Performance Questions Re: Lifters and Intake on a 90 Reatta

[Guest PontiacDude210]

I used to be into the Dodge 2.2L turbo motors, and one thing I remember is the performance benefits and relative ease of changing a motor over to performance lifters. The motor ran better, increased fuel economy, and it was a cheap upgrade. The 3.8L is not OHC, so it seems like a lifter upgrade would be really easy. I have seen rollers and flat hydraulic lifters for sale for the 3.8L Series I. I have not seen a lifter thread Re: the 3.8L Series I motor on here, so I was wondering what the general thoughts on this is. What are they stock? What kind of benefits/drawbacks are there to installing performance rollers? Does it need retimed afterward, or is it a direct swap like the Dodge motor? Thanks guys! And please excuse my naivety.

ALSO-With my Pontiac, I found benefits in changing the intake. I know this is covered here, but is it ill advised to add an aftermarket intake?

[2seater]

Well, the engine already has good reliable roller lifters. The cam is designed for roller lifters, and a flat lifter would not operate properly. The camshaft itself would have to be changed to realize a performance increase. I have heard of the rockers being replaced with a higher ratio to get more lift, and maybe an aftermarket roller rocker, but I doubt the bang for the buck would be high.

I am guessing that replacing the intake would be referring to the intake hose and associated parts, not the intake manifold itself? This has been done by many people in all different types of forms. There is a smalll increase at maximum power, but much of it comes from the audible impression. In the simplest form, remove the air box and install a cone filter on the end of the stock hose, perhaps extended a bit towards the original inlet opening under the relay center. Don't forget the intake temperature sensor from the air box must be relocated as well. For the record, I have tried all sorts of configurations, all homemade.

[padgett]

Also the cam is pretty ded and the intake is sized for a max flow of Not Much. Once you get past that the exhaust is through a right angle hole not well punched in a piece of tubing in the wrong place.

Periodically we get questions like that but the 3800 is really designed for low speed torque, not revs, the whole system reaches design limits at about 4800 rpm, and if you get past all of that (say with a L67), the transmission becomes the weak point.

The Reatta does exactly what it is designed for and does it well. While all of those issues can be addressed you would be better off adding a trailer hitch for a Fiero that can be made really fast.

BTW I have heard that the oil from an open filter (like K&N) can clog the MAF.

[Guest PontiacDude210]

That is sort of what I expected, honestly. Didn't know what the factory lifters were, I assumed flat hydraulic but I suppose I was wrong. Thanks for the info on the air filter, I did not know aftermarket filter setups could plug the MAF.

I have, interestingly enough, dealt with the exhaust. Not for performance, but rather because the factory muffler plugged up and popped on the test drive, so I ran new tubing from up by the gas tank back and put a single in dual out muffler center mounted. It eliminates some of the sharper angles, it would have increased the flow considerably more if I didn't suck at running a pipe bender. And yes, I know, the center pipe gets me a lot of glares/stares/mean looks/middle fingers, but I love the look and the exhaust tone is really unique(compared to 3 dozen straight piped grand prixs around with the same motor). I know I'm a charlatan, but what can I say At least a muffler comes off easily if I want to buy a stocker again.

Anyway, tangent aside, I am not looking for a performance build by a long shot. I rarely have my winter beater at max throttle, let alone my project. I was hoping for maybe a little more zip and a few more miles on a tank out of upgraded lifters. Oh, and of course bragging rights, so the guy with the woodgrain pinto next to me at the carshow doesn't get ALL the attention with his Flowmasters and genuine audivox subs I understand the factory lifters are rollers, and to change the lifters any further, I would need to change the cam, which sounds expensive and not really befitting of a car I'm not racing.

As far as air filters go, I like the engine sound and fuel economy boost out of the open-air cone filter on my Pontiac. I'm not sure if perhaps a longer tube(i.e. like a cold air intake) would prevent the MAF from plugging up, or if I should just suck it up and clean out the intake from time to time.

I'm going to assume that chipping the thing is impossible, a waste of time, and the chips are hoaxes that screw with the fuel mixture. I might be young and dumb, but I won't even GO there.

