How to get a 3.4 to make some real HP...but I have questions - Camaro Zone - Camaro Forums and News

Go Back   Camaro Zone - Camaro Forums and News > Camaro & Firebird Tech Forums > V6 Camaro and Firebird Tech

Join Camaro Zone Today
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-28-2012, 07:24 PM   #1
Member
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 157
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
COPIED AND PASTED FROM
http://forum.camarov6.com/showthread.php?t=64963


Hi there. Lots of you know me if you have been here a while. A lot of you don't know me either. My name is Russell and I have been here since firebirdv6.com/camarov6.com got it's start. I have owned a 3.4L Chevy Camaro since 1996 and have been on a "quest for more power" since I bought it. It's peppy enough from the get go with a manual transmission but the automatic is lacking a little bit. Even with the manual, it still has issues putting out enough power to push the massive 3250lbs that is the car itself. When you add speakers or anything else this becomes a serious hinderance to the car in terms of performance.

I have seen posts regarding the 3.4L engine, and I have seen both facts and fiction on this motor thrown around in an attempt to sway people one way or the other. Thats not what I'm trying to accomplish here. Here is my honest opinion about the 3.4L OHV (204ci) RWD engine that comes in the 1993-1995 F-body (Camaro/Firebird). Most of you will be like "oh great whatever". Those of you that know that I have been here and most often won't post in a thread unless I have something important to voice on the matter will stop and read this. And a few of you will be genuinely curious to know what it is I'm trying to convey. Pull up something to drink and some popcorn, this promises to be a long thread.

--

I have done my share of research on this engine. I even contacted GM and asked them for any information they had on the car. They promptly sent me the GM Rebuild Kit for the 1994 Chevrolet Camaro. It didn't cost me a thing and this little packet included every bit of information, original brochures from 1994, a full detailed listing of all options and factory information on every part of the engine, car, chassis, etc.

It was here that I began, studying and calculating and realizing the first thing about the motor. GM Lied. It wasn't a big lie. The motor is advertised at 207 Cubic Inches, but using valid formulas for calculating CID I came up short at only 204. I rechecked several times and came to the conclusion that GM rounded up the engine size because in reality, the "3.4L" engine is really only 3.35 Liters. Now .05 Liters isnt a huge deal..but when you start with so little, every bit counts.

Armed with this information I began signing up to different boards and clubs with the hopes of finding people who had begun to modify the car and make it work better. I came across a lot of owners who were frustrated because they hadn't found anything created by the aftermarket and had given up and advised me to do the same. My Camaro, is honestly my first car. It's the first car I ever purchased and still runs strong to this day. I didn't let anyone's dismay sway me from my goal of making my car work better for me, and not go out and try to win any awards for the most horsepower or torque or anything like that. When I discovered RKSport and their aftermarket products for the 3.4L, my hopes perked up because I realized that if I saved up enough money I could make my car work better. I began to research different engine shops in the area and stumbled across Norris Racing Tech (NRT) with their 3500 package which promised to make the engine a 3.5 Liter and give you the best performance you could get. But at 3000.00 for the engine package + shipping/handling I wrote that off.

Now I have to digress a little because I realize I skipped a very important point. Most 3.4L owners try too hard. You think that you can take your 3.4L V6 and run out and make it faster than any car on the road. That’s not going to happen. There will always be, whether you own a 3.4L v6 - a 3.8L v6 - a LT1 - LS1 – Vette – Viper – Porsche – Ferrari, a car faster than yours. The thing I realized that if I built the car for me, if I did things I wanted and questioned the conventional wisdom of “that won’t work” I would stumble across the magical mod that would give me a massive boost in the right direction. I stayed on these boards for years, watching people come on and ask, “what’s the best intake, what’s the best exhaust...” and all those things. I watched people rise and get incredible gains and saw people I knew push the limits of the engine and develop supercharger and turbocharger kits for the 3.4L, as well as take and add nitrous to it. There were a couple of “loch ness” stories about a mythical 3.4L out there running 9’s in the mile, but that person never signed up to this board or any others that I have visited, so that person remains a mystery as to whether or not they really exist.

Getting back to my topic – When I realized that I would have to work harder and think more because the things that people were doing weren’t really accomplishing much, I turned to the actual engine design and I looked at several options. I then realized, in 1999, that Pontiac’s Grand Am GT was making 175hp/205tq from a 3.4L OHV FWD motor. I did research into this engine and found that GM had worked a different path on this motor and it was better than the 3.4 RWD. I did more research into engine design and found that runner lengths help determine how much power and torque the engine gets. I looked at the plenum and runner design on the “3400” engine as well as the 3.4 RWD and realized that the RWD runners were jokes. At only 2” long and without any type of airflow acceleration present, they looked like all they served was a means to get the air from the Y shaped plenum, which once I saw a cross section – laughed at, to the cylinders. That was when I decided then and there that the plenum and air intake system was the 3.4L’s weak point. GM had spent money into making the 3.4 into a “Race style” motor. At 60 degrees the Angle of the V shape is natural. EXACTLY replicating the letter V, the angle between cylinders is 60*. The crankshaft in a six cylinder v-type engine has three throws of 120 degrees. With this combination, it makes the engine perfectly internally balanced. No bad vibrations, hence the lack of balance shaft that the 90 degree 3.8 or 3800 series II engine needs to employ to keep the motor from rubbing things the wrong way.

