Turbocharged 3800 update

[Guest trofeo73]

Well, its been 3 months since I have had the turbo on. Overall I am suprised it went as well as it did given the fact that only about 200 bucks went into it.(Turbo was free) However the second to third gear shift is REALY slipping; seemed weak BEFORE the turbo went on. I plan on keeping the toro and buying a mid 90s Lexus as a daily driver. I think a T4 with external wastgate, intercooler, larger injecters, fuel pump, MAF calibrator, Beefier transmission with shift kit and extra clutches, will be in store for the Trofeo. I was so surprised at how well the engine and computer responded to the turbo with virtually no other mods. I need to richen it up a bit, 14 degrees of retard made my manifold run cherry red during a hard drive.... Hal, did a great job with his, I plan on redesigning my setup as well. Just thought I would give you guys an update, Take care, Marcus

[sahein]

If your exhaust manifold is glowing cherry red, My first guess would be that you have too much retard dialed in.

How are you retarding the timing?

[sahein]

http://www.martelbros.com/msd/support/78.htm

[Guest trofeo73]

I have left the timing alone, the knock sensor must be pulling the timing back. I am sure a more efficent compressor as well as an intercooler could help. Adding some fuel would bring detonation down a bit too. The exhaust turbine is only a .48 A/R; which is used on the 86 Merkur XR4Ti (2.3 liter four) I need to upgrade to a T4 which would reduce back pressure as well as give me a better compressor. It does'nt help that I have a large exhaust leak BEFORE my o2 sensor, that may be screwing it all up. I sure has been a learning experience, but with some more time and a tad bit more money, I will have a full-proof system that deleivers over 300 hp and somthing on the order of 350+ lbs of torque. My best E.T. was a 14.3 at 97 mph on a very cold day with lots of wheel spin through first and part of second gear. The word is out on the street to the import crowd about the stealthy "BUICK" that runs around town <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

was checking out ebay for 3800 in reguard to a previous post, and they have all these superchargers for 3800s for sale, anyone know if these would easily bolt on to the reatta? I'm guessing youd still have the transmission and electrical problems, just curious!

[Guest Geoff Meador]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My first guess would be that you have too much retard dialed in.</div></div>

I'm going to have to save that line for use as an insult on non-automotive forums <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

[Guest trofeo73]

Putting a roots supercharger on the 89-90 or so 3800 could be done, but brackets, pulleys, egr, manifold may be hard to find. It would be great to find a blown s/c series I and use parts off of it. The stuff may or may not bolt up. The early S/C Series I 3800 engines were only rated at 205 hp. MY series I with turbo and NO intercooler sports 280 hp. I only spet $350 max on my settup too.(I did all the work) And I had to put up with the @#%@s at the part stores telling me to buy a small block shevy/cammaro/whatever; if I wanted a fast car...... <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> The series II is nice though, 240 hp with MANY aftermarket bolt-ons. But a complete motor/trany swap would be expensive and not for the average mechanic.

[poncho]

Do you have a journal or record of all of the work you put into this? I'd really like to see it! I'd love to turbo my Reatta. By the way, how in the hell did you get a turbo for FREE?!? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

[2seater]

Swap meets and other gearheads are a good place to find older or discarded parts. I have $35 in the basic one I started with so my friend Trofeo has a leg up on me. Once he and I get our knock retard problems licked, it should be a killer setup. Buick should have built and sold the low boost (8-9psi) Reatta they built as an experiment. It is so effortless without much throttle. Sounds good too.

[Guest]

I still couldnt get my hands on a setup, atleast the pipes and stuff, could I? I will gladly pay for it and everything. I would love to turbo charge the engine rather than supercharge it, due to flexibility with power. So if either of you are interested and making the pipes and manifolds, let me know. I definately want to get a setup. Ive been bugging hal for 6 months now =P

[padgett]

If you can describe the knock issue to me I might be able to do something - do you need to reduce the sensitivity, add boost retard, richen the mixture on boost or what ? Keep in mind that for an injection system designed for N/A you are going to get an artificial leanout in boosted operation unless you adjust the rail pressure to match & lean promotes knock.