One last question, before I let this thread fade into obscurity, as many of my redundant questions do. I have friends and family who own shops. I will probably, sooner than later, be tearing the motor down at least part of the way, and while I have the heads off, would a port and polish be beneficial to anything? I had a single cam 4 cyl in a car before, and running a low restriction exhaust, cone intake, and a port and polish made the thing sound killer and added a little pep. I realize this won't turn the Reatta into a Camaro eater, but maybe it'll get me around semis a little quicker and give it a different sound. Is this something that can be done to a 3.8? Thanks guys!

[handmedownreatta]

you can swap in a supercharged 3.8 or northstar v8 if your handy.its been done

[wws944]

... I have heard of the rockers being replaced with a higher ratio to get more lift, and maybe an aftermarket roller rocker, but I doubt the bang for the buck would be high....

2seater: I know you have posted in the past that you looked at trying the factory roller rockers, but that the valve geometry seemed off. But weren't you trying Series 2 roller rockers? The '93-'94 Series 1 L27 heads also had roller rockers, and those heads are apparently based on the same castings as the LN3 heads. If the '93-'94 setup was compatible, it would only leave the bolt diameter issue to be dealt with.

[padgett]

The best simple choice would really be a L36 3800 since the "L" engines (you have a "C") are capable of much higher flow. Other than that the exhaust header/collector is really terrible and is entirely the rong place to enhance the naturally balanced flow of an evenfire six. Just as an interesting point, a number of 1992/93 "L" 3800s had no EGR.

That said all 3800s are definately "last century". The 3.6 in my new tow car is capable of 305 hp in stock form and makes 90% of the torque peak from 2000-6000 rpm. On 87 PON.

[Guest PontiacDude210]

I had considered a motor swap. What is out there that will play nice with the obd1 system and dash though?

[Ronnie]

If you want to get the "feel" of having more performance you could install a toggle switch that would keep the torque converter from locking when you want to drive a little more aggressively. While you are driving on back roads, and curvy mountain roads where you are constantly speeding up and slowing down, it gives you the "feeling" of going from driving Granny's car to driving a more sporty feeling car.

I've done this on several cars. The last was on my Fiero Formula. I intend to do it on my Reatta but I've not done it yet. I don't anticipate any problems with doing so unless the Reatta computers complain more than other vehicles did with the switch installed.

I do know from my past experience that if you don't have the switch set for the converter to lock normally when you start the car the ECM will turn on the SES light when it goes through the initial system checks. Who knows what error messages the Reatta computer might display.

Keeping the torque converter from locking does nothing to add more power to the engine or improve wide open acceleration from a dead stop. It only makes the car feel more responsive at slower to medium speeds by keeping the RPM in a higher range where the engine normally crates more power. You will take a hit in gas mileage and it may create more heat in the transmission if you have the torque converter unlocked when driving at higher speeds on Interstates or highways. Both of these problems can be solved by flipping the switch so the torque converter will lock as it normally would.

[Guest RaverReatta]

This was exactly the kind of post I was looking for, because I'm tuning up mine as well (Which is going to be an expensive endeavor due to getting a lot of engine parts fabricated with lighter metals). The factory LN3 is not really an "easy" performance engine like Mustangs, Vettes, Civics, or anything of that sort. It's a commuter car engine. If you're really dedicated to getting it fast though there are plenty of things that you can get built, retro-fit, or adapt if you have the knowledge to do so. Also, there are SOME OBDII tuners that you can use to change things around a bit for "more acceleration or top speed", but again, LN3 performance is VERY limited, and doing too much could cause strain to the OEM parts. L36 or L67 swap would be a good one to do if you have the time and money for it. I'm just insane, so I'm using the LN3..

I like Ronnie's idea of the toggle switch. It was something that I hadn't really thought of. It's basically like the "Sport" buttons that are in modern cars, or the "GS" button in the 2011 Regal. You feel like you have more power, but don't really.

