[Guest]

my girlfriend has an 86 firebird with the 2.8L in it with automatic. SHE HATES IT. its really really slow. but the 5-speeds were ok. i had an 85 camaro berlinetta 2.8L with auto. thats a part of my life i dont even want to think about. the 86 firebird has 135 hp @ 5100 rpm

and guys, to end the confussion. lol
the 2.5 (4 cyl) was available from 82 to 85
the 2.8 (6 cyl) was available from 82 to 89
the 3.1 (6 cyl) was available from 90 to 92

and the V8s....
305s any 3rd gen
350s 86-92

hope this helps a little

 

[1tinindian]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]

That's very nice, but there were NO 350s in 1986.
1987 was the first year, when it came out in the GTA and Formula and T/A.

Leon.

 

[Guest]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]

lol, my bad, i have my sheets here and i looked at camaro before rather firebird. your right. lol. all my other info should be correct tho :gap: the 86 iroc had the 350, not the bird. y is that?

 

[1tinindian]

No 350s in ANY 1986 F-bodies.That means Camaros too.
Where are you getting this information?
I would like to see for myself, that is, if you don't mind me asking.

Leon.

 

[Guest]

i think its called like f-body dot org or fbody dot org or something like that.

 

[Guest]

but thats not the first place i've heard that either tho. i dont remember if it was a few guys on firebirdnation or theformulasource, or both. its been so long. but check out the site i mentioned in my last post, im sure its there somewhere.

 

[1tinindian]

Try giving this a read:ThirdGen.org

Until a fully documented 1986 Camaro or Firebird, factory built with a 350 and sold to the public is found, I will stand by what is said in this link.

Leon.

 

[Guest]

interesting. it must have been a typo, because all of other info on the charts are very accurate.

 

[1tinindian]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]

From what charts are you getting this info?
I'd like to read them, myself.

Leon.

 

[MeepyBat]

Well, I spoke with my father again today. He wasn't able to get the truck & trailor to bring Daisy, as we have decided to name her, in honor of my admiration for Daisy Duke (the Catherine Bach version, not Jessica Simpson) over. But he's bringing the title out to me on and taking me to at least see her on Saturday, so I will bring my camera and tripod and take pics so y'all can tell me what you think.

By the way, he says it's an LB8 engine, a 2.8L GM engine available in the Camaro from '85-90, the Firebird from '85-89, and the Cutlass Supreme from '88-89.

Okay, so I have a dumb question (really dumb). What do the liters mean? I mean, I know 2.8L means 2.8 liters (right?), but what exactly is that? The size of the engine? I know it's stupid, and I feel dumb for asking but being a girl I wasn't exposed to vehicle knowledge growing up... most of what I know is both self-taught and superficial.

Thanks again for all the info offered! :-D

 

[hgffrank]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]

2.8L is a 173 cubic inch V6. Six cylinders, each with 28.8~ cubic inch's of cylinder volume. Hope thats what you wanted to know.

2.5 = 151 cid .....In line 4 cylinder
3.1 = 191 cid .....V shaped 6 cylinder
3.4 = 207 cid .....V shaped 6 cylinder
3.8 = 231 cid .....V shaped 6 cylinder
5.0 = 305 cid .....V shaped 8 cylinder
5.7 = 350 cid .....V shaped 8 cylinder

 

[Guest]

another way to look at it, you know how the pistons go up and down? the highest the piston goes up is considered top dead center (TDC) and the lowest the piston goes in the cylinder is called bottom dead center (BDC). now, let say all of the cylinders were at BDC (which isnt possible) if you were to fill all 6 of your cylinders with some kind of liquid, it would take 2.8 liters to fill them all in total.

i hope this helps

 

[MeepyBat]

Gotcha. So, if I'm understanding this right, the higher that number, the more air and fuel will combust in each cylinder each cycle, and thus the higher power the engine, right? So my 2.8 is more powerful than my friend's 2.4 V6, right? Thanks for the help.

 

[hgffrank]

The answer to that is yes and no. Yes a 2.8 is usually more powerful than a 2.4. NO its not always more powerful. There are many factors that determine an engines power output. Its a little thing called Volumetric Efficiency. Typically the more volume you have the more power you get,however if you take a smaller volume engine and increase the air flow into and out of the engine you have increased the volumetric efficiency by packing more air into the cylinder. As an example, lets say that you have a 2.8L engine with which has about 28.8 cubic inch's of volume in each cylinder, if the air intake system(filter, throttle body, intake manifold, cylinder head) is restrictive, the cylinder will not get the full volume of air. The cylinder created a vacuum effect which draws air/fuel into chamber. The more restriction in that flow the less power is produced. So if the engine only draws in 23.5 cubic inch's of air then the engine is said to have an 81.6% Volumetric Efficiency, so theoretically 5.3 cubic inch's of air is lost due to the restrictions. So if the engine theoretically makes 200 hp with 100% Volumetric Efficiency, then the loss of 5.3 cubic inch's of air per cylinder multiplied by 6 = a reduction of 31.8 cubic inch's, and the final output would be recuced by 36.81 and would have a total power output of 163.19 hp.
Now if you take a 2.4L (145 cid), with each cylinder having a volume of about 24.16, and you improve the air flow in and out of the engine, you may be able to get a Volumetric Efficiency of 99%. So with a Volumetric Efficiency of 99%, the engine only suffers a 1% loss of power, so each cylinder is drawing in 23.92 cubic inch's of air/fuel. If the engine theoretically produces 171.43(same ratio as a 2.8), then the 1% loss would only reduce the power by 2.9hp, and the final output would be 168.53hp.

So you can see by this example that a smaller engine can produce more power, however it must be made more efficient than the larger to do so. That is why 4 bangers with turbos can produce so much power. If a turbo can increase Volumetric Efficiency to %'s as high as 140-150%, then you could theoretically take the abover two engines and give them both turbos and they would both have a 150% Volumetric Efficiency, then the 2.4L would theoretically produce 257.15 hp and the 2.8L would produce 300hp.

The point in all this is to show that is isnt necesarily the engine size that dictates its power output, many other factors effect the output through Volumetric Efficiency and design.

 

[1tinindian]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]

No, that's not quit right.
The liter size only decribes the internal displacement of an engine.
So bigger doesn't always mean more powerful.
The power comes from many different combinations of engine parts.
Its how well the heads flow, the cam specs, intake and exhaust routing, fuel delivery, compression ratio, things like that.
I have a good example of my own, where as I have a 6.6 liter engine that makes 185 HP, and a 5.7 liter engine that makes 320 HP.
So, as you can see, it's not the size that matters, but with what parts were used in its construction, that make the power.

And the only way to get more fuel into the engine is to increase the size of fuel delivery to the intake system and then increase the valve size and also the lift and duration of those valves.

Leon.

 

[MeepyBat]

Thanks guys. God, I've got a lot to learn before I feel worthy of owning any car, let alone this one...