To be more precise, the Reatta uses a fairly low rail pressure - abt 35 psi - at 6 psi boost the effective pressure is now only 29 psi or about 15% less. (Quite simplified but you get the idea).

Now obviously since pistons/valves are not burning the condition must not be too severe but is there.

[2seater]

Hey Padgett, I think I actually need both. More fuel is certainly needed for the hp. output and I am sure even the stock chip has too much timing for the boosted condition. I have been watching my fuel pressure with a gauge taped to the windshield (gets some strange looks). Base fuel pressure is about 42 psi with the vacuum off. Idle pressure is about 34 psi at 18" of engine vacuum, about a 2:1 ratio. The fuel pressure rises in a 1:1 ratio as it gets into boost, rising to about 51 psi at 8-9 psi boost. My plan for larger injectors has run into a problem as the intake manifold is machined without the little shelf in the injector hole to retain the little plastic cap on the common pintle type injector. For now, I plan to raise the base fuel pressure 10 psi to see if more fuel will help the knock. I have some success with a TPS Enhancer from Casper's Electronics, which puts the ECM into full fuel mode at about 2/3 throttle. I watched how it works and at about 2.8-3.0 volts the little box snaps the TPS signal to full voltage, or about 4.6 volts in my case. With my homemade 98-100 octane fuel, and the TPS modification, I can achieve 6 psi boost without retard. I would like to see something in the 8 degree spark retard at about 6 psi boost, any ideas? I talked with Bob Bailey, developer of the MAF Translator who told me they intercept the EST wire between the coil pack and ECM to retard timing based on air flow. Could we do the same with a simple adjustable pressure switch? I know it isn't that simple, but some hope maybe? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Guest trofeo73]

Tommarow I am taking it all off so I can redo various welds, ect. I will post some pics for you all to look at just as long as you dont laugh, my welds are pretty poor. Okay for an amature. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[padgett]

Hokay. The problem with the advance curve is not just to avoid detonation but also to get peak cylinder pressure to occur at the right place (abt 15 degrees ATDC AFAIR. Now if the charge just expoded instantly this would not be a problem but it doesn't, it burns, and that takes time.

How much time is a matter of how fast it burns (flame front propagation) and how even it burns. Achieving that magic peak pressure point means that you need to advance the ignition to X degrees before that magic point.

Now the chanber geometry is fixed so we know that. However the flame front propagation rate is a function of charge density and that is going to vary with boost. Typically the higher the charge density, the faster the propagation (why in light throttle cruise/high vaccuum cruise mode you need a lot of advance).

With boost, your charge density increases above normal which it burns faster which means you need less advance than the basic mapping. In other words you want a certain amount of boost retard for max power. How much is a matter for the dyno though we could probably make some guesses from the L-67 maps.

One other factor: there is no difference in BTU/litre between 87 and 110 octane. In fact the 110 will be a touch lower. The real difference in Octane numbers is how fast the fuel burns, the higher the octane the slower it burns. This reduces the chance of detonation since the flash point is also higher but requires a different advance curve - higher octane needs more advance for peak power. To some extent the secondary ignition system is also important as the lag between the command to fire and the actual ignition may be significant particularly at higher RPMs.

Put all of the above together and you see why design of a proper advance curve is an art form. Get it right and it is a marvel. Wrong and you have a slow, overheating PITA.

Now to design the proper curve requires first that the fuel delivery is optimised. If larger injectors are needed then no advance curve is going to fix (and avoiding detonation due to lean-out at high rpm is going to require juggling). Believe me: you do not want high rpm/high load leanout conditions. Things melt.

So fix the fuel first and then look at the ignition.

[2seater]

Thanks Padgett. I think I understand what you are talking about and it does make sense. I don't plan on race gas as a regular occurance but I needed to see if it would help and I am now pretty sure leanout is a lot of the retard problem. I finally got an adjustable pressure regulator that will fit so I can now turn the fuel pressure up and see if that helps. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[padgett]

Expect to see the BLMs change when you boost the pressure and for it to take a while to stabilize, O2 will probaly record too rich until it can adjust. Might need to increase the authority for the BLM.

I would probably start by raising the pressure to match the boost. Not certain how much additional flow the stock pump is capable of though.