With that in mind, I kept looking into what I could do to increase the natural power of the engine. And I realized that the FWD heads and intake manifold were direct bolt-on parts. The holes all lined up, and they were aluminum which would shave weight off of the engine. Combined with their increased flow (I had no idea how much at the time) they would add a lot of power to an engine that was struggling. So I did more research and found that the iron heads that came with the RWD engine had been used since the original 2.8L engine came out. No changes had been made by GM. Not till they tried to use the 3.4L as a viable engine for the FWD cars did GM even consider making the 3.4L into a “performance” engine. Because of that the 3.4L has become the laughing stock of the F-body world. Many people have tried to make this engine perform better and succeeded, and many more have failed. Simply because they aren’t thinking before they throw parts at the motor. Most people think, “I can get an exhaust or intake and it’ll make the car work great!” This isn’t always the case. Most often it requires planning to increase the airflow of the engine to efficiently use such parts. Why? Because the 3.4L is anemic to begin with – GM thought that they could simply increase the bore and stroke of the engine and throw a “performance cam” into it and it would work fine. This isn’t the case because the plenum and air intake and exhaust systems are so poorly designed that it suffocates the motor without anyone giving it a second thought. While everyone is putting bigger throttle bodies and porting and polishing heads, they are neglecting the most important idea – “you engine only flows as well as the worst bottleneck.” With that in mind, ponder this thought: I asked James Montigny for his flowbench data from Norris Racing Tech on his heads. And then I asked a good friend of mine who specializes in the FWD 60 degree motor for a stock flowbench of the “3100” heads I had pulled from a 1996 3.1L engine and put on my car.

The results shocked me. The stock heads from a 1996 FWD 3.1L engine flowed as good as the heads that were bolted to Tiago’s car (many of you know him as the one who developed a turbocharger for the 3.4L and pushed it to the edge). Tiago had gotten his heads from James Montigny previously and James had the NRT engine package. I went to NRT’s site to learn that the full engine package came with the 900.00 option full port/polish and valve job. You can digest that for a minute before carrying on. GM had managed to work the heads on the FWD engines so perfectly that they flowed as well as taking a set of the iron heads and paying someone to R&D a perfect portjob on them. 900.00. Using the aluminum heads means you have 900.00 to use elsewhere.



The first bottleneck is the plenum. While it looks pretty decent, being that the outer size is 3 inches wide by 2.5 inches tall (or somewhere around there – I forget) where the inside is really only like 1.5 – 1.75 inches wide x one inch tall! The plenum has an incredibly thick construction (why I have no idea, its not like you are boosting the motor from the factory) and it makes for very little space for the air to travel inside. Then on top of that the airflow has to split, make two 45 degree turns in order to get to one more 45 degree turn down into the engine. This equates to a lot of bad sharp angles that the airflow has to navigate – effectively slowing it down. The fact that the runners are super short makes for more problems being that there is no way the engine is capable of any top end power, hence the problem with the engine “dying” at 4500 rpm. Ask any 3.4L owner and they will tell you that the engine seems to top out around 4500 rpm. While most people are ok with this, the tachometer shows that the engine has a rev potential of 5500 rpm and a redline of 7k. This is due to the forged steel connecting rods in the engine that can take more abuse than most. The other thing GM didn’t think of – fuel supply. While 16lb injectors come stock on the 2.8-3.4L engine, they are only capable of supplying the engine with enough fuel for a max of 160 hp. (sound familiar?) After you go past 160 hp, the injectors begin to become less and less efficient, costing the driver more in terms of gas mileage and not really working to their full potential. Putting larger injectors helps a good deal.

All this said, it seems to be that the 3.4L engine is a stout powerplant with untapped potential. I proved this when I bolted the aluminum heads to the block itself. Using a stock 3.4L RWD engine block I mated the Gen III aluminum heads and 3100 intake (1996 model year) along with the fuel rails and larger injectors, the stock 3400 throttle body (50mm, just like the RWD stock tb) and adding RKSport headers (due to the fact that nothing else fit that would work in the RWD engine bay, pacesetter headers would work just as well) I realized a gain in the form of 27RWHP and 30RWTQ. (thats from 140rwhp -> 167rwhp and 183rwtq -> 203 rwtq). Once I took the cutout plate off to open the exhaust fully, it gave me another 3 horsepower and 3 torque (both rearwheel) taking me to 170RWHP and 207RWTQ. That’s a 30 RWHP gain and 24 RWTQ gain. Factor in 15% drivetrain loss and that comes to 200 horsepower at the engine. Now when I started, stock engine save for the 3” catback exhaust and K&N FIPK – I had dynoed at 140RWHP and 183RWTQ – that’s 164 HP and 215 TQ at the crank. Just updating the heads and intake from the restrictive version that GM put on there in 1993-1995 to the ones they were currently using in 1996 gave me an increase of 36 hp and 30 tq (170rw=>200c / 207rw