engine's neck to make the power needed to accelerate to speed.

------------------------

So I'm sitting here pondering why you're the only one to claim to have this issue, and found a post you made from years back stating that the macineshop you were dealing with thought that the cam journals were crooked ...

04-17-2011, 10:31 AM
* #102
AaronGTR
BlingWithBallz

*

*
AKA: Aaron
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Detroit area, MI
Age: 39
Posts: 12,208
Vehicle: 2000 Grand Am GT1 2dr


Quote:
Originally Posted by HOYS
Well when you decide what your going to do with it, let me know. I'm pretty darn sure that I wouldn't care much if it blew up on me.

I will. I'll let everyone in here know what I find out about the rest of the engine and what the shop thinks about the cam/oil pump drive issue. It may be that the cam bore isn't straight enough and if people have those align honed and new bearings put in then it might be fine with a solid billet cam. They already recommended I use a bronze gear with that cam but I told them someone had tried that before and it wore out even faster than the stock one, and I'm looking for longevity here. I don't want to be constantly replacing oil pump drives, or have all that metal floating around in my oil destroying my bearings.

The face of the teeth on the cam have a shiny area where you can tell the contact with the oil pump drive gear was but they aren't worn down at all, compare to the other gear which is half gone. I'm taking both into the shop tomorrow to have them looked at and see what they think.
__________________
The few, the proud, the boosted!
13.788 @ 103.73 mph (3/2011) 320 whp and 300 ft/lbs torque. (3/2011)
See it here. the total package.
__________________
1999 Z34 - Was a Stage 3 3800 Supercharged, but not fast enough so I have some new plans for her.
1999 Grand Am GT Race Car - 12.1 sec ET, STOCK motor, 10 psi
http://www.milzymotorsports.com
MilzyZ34 is offline  
Old 12-01-2017, 04:07 PM   #73
Vegeta
WOT-Tech
 
Vegeta's Avatar
 
AKA: Ben
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indiana
Age: 39
Posts: 1,067
Vehicle: 92 Grand Prix "GTP"
Vegeta Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to Vegeta
Thanks for the motivation.
Vegeta is offline  
Old 12-01-2017, 04:35 PM   #74
xonelith
All Motor
 
xonelith's Avatar
 
AKA: Tim
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Age: 45
Posts: 400
Vehicle: 2001 Grand Am GT1 Coup
xonelith Gettin' there
Send a message via MSN to xonelith
Just popping in to say hi�� Been awhile. Anyway still have my ga and it's for sale. Been selling it for some time on and off. I've had no issues some are stating above. Only doing oil changes and emissions tests. I'll find the mileage and post it.

I'll post some pics etc if anyone cares. I haven't really driven it in a few years other than the odd wot rip on the 407.

Looks like the same ppl are here.... amazing. Hasn't anyone bought a new car????
__________________

All Motor 2001 GA GT1
Best 1/8 - 9.104 @ 79.36 MPH
Best 1/4 - 13.991 @ 99.13 MPH

xonelith is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 05:02 PM   #75
AaronGTR
BlingWithBallz
 
AaronGTR's Avatar
 
AKA: Aaron
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Detroit area, MI
Age: 39
Posts: 12,227
Vehicle: 2000 Grand Am GT1 2dr
AaronGTR has made plenty of valid pointsAaronGTR has made plenty of valid points
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilzyZ34 View Post
It's the average fuel economy driving in the city (with speeds between 0-40mph), and also average fuel economy on the highway at higher speeds. When you drive a car that makes horsepower more effiently, you don't need as much throttle to achieve the same effect, so you can actually gain mpg by not having to wring the engine's neck to make the power needed to accelerate to speed.

God you're dense. If it was that simple to make more power without using more fuel, all the OEM's would be doing the same thing.