[2seater]

I have a cable that connects between the main electrical connector and the transaxle that prevents lockup unless in 4th gear, or about 50 mph. I have had it for 15 years or so. They used to be available and I think I did a writeup on it a long time ago about what it contains, which is nothing special, a diode and resistor if I remember right. It could be done in the stock harness. It does just as you say, the car is peppier at commuter speeds. I found later the lockup speed could be modified in the chip program, and that is what I had done on several of the chips I have. The cable has been laying on the shelf for several years.

I have run K&N filters for many years and never an issue with the MAF. As a matter of fact I have a Ranger with a MAF and the filter is something like 2" from the MAF, no issue. I can see there may be some issue if overoiled during a maintenance procedure, but if concerned, there are non-oiled cone type filters available. It seems even people that have essentially stock systems need to clean the MAF on rare occasion too. When MAF's first came on the scene, a long time ago, some had a "burn off" regime that heated the coils when the car was shut down, sort of like a self cleaning oven, but that hasn't been done is a long time.

The performance increases are indeed limited unless the engine is improved internally. Reducing intake and exhaust restrictions never hurt. I believe the exhaust restriction Padgett mentioned is the one in the rear manifold, which is real and can be improved. The MAF/throttle body system is well matched by GM, and does not pose a large restriction. As a matter of fact, I have reconfigured my flowbench to a different style and am re-running some tests on parts I had done before. At 250 cfm (about what this 65% efficient engine uses), the stock MAF/TB only imposes a 5.1" water column restriction, or about 1/3 of what a 4 barrel carb is rated at. I will test a large K&N cone with hose vs the complete stock air box system in the near future, just to see if there is any major difference. I'm sure there is some, but for the most part, our engines spend their life putting around under 2500 rpm, with no great demand on the systems. The mild cam and moderate compression are just made for boost. If used with discretion, it will live a long happy life. The transaxle will not explode if cared for and it isn't abused at low rpm. I have put over 40k miles on mine in a couple of different turbocharged forms, the vast majority of the time it runs around pulling several inches of vacuum. A trans. upgrade is not a bad idea, but if used with discretion it isn't absolutely required.

Edited March 8, 2013 by 2seater
Corrected pressure drop (see edit history)

[2seater]

2seater: I know you have posted in the past that you looked at trying the factory roller rockers, but that the valve geometry seemed off. But weren't you trying Series 2 roller rockers? The '93-'94 Series 1 L27 heads also had roller rockers, and those heads are apparently based on the same castings as the LN3 heads. If the '93-'94 setup was compatible, it would only leave the bolt diameter issue to be dealt with.

I honestly do not remember what style rocker I tried. They appeared to be a cast material (maybe powder metal?) rather than a stamped steel. They are roller trunnion only, the tip is still the sliding pallet style. It became low priority with boost. I had toyed with looking at Ford rockers, which run a similar ratio to ours, 1.6, and some have the same bathtub type of pivot. When I answered the original post I mentioned a rocker ratio increase, which got me to thinking about the '88 cam I have not had luck finding. If the rocker ratio is increased to about 1.72, it mimics the lift of the '88 cam when used with the '89/'90 cam, and a slight increase in .050" duration. Maybe only on the intake valves?

[padgett]

Agree it is not restriction so much as the throttle body on an "L" is about 30% larger diameter than a "C" and the stock MAF tops out at about 170 gm/sec. It is a well balanced system (intake is balanced with injectors, cam, valve size, and ehaust) for what it is. Of course with boost it just tops out and goes to PE mode (Performance Enhancement) or max rich.

Part of the issue is the torque range is so broad and flat that it does not feel like accelleration just suddenly you are going a lot faster than intended. It is really deceptive.

[Guest PontiacDude210]

The OD switch sounds out of the box, but neat. Exactly what I want in fact, just something to make it a little more responsive at cruising speeds.

I thought mr padgett was referring to the one in the muffler, there's a sharp bend there too. Oops.

As for intake, sounds like a green light on a dry cone filter. I have one on my Pontiac and love the tone.

This lifter talk still interests me, although with all these options, I guess I have somewhere to start.

P.S. RaverReatta, the car in your Sig is beautiful! Looks a lot like mine but nicer.

[Guest RaverReatta]

Sounds like your Reatta will end up pretty cool! I'm hoping to do something similar.