[2seater]

Thanks for the input. The BLM's seem to be way down already, around 120, although the Integrator is running good, above and below 128. I assume this is caused by the rise in pressure from boost. I do have a concern about the pump as well, that's why I run with a gauge attached. I did have a high output pump, and I cannot seem to locate it, but it will get a new pump soon. The original has almost 100k on it. I have been conversing with Dave Buckshaw who suggested changing to the early model S/C (L67?)ECM as he has programming for a turbo version of a 3800 he did. http://www.buckshaw.com/images/88turbo.jpg

I know you guys mentioned that more than once, but is it compatible?

[padgett]

Answer is a definate "maybe". Would have to look at the pinout on the L-67 ECM and would be nice to have a copy of his PROM dump with what he did. Know that is a lot to ask for but I just do not have the time to go any further.

Do suspect that the MAF tables go beyond 170 gm/sec.

BLM of 120 with the integrator at 128 indicates the ECM has stabilised there but at what engine regeme ? Cruise ? Keep in mind that there is an entire table of 16 BLM "cells" for different operating areas and each may have a different value.

What would be important would be a set of WOT runs from about 2000-5000 rpm with a laptop running something like DIACOM recording the actual O2, MAF, BLM and Integrator values.

[2seater]

I finally installed the new regulator tonight and kinda punked out and only raised the base fuel pressure five psi. I have the same concern about the fuel pump so I will try little steps. It should at least give some indication if I am moving in the right direction. I couldn't try it as it got to dark to see the unlighted gauge on the windshield. As for a recording device, I haven't had much success. I contacted Rinda twice via E-mail but so far, nothing. I talked to the TurboLink guy at Bowling Green but they don't have one for me either. As for the BLM's: they are low at anything over a low speed cruise, like 30 mph in town. The turbo spools pretty quickly even without a lot of throttle so even though I am still showing vacuum on my boost gauge, there is more air flow available than normal. Just for info. purposes, I can cruise around town with reasonable acceleration and keep the vacuum gauge at 10" vacuum or more. Even my 38 mile trip to work can be done at more than 5" of vacuum even though there are areas where I have to merge with traffic at highway speeds. Steady state cruise at 65mph shows 10-12" vacuum and right around the 120-122 on the BLM. I do not know how low the BLM reading can adjust but there are some cells in the 117-118 range. If I keep my foot out of it and do my easy acceleration regime the BLM's will rise over time, so the ECM can certainly learn. If you have any pull with Rinda, I would be interested, and I will check their website for a phone number and see if I can contact them tommorrow. I'll see if Mr. Buckshaw will share files.

[padgett]

BLM will be low - that is the computer adjusting for long term. It is the instantaneous you need to watch - so long as it is in the 125-132 range everything is OK, it means the BLM had enough adjustment to compensate.

Now if you disconnect the battery, everything is going to reset.

-----

I have the Diacom software (easy part) and special cable (not so easy part) but looks like they stopped development when OBDII came out in 1995, have no ide what stock they might have on hand. Will see.

[2seater]

Yep, the Integrator is running in the correct range. I did find Rinda's number and I will call them tommorrow. The only unfortunate thing is the lack of ability to record boost. Even the TurboLink wouldn't be able to do that. They do have the ability to do so for the GN's but they use the MAT sensor input for that function (using a 2 or 3 bar MAP sensor). He asked me for the number from my MAT sensor and told me I probably cannot remove it as our sensor is a wide range unit which is used to modify the signal from the MAF. How that is done is beyond me, but it doesn't really make sense in any case, since the heated wire should automatically compensate for warm or cold air. Maybe it is because ours only senses a portion of the air flow? If this is true, do you suppose the MAF being exposed to compressed air temps. which can be 100 deg.F. warmer than the MAT sensor sees messes up the calculations?

[padgett]

If you did not relocate the MAT sensor downstream of the turbo, yes it will mess things up. I suspect it will make the corrected MAF read low since it is a rate sensor and its cooling is strongly dependant on the air temperature (yet another reason to put the MAF/throttle assembly on the inlet side of the turbo).

However the O2 sensor is still going to try to balance the fuel so it may not matter.