Quote:
So I'm sitting here pondering why you're the only one to claim to have this issue, and found a post you made from years back stating that the macineshop you were dealing with thought that the cam journals were crooked ...
I don't know wtf you are talking about. You tried quoting something, but it wasn't from me. The machine shop I had rebuild my engine never said anything about cam journals not being straight. They had to replaced the cam bearing because they were damaged like all the rest of the bearings, and they align honed the cam bore to make sure it was straight, but they said they didn't find any evidence of misalignment.
__________________
The few, the proud, the boosted!
13.788 @ 103.73 mph (3/2011) 320 whp and 300 ft/lbs torque. (3/2011)
See it here. the total package.
AaronGTR is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 12:05 PM   #76
MilzyZ34
Fastest FWD GA
 
MilzyZ34's Avatar
 
AKA: Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Age: 38
Posts: 935
Vehicle: 1999 Grand Am GT
MilzyZ34 Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to MilzyZ34
On 3-28-11 you said you posted pictures of your oil pump drive, and stated that you "So basically the cam may have contributed to the other failures... I can't be 100% sure... "

Then on 4-15-11, you posted about taking the engine to the machineshop, and stated, "They have worked on a few 3.4's before, and said they have found problems with the cam bore not always being straight. They said that might be a problem with mine and might have had something to do with the oil pump drive wearing out and the cam bearings going bad."

Then on 4-17-11, you said "I'll let everyone in here know what I find out about the rest of the engine and what the shop thinks about the cam/oil pump drive issue. It may be that the cam bore isn't straight enough and if people have those align honed and new bearings put in then it might be fine with a solid billet cam"

So the things I find funny are ...

1) Ben from WOT Tech even acknowledges that the stock oil pump drive gear is strong enough to withstand the billet cam with no problem. He didn't always know this when he first starting posting about potential problems, but found out later that the stock gear was in fact melonized, and therefor was a non-issue.

2) Inspite of this, you insist it's still not strong enough, and that it killed your engine, eventhough you said the quotes above yourself, which obviously the source of the idea of this alternate cause of oil pump drive failure was from the machineshop, and you said you would post what they found to be the problem, but never did post anything else regarding the oil pump drive in that thread, and now that you are desperately trying to prove your point, you're saying they did in fact confirm that it was the cause, you just didn't post about it. Seems unlikely that you wouldn't post about that if they did in fact say that.

3) On top of this, looking at your pictures you posted, the oil pump drive was not what caused your engine to fail. You had a major failure of the headgasket on the middle cylinder. That's what caused the whitesmoke, and blowing out the PCV valve, which I think you were aware of. You also posted a picture of a damaged pushrod, and blamed it on lack of oil, but if you look in the picture, it appears to me the problem is the pushrod was wearing off center, possibly from mis-alignment of the rocker arm. I didn't take the engine apart, so it's hard to say, but it looks like the end of the pushrod was engaging off center, I'm assuming at the rocker side of the pushrod.

4) In spite of all your posting in that thread, I find it funny that HOYS was insisting he wanted to buy the billet camshaft that supposedly destroyed your engine because he saw through the B.S. and wanted to buy it anyways.

All of this information came from this thread here ... new dyno. 320whp!
__________________
1999 Z34 - Was a Stage 3 3800 Supercharged, but not fast enough so I have some new plans for her.
1999 Grand Am GT Race Car - 12.1 sec ET, STOCK motor, 10 psi
http://www.milzymotorsports.com
MilzyZ34 is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 03:03 PM   #77
AaronGTR
BlingWithBallz
 
AaronGTR's Avatar
 
AKA: Aaron
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Detroit area, MI
Age: 39
Posts: 12,227
Vehicle: 2000 Grand Am GT1 2dr
AaronGTR has made plenty of valid pointsAaronGTR has made plenty of valid points
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilzyZ34 View Post
On 3-28-11 you said you posted pictures of your oil pump drive, and stated that you "So basically the cam may have contributed to the other failures... I can't be 100% sure... "

Then on 4-15-11, you posted about taking the engine to the machineshop, and stated, "They have worked on a few 3.4's before, and said they have found problems with the cam bore not always being straight. They said that might be a problem with mine and might have had something to do with the oil pump drive wearing out and the cam bearings going bad."