Thank you for the compliment by the way! I've done a little more to it since then (:

[Guest PontiacDude210]

I hate to ask all these stupid questions... I might end up the forum idiot lol.

I remember the gm 2.2 was a little quicker with a bigger TB. With a well balanced engine, this would not be advised though, right?

Im not insistent on making this car something it isn't, but I have becomr sort of a junkyard modifier. I found with past cars, I could get a little more zip with junkyard parts.

Anyway, thanks for the suggestions. The OD switch sounds like a fun gimmick. Thanks guys!

[Guest RaverReatta]

Lol no need to hesitate asking, everyone's here to offer their advice and input. We're all the forum idiots every once in a while!

I've fiddled with the idea of putting a smaller displacement engine in mine as well (A SR20DET from a Nissan 240SX) but I decided against it, at least for now, because as good of an engine as it is, the weight of the car kind of makes a smaller yet quicker engine (and transmission in many cases) less effective, can wear quickly, and be a huge fuel efficiency drag. I've removed the whole interior of mine, and eventually I plan on replacing all of my heavy parts such as the doors, hood, and trunk with lighter material to prepare it for "performance".

The odd twist for me is that mine will be rear-wheel drive converted (Possibly with the SR20DET after fully lightened, or a 3800 from a Camaro/Firebird).

You are partially right about the "Frankenstein cars" that consist of junkyard parts though. Some of them turn out to be just as fast and fun as any other high performance car!

Best advice I can give is just to make it whatever you want it to be, anything is possible if you put the time and effort into it.

Maybe this video will be inspiration (or maybe it will horrify you O_o) Every time I watch it, I feel really good about my car, and am glad I don't have that one. But you know, the important thing is, he likes his car the way it is

Edited March 8, 2013 by RaverReatta (see edit history)

[Guest PontiacDude210]

I see your point. My problem is, sometimes, I get something from a junkyard and bolt it on and make it work, and it makes the car run like a turd. I'm not good enough to know whether a part(i.e. rollers, a bigger TB, etc.) will help or hurt. With my Sunfire, i can pull all sorts of parts from a grand am and get a little pep out of it. I appreciate the folks here telling me what will work and what's a waste of time. Ideas are appreciated. And a RWD SR20D swap sounds insane. I might go for the series ii swap or northstar swap when I am a little less broke.

[Guest RaverReatta]

It's all risk-reward on that. Many people on the forums can advise you of what fits. I know for sure that you can take the ICM and coil packs off of a newer 3800 and it will match up perfectly (all credit to padgett for telling me about that upgrade). I went to the pull-a-part and took one off of a 2004 Bonneville and noticed a considerable difference. Most of the top-end engine stuff from newer 3800s will fit directly!

[padgett]

The Delco coils/ICM just keep it from running badly, do not add any power. That said the 3800 is designed for a very broad torque band, the area under the curve is what accelleration is made of. Smaller engines tend to be peakier/wind higher and can generate more HP but that is a function of RPM.

Since the 3800 is pre-VVi&e, to get 200 lb-ft of torque at 2000 rpm it is ded at 4800, is just physics. Since my new 3.6 does have DOHC & VVi&e it can maintain 90% of the torque peak from 2000 to 6400 rpm (HP peak). It does not have that much more torque (260 vs 220 lb-ft & mostly from a 10.2:1 compression ratio) but a much broader plateau. The result, about the same 0-60 and MPG as the Reatta with 1,000 lbs more weight and the aerodynamics of a barn door.

[2seater]

One thing about throttle bodies is the relationship to the individual cylinder volume, or more particularly, the number of cylinders for the displacement. The more cylinders, the more continuous the flow through the T/B becomes. A four cylinder takes a big gulp where a V8 or V12 takes a proportionaly smaller sip. Part of the reason you see large T/B's on small engines and carried to the extreme, individual throttles (ITB'S) need to be relatively huge to allow enough flow. The large plenum between the T/B and each cylinder does a lot to smooth and average out the air flow. That said, I am using a throttle body from a Tuned Port 3800 with integrated MAF. It just required an adapter plate. I also have a stock throttle body that has been bored and a new throttle blade fitted. It is about 18% larger in area. One thing you will notice is quicker throttle response due to the area increase. Taken to the extreme may require recalibration of the TPS signal to the ECM. Since modern systems are dry manifolds and do not require a vacuum signal to meter fuel like a carburetor, removing intake restriction has little downside. Ours uses MAF, but a Speed Density using a MAP sensor may react differently.