[2seater]

I did not realize at the time that ours was as dependant on the MAT sensor. I was copying an experiment a guy on the GN List that placed his on the outlet side of the compressor, actualy it's just before the throttle body like ours, but he has an intercooler. He reported it seemed to improve throttle response. Now I realize their MAT sensor is less in the loop and some of them actually remove it. It's easier to blow through a restriction than suck through it, and out MAF is relatively small, so I reasoned it would work. I does work, but maybe not as optimum as it could be. There may be room to move the MAT to the adapter cone on the outlet from the compressor. There is precious little room as my goal was to make this installation very compact, and the whole assembly can actually be removed and the stock crossover pipe put in its place, while leaving the modified manifolding in place. If I understand your conjecture, the cooling rate of the wire in the MAF will be less (due to elevated outlet temp.) than the ECM thinks it should be based on the inlet temp.from the MAT, right? If this is the case, the actual flow rate through the MAF is higher than it is calibrated for, making it peak later than it should. Youch! It's fairly easy to max it out now, so the MAF table flow limit will be reached sooner than it appears to right now. I will see about moving the MAT sensor, at least the fueling should better match the flow rate up to the limits in the computer. By the way, the raised fuel pressure had a small effect on the retard, and the BLM has now settled at an even lower reading, one cell was at 106, but the Integrator is still perking along above and below the magic 128. Trofe was thinking about the same thing. DOH! Thanks

[padgett]

Is why real engineering is a lot of boring reptition with minor changes and a ton of instrumentation ("you don't know what you don't need until you measure it") and an occasional "Why'd it do that ?"

Also keep in mind thet the GN used the old C3 computer and is *much* less sophisticated than the P4 in ours.

[Guest]

excuse a laymens question here but i find this interesting, would it be easier to just replace the whole drive train and computer for it? i think thats something called restification, where they take an old car and put brand new drivetrain and controls in it. im sure that involves a lot of work but in the end might be easier than trying to jerry rig something and getting it to operate perfectly.

[padgett]

In most cars that would be true but the Reatta is different. All models take the instrument display information from the "Assembly Line Data Link" serial data stream from the engine control module (computer). This is received by the Body Contol Module (also a computer) which converts it into display information.

This serial data stream is common in format to all GM cars of the period however the contents are unique to the Reatta. If you look where the ALDL (scan tool) connector would normally be you will find a cover marked "do not remove". This is the ffed to the BCM.

If you put an ECM (or even the wrong PROM) for a different engine in a Reatta you are likely to read 200 mph while standing still if the BCM received the wrong data stream.

One of the things I am looking at is a way to transplant the data stream generator for a Reatta into the ECM for a 3800 S/C engine.

The hard part is that we have a computer with 32,768 bytes of programming and very little (none for the BCM) information as to what it all means. In two years I can tweak the fan calibrations, change the idle, and kill some error conditions but not a whole lot more (the data exists, finding time to reconcile into meaningful information is the hard part.

If we had the original GM design information or even just the memory maps it would be easy but so far the General has not been willing to share that information.

[Guest]

I can try and pull some strings I have with a few guys in GM. Any clue what department I need to go after? Also, which setup would give the most efficient HP/TQ setup: SC or Turbo? Im torn between the two now. What are the perks and downsides of each? Im looking into one of them to start this summer.

[2seater]

You are right about there being pros and cons to each system. I can only relate my thinking and you can take it as an opinion only. The S/C setup does involve some changes to the EGR operation, plus I never liked the idea of the S/C eating a bunch of horsepower just to turn it. My original thought, was to try to avoid any major changes to the basic operation of the rest of the systems, although I am finding that I set the bar too high for the capabilities of the stock systems. The second thing was the S/C setup has been done and I wanted something different. I also wonder about the longevity of the S/C unit, particularly if a smaller pulley is fitted to raise boost.