Then on 4-17-11, you said "I'll let everyone in here know what I find out about the rest of the engine and what the shop thinks about the cam/oil pump drive issue. It may be that the cam bore isn't straight enough and if people have those align honed and new bearings put in then it might be fine with a solid billet cam"

So the things I find funny are ...

1) Ben from WOT Tech even acknowledges that the stock oil pump drive gear is strong enough to withstand the billet cam with no problem. He didn't always know this when he first starting posting about potential problems, but found out later that the stock gear was in fact melonized, and therefor was a non-issue.

2) Inspite of this, you insist it's still not strong enough, and that it killed your engine, eventhough you said the quotes above yourself, which obviously the source of the idea of this alternate cause of oil pump drive failure was from the machineshop, and you said you would post what they found to be the problem, but never did post anything else regarding the oil pump drive in that thread, and now that you are desperately trying to prove your point, you're saying they did in fact confirm that it was the cause, you just didn't post about it. Seems unlikely that you wouldn't post about that if they did in fact say that.

3) On top of this, looking at your pictures you posted, the oil pump drive was not what caused your engine to fail. You had a major failure of the headgasket on the middle cylinder. That's what caused the whitesmoke, and blowing out the PCV valve, which I think you were aware of. You also posted a picture of a damaged pushrod, and blamed it on lack of oil, but if you look in the picture, it appears to me the problem is the pushrod was wearing off center, possibly from mis-alignment of the rocker arm. I didn't take the engine apart, so it's hard to say, but it looks like the end of the pushrod was engaging off center, I'm assuming at the rocker side of the pushrod.

4) In spite of all your posting in that thread, I find it funny that HOYS was insisting he wanted to buy the billet camshaft that supposedly destroyed your engine because he saw through the B.S. and wanted to buy it anyways.

All of this information came from this thread here ... new dyno. 320whp!

Yep, like I said, a dense idiot. I never confirmed that was the cause of the oil pump gear failure. Where the f**k did you get that from? Because I never said it.

I also NEVER said it killed my engine. Are you that dense you can't read? I said it contributed to excess wear in my engine, which it did. The cylinder bores and oil pump internals were all worn out of spec. I know why the engine failed. There was a problem with the shift programming and the engine was bouncing off the rev limiter on shifts until it reached the programmed speed. This caused it to go lean and detonate which blew the head gaskets and bent a rod. Unfortunately it happened on the second run and I didn't find out about the problem until later after the engine was rebuilt the first time. The second time it failed, it ended up with rod knock and needed all the bearings replaced again, which was most likely due to low oil pressure... caused by the worn pump... caused by the cam wearing the drive gear and sending iron filings through it.


BTW, none of this changes the fact you haven't done any testing to prove the need to delete the PCV system or that there is ANY benefit to doing so. It doesn't change the fact you claim you can simultaneously triple HP output on an engine and somehow improve fuel mileage, which everyone knows is bullsh!t. It doesn't prove how you claim to have your heads CNC ported now... a time consuming and expensive process to develop a CNC profile for, that I highly doubt anyone would do for an unpopular engine to modify... while you still have never released any flow bench numbers for them.


Like I said, you talk a big game, but your results don't really justify your claims or your prices. IMO if you really were actually a good engineer with any actual knowledge and experience designing engine systems, you'd be working for an automotive company. Not running a shop.
__________________
The few, the proud, the boosted!
13.788 @ 103.73 mph (3/2011) 320 whp and 300 ft/lbs torque. (3/2011)
See it here. the total package.