One other caveat I must mention. The throttle body testing I did listed the total restriction including the adapter to connect to the flow bench, so that is not completely accurate. I will re-run the test using the bench adapter only, which will have some restriction on its own, and correct the result. The amount of vacuum listed is what it takes to lift water from a glass 7.5" through a straw. The force required is very small. I did check the restriction of the open adapter and it is 2.1" w.c., so the T/B restriction is only 5.1" w.c. @ 250 cfm.

Edited March 8, 2013 by 2seater
Corrected T/B restriction (see edit history)

[handmedownreatta]

Lol no need to hesitate asking, everyone's here to offer their advice and input. We're all the forum idiots every once in a while!

I've fiddled with the idea of putting a smaller displacement engine in mine as well (A SR20DET from a Nissan 240SX) but I decided against it, at least for now, because as good of an engine as it is, the weight of the car kind of makes a smaller yet quicker engine (and transmission in many cases) less effective, can wear quickly, and be a huge fuel efficiency drag. I've removed the whole interior of mine, and eventually I plan on replacing all of my heavy parts such as the doors, hood, and trunk with lighter material to prepare it for "performance".

The odd twist for me is that mine will be rear-wheel drive converted (Possibly with the SR20DET after fully lightened, or a 3800 from a Camaro/Firebird).

You are partially right about the "Frankenstein cars" that consist of junkyard parts though. Some of them turn out to be just as fast and fun as any other high performance car!

Best advice I can give is just to make it whatever you want it to be, anything is possible if you put the time and effort into it.

Maybe this video will be inspiration (or maybe it will horrify you O_o) Every time I watch it, I feel really good about my car, and am glad I don't have that one. But you know, the important thing is, he likes his car the way it is

id like to have this drivetrain in a restored rx7.real sleeper.

[Guest PontiacDude210]

2seater- I will be running a search for your thread on that cable. Also, was the adapter for the TPI 3.8 homemade? If I remember right, that was the motor used in the regal, 94+? My dad had a regal that had the tuned port injection printed on its motor. That car was responsible for my buick fascination.

And padgett, I believe the reason most people report performance benefits to the ac delco coils is that the original ones have a way of dying without anyone knowing it. It took mine croaking on the road for me to notice it had been running funny for a while, I had never noticed it before that.

[Ronnie]

2seater- I will be running a search for your thread on that cable. ..

If you find a link to the info would you please post it here. I'm interested in it also - Thanks

[padgett]

Well sorta. A Jag E engine had three 2" SU carbs each feeding 2 cyl because the flow was unsteady and there was a lot of overlap. With proper tuning a single 2" carb would work for 6 cyl each with 120 degrees of intake. The flow is then essentially smooth flow, as one cyl intake closes, another opens. More (8, 10, 12) overlap so are usually treated as two fours, fives, or sixes. It is not simple to calculate.

[Guest RaverReatta]

The Delco coils/ICM just keep it from running badly, do not add any power. That said the 3800 is designed for a very broad torque band, the area under the curve is what accelleration is made of. Smaller engines tend to be peakier/wind higher and can generate more HP but that is a function of RPM.

Since the 3800 is pre-VVi&e, to get 200 lb-ft of torque at 2000 rpm it is ded at 4800, is just physics. Since my new 3.6 does have DOHC & VVi&e it can maintain 90% of the torque peak from 2000 to 6400 rpm (HP peak). It does not have that much more torque (260 vs 220 lb-ft & mostly from a 10.2:1 compression ratio) but a much broader plateau. The result, about the same 0-60 and MPG as the Reatta with 1,000 lbs more weight and the aerodynamics of a barn door.

Yep, that's the difference I noticed. My car didn't die.