The turbo uses essentially free energy from the exhaust, although it does raise underhood temperatures and there is some increase in the exhaust backpressure. There is the problem of making up the exhaust plumbing needed, but I saw that as a challenge. I can simply turn the boost up or down in a couple of minutes without changing pulleys like the S/C. If I would limit my max. boost to 5-6 psi, the system would probably operate okay right now, but of course I wanted more,(caused by boostitis). I also wanted a slower spooling of boost, to help the transaxle last longer. The S/C gives almost instant response and I saw the turbo lag as a good thing in this case. I even purposely left the outlet from the turbine and the exhaust size at the stock 2.25" size, to slow the spoolup. I even have the stock muffler, although no cat. I was surprised how fast it spools. For example, if I am cruising at 60 mph and about 10-12 inches of vacuum, when I kick the pedal down, such as for a pass, the boost jumps right to 8-9 psi before the shift is even completed. Hundreds of knock counts are the result, but I will get this figured out.

Does anyone know what brand and part number injector is used on the early model S/C (L67?) engine. I am sure I need more fuel, but finding compatible style injectors is proving to be challenge. I will probably turn the fuel pressure up another 5 psi (10 psi total)to simulate larger injectors, although the spark timing needs work too. Just for info. purposes, I did relocate the MAT sensor to the outside of the outlet cone for the compressor and covered it to keep the heat approximatley what the outlet air temp is, although slow response. I saw a temperature of up to 80 deg. C., which is higher than my 72 deg.C. coolant temperature. Difficult to judge if this had any real effect on the MAF reading. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[padgett]

Well if you consider that I prefer NA engines (There ain't no substitute for cubic inches." - Augie Pabst, 1957), then my preference would be for the S/C unit since there are no external oil lines, minimal plumbing required, no lag, and the throttle plate/MAF/MAT is in front of the compressor. Seems like a much easier installation (where does the p/s pump go ?)

That said, the engine does not care where the boost comes from.

[Guest Greg Ross]

Look at Don Bs'/ Turobhawks' S/C and you can see the alternator passenger rear where the P.S. Pump should reside. Apparently with different heater pipe feeds coming off the front cover the P.S. Pump drops down below the alternator. Seems like it would be pretty tight quarters.

[2seater]

Yep, you could take a BIG bottle of compressed air and do the same thing. It is true the S/C is somewhat cleaner looking, and you can make them plenty fast if you use the larger late model one, but then you need new heads too for the relocated injectors. The oil lines and such are pretty simple to do, but the manifolding does take some time. Cost is probably not all that different if all the parts are purchased new, but the turbo is probably cheaper if the T3 family is used as lots of parts interchange and upgrade wheels and housings are pretty cheap as well. I have a total of just under $700 in mine, but the ceramic coating of all the manifolds and turbine housing was the bulk of that,($525). The nice thing about the S/C is it is essentially a bolt on if you get the correct brackets for the front of the engine as well. You will have the same problem with getting the MAF to communicate with the ECM as it is different too and air flow will most likely be out of range.

On the recording device situation: I talked with Rinda and they are unwilling to discount their price, but, I did get some good news from on the TurboLink. He says he will have a test device ready by early next week, and the price is the same as Diacom, plus it uses a Windows friendly graphic interface with unlimited recording capability (limited by my laptop capacity)

[Guest]

padgett, somehow im not surprised that the reatta is of course unique. i think i will just save any money id spend on enhancing my reatta and put it toward my grand national savings account :-P

[Guest]

Ive decided to go to a turbo setup due to the creativity and the ability to control the boost a little easier. I really want to get my project moving, but since Im an 18 year old with not much machine shop experience, my skills are a little lacking in making mods to the manifolds and such. I would glady like it if someone would mod the parts for me and I will definately pay. If someone would be interested, please post here. Preferable hal or trafeo as they have the setups already done.

[padgett]

I tend to agree, the Reatta is for eating up long distances comfortably and not a 1/4 mile at a time.

Would take quite a while and a blackboard to explain but I never have believed in boosted street engines, mine run on 87 Hess or from Sam's and 165 hp net is "enough". Turbosuperchargers are for 30,000 feet or when racing to a formula.

Of course when I feel ornery I can take the Fiero out and drive under tollgates or the Judge and vibrate surrounding cars with something other than bass. Is not what the Reatta is for.

Know that the GTPs and some rice burners can accellerate quite well but a 9 second quarter takes RWD and a lot of sweat equity.

So you need to decide what your car is for and work from there. Mine is for daily driving and occasional long distance cruising at a decent clip even in adverse weather.