Last edited by AaronGTR; 12-05-2017 at 03:23 PM.
AaronGTR is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 04:19 PM   #78
AaronGTR
BlingWithBallz
 
AaronGTR's Avatar
 
AKA: Aaron
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Detroit area, MI
Age: 39
Posts: 12,227
Vehicle: 2000 Grand Am GT1 2dr
AaronGTR has made plenty of valid pointsAaronGTR has made plenty of valid points
Hey, here's another question for you Mike. If my oil pump drive gear wear was supposedly caused by cam bore misalignment... why didn't it show any signs of wear after taking the stock cam out after 50k miles? Why didn't any other owners report similar findings? Why weren't there any recalls or warranty claims against GM for defective 3400 engines? Maybe because there was nothing wrong with it and the problem didn't come up until I installed your billet cam.

Why did this happen? I don't know. Maybe a melonized gear is hard enough for a cast iron drive gear on the stock cam but not billet steel? Maybe not all 3400's had melonized gears? Not all 3500's have forged cranks, but some do, so it's possible. Maybe there was an issue with the cam I received and the teeth weren't machined properly? I don't know, and I don't have the cam anymore, so I'll probably never find out. I sold it to someone who said they wanted it, even after I warned them of the possible issues, and they said they would take the chance and run a bronze gear if they had to... that's on them. Doesn't change the fact that you didn't fully research the parts involved or warn customers of a possible issue.
__________________
The few, the proud, the boosted!
13.788 @ 103.73 mph (3/2011) 320 whp and 300 ft/lbs torque. (3/2011)
See it here. the total package.
AaronGTR is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:47 PM   #79
3400cavyhatch
GAGT - Member
 
AKA: Scott
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Onatrio, Canada
Posts: 70
Vehicle: 84 Cavalier Type 10
3400cavyhatch Gettin' there
This kind of makes me want to toss the Milzy cam I have here on the shelf in an engine and see what happens!

I thought that the OEMs where making more power and getting better fuel economy already? Think that is why they put 250-300 hp 4 cylinders in larger / heavier vehicles these days...
__________________
1993 Chevy C1500 3100v6 turbo
2004 Alero 3400 bone stock with a cheap muffler 15.32 @ 88.69
99 Alero 3500 swap running(from 2.4). ported and polished heads. totaled by a honda
2002 GAGT 3500 swap
3400cavyhatch is offline  
Old 12-06-2017, 11:19 AM   #80
AaronGTR
BlingWithBallz
 
AaronGTR's Avatar
 
AKA: Aaron
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Detroit area, MI
Age: 39
Posts: 12,227
Vehicle: 2000 Grand Am GT1 2dr
AaronGTR has made plenty of valid pointsAaronGTR has made plenty of valid points
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3400cavyhatch View Post
This kind of makes me want to toss the Milzy cam I have here on the shelf in an engine and see what happens!

I thought that the OEMs where making more power and getting better fuel economy already? Think that is why they put 250-300 hp 4 cylinders in larger / heavier vehicles these days...
Yes and no. The whole downsizing and turbo engine trend helps them meet CAFE and emissions standards, but the EPA mileage tests are extremely outdated and unrealistic as well. Most vehicles, especially ones with factory turbocharged engines, do not get the advertised mileage in everyday driving, because when you put your foot down and use the turbo boost, you end up using the same amount of fuel from a turbo 4 cyl as you do from a V6. A given amount of air and given amount of fuel can make a given amount of HP, and there really is no way around that. Sure there are ways to make the engine more efficient to extract more power for driving instead of friction and heat loss, but you are still dealing with the same amount of energy.

Also newer engines have dual overhead cams and direct injection, etc. They didn't just slap a turbo on a pushrod V6 and call it good. Sure, the 3900 had variable cam timing and a variable intake manifold, but it's still a single cam pushrod V6.
__________________
The few, the proud, the boosted!
13.788 @ 103.73 mph (3/2011) 320 whp and 300 ft/lbs torque. (3/2011)
See it here. the total package.
AaronGTR is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 GrandAmGT.com
RotorsOnline.com