[2seater]

Well sorta. A Jag E engine had three 2" SU carbs each feeding 2 cyl because the flow was unsteady and there was a lot of overlap. With proper tuning a single 2" carb would work for 6 cyl each with 120 degrees of intake. The flow is then essentially smooth flow, as one cyl intake closes, another opens. More (8, 10, 12) overlap so are usually treated as two fours, fives, or sixes. It is not simple to calculate.

You are absolutely right that it isn't as simple as it appears and the generalization I made could be a little misleading. Point taken.

[2seater]

2seater- I will be running a search for your thread on that cable. Also, was the adapter for the TPI 3.8 homemade? If I remember right, that was the motor used in the regal, 94+? My dad had a regal that had the tuned port injection printed on its motor. That car was responsible for my buick fascination.

And padgett, I believe the reason most people report performance benefits to the ac delco coils is that the original ones have a way of dying without anyone knowing it. It took mine croaking on the road for me to notice it had been running funny for a while, I had never noticed it before that.

The throttle body is from an early TPI with aluminum manifold and the adapter is homemade from 1/4" aluminum. My old flow figures indicate it doesn't really flow any better than the stock system and the MAF frequency is completely compatible with the stock system. That part is plug and play. I used it for other reasons to allow more room for turbo piping. The IAC is in a better location and I modified an intake air temp. sensor and it is now tapped directly into the throttle body so I get the true inlet temperature. I believe later TPI manifolds, probably the plastic ones, certainly have a larger throttle body but I don't know about the MAF frequencies.

The trans. cable uses a transistor to switch the wire going to cell A of the plug to the transaxle. That is the the one just to the right of the latch if you are looking at the open end of the plug. There is a resistor across the two ends of the wire that is cut for the transistor. The third leg of the transistor is spliced into the wire to cell B, which is pretty much below and slighly left of the plug latch. Without looking, it is probably the 4th gear indicator wire, used to switch the transistor, which is the switch itself. I'm no electronics expert, but the transistor numbers are 9327 with 2N6488 below and the resistor calculates to 982 5% and 1k ohm measured. I assume the resistor is to keep a fault from tripping??

Edited March 8, 2013 by 2seater (see edit history)

[2seater]

I mentioned I would test the T/B-MAF combination with an old K&N cone filter and the complete stock Reatta air box, including the inlet throught the radiator header.

The K&N is VERY used and dirty. It has been used in several different configurations, including an external fenderwell inlet. For this test, it was configured with the stock air box hose on the MAF inlet, a 3" pvc 45* elbow and the K&N filter on the end. The filter is a 3.5" outlet, 5" base x 4.5" top and 7"long. I could detect essentially no pressure loss at the low 250 cfm, maybe an additional 1/4" w.c.

The air box was assembled just as it would be in the car, complete. The only filter I had is an Amsoil foam filter. I have nothing else to compare it too. Fully assembled on the MAF it added just shy of 9"w.c. resistance or well over double what the throttle body assembly only is. You can judge for yourself if that is more than desired but it seems pretty reasonable for normal driving habits. The only point is informational.

[2seater]

I'll mention this here again as I have done so a long time ago. If you are doing things expected to make a performance difference, you can use the MAF reading for a rough idea if you are gaining or losing. I have an air flow chart for the stock MAF if desired. A rough idea of available horsepower is the MAF reading in gr/sec x 1.32. 125 gr/sec is about 165 hp. per this calculation. I reassembled my test rig for MAF's on my flowbench and 250 cfm (a little more than actual expected engine demand) is about 131 gr/sec. This is at 60* and 29.8 on the barometer.

[padgett]

I would plan for closer to 300 cfm @ 85%.

[2seater]

No argument on that from me. I agree that it is conventional wisdom that 85% is expected on street engines but it appears from the results I have found that about 65% is what it is at maximum rpm. The engine itself should be capable of more but the miniscule cam seems to impose a rather low limit. I know I have asked a couple of times in the past if anyone has observed actual air flow readings during spirited driving but have had very little input. For the most part, I only have my data to go on. Since that time I have also wondered if the '88's in general have a higher threshold. The measured cam spec's say that they should. I would guess a max. of 135-140 on the MAF reading.