BTW said I didn't care for boost. Never said I didn't know how to design for it. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Padgett, I just took the comment as you also didnt care to design one =P. Of coarse you would have a part in the project as someone has to attempt to modify the computers. If you are willing to design one, let me know. I will gladly pay.

And BTW, I know a lot of fwd cars that run 10s in the 1/4. I know a few rwd that run lower than that! My car isnt my daily driver. I push my car a lot and so far it has handled the abuse quite nicely. I had to swap trannies @ 195k miles. And other than that she runs perfect. Where Im at right now the car scene is big. Not just imports, but its a sports compact thing. A lot of guys like my car and would love to see it run faster. Hell, my friends brag when I stomp a few hondas. Those rice boys get embarrased when beat by a buick. So Im all for the more power and any help would be greatly appreciated. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[2seater]

Generally I agree with Padgetts assessment the Reatta is a touring car rather than a dragster, and it does excell at that, plus it looks pretty good even today. It's realy too heavy to make a good drag car. I have several reasons for my interest in adding some performance. First, I don't have room to store a dedicated "fun" car, so even though the Reatta is my daily driver during the summer, I decided to sorta combine a "project" vehicle with daily duty. That said, there a lot of two lane roads in my part of the country and the passing power of the Reatta could be improved. That mid range acceleration is what I am after, although it did pump up the bottom end better than I expected. I also had several old turbos I had collected, the newest one was (20) years old, so I had very little money in this project. Turbosuperchargers had sorta died from the scene, through the '90's, except for high end stuff and some Chryslers, so it would be "different". Turbo's are enjoying something of a resurgence today, available on lower end vehicles than even five years ago and even personal watercraft. Short of sticking a V8 under the hood, the other way to mimic this is to force feed a smaller engine. Sure, it stresses the engine, and probably shortens the useful life somewhat, but with a useful life of something over 200k miles in N/A form, I figured I would give some of that up for an increase in performance. It gets boring when you raise the hood of an old Ford coupe and find a SBC <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[padgett]

First, my basic problem is a lack of spare time and too much travel. Second, to do this right needs at least a chassis dyno but could come close with the proper instrumentation. Anything else and you are just guessing.

Second, if you main concern is to dust off hondas the NOS would be a lot easier than a turbo to install and even with several years of bottle filling, less expensive unless you have a machine shop and a few lying around.

Unless you have either luck into a complete system, or have cubic money, or the aforementioned machine shop either Turbo or S/C is going to be an expensive and complex propisition and you will still be 500-1000 lbs too heavy.

As mentioned, if you really want to be ahead of the pack with an obsolete GM car, what you want is light & RWD i.e. a Fiero which is really rear-midengined (engine is in front of the drive axles) and takes an incredible number of transplants. They are also quite cheap right now.

However, can understand that some would want a bit *more* from the Reatta and would be glad to help as I can.

[Guest]

Well, I have access to the dyno and Im willing to do a few runs on it. And I know this is going to be expensive and Im gonna do the whole thing right. Im going to start from scratch, rebuild an engine and then add the turbo. I plan for this project to take a while so there is really no big rush with things. Having said that I have a few starting questions.

First and foremost: I have access to a 97 N/A 3800 block. Did anything change on the block where I wont be able to use it? Or will everything match up the same with the parts from 88-91 3800 Reatta engines. Please reply to this one ASAP as Im out of town and leaving tommorow, and I have to take the engine tommorow if I need it. Thanks fellas, you guys are gonna be a big help in this project.

[Guest Greg Ross]

I see nobody replied;

3.8 L up to 1990

3800 Series I '91 to '95 NA

3800 Series II '96 to---- NA

3800 S/C '92 to '93 Stage II?

3800 S/C '94 to '95

3800 S/C '96 to----

All different, some things will mix and match and some won't, heads are different for I think? every version, beyond that---

[Guest]

Alright. Guess I will have to look somewhere else for the block. Any clues on parts that are aftermarket/other engines for our engines? (Cams, Cranks, Pistons, Rods ECT) I think the pistons from the 91 engines are better I heard, but maybe thats just for N/A engines. Gimme some info please. Im ready to jump on this thing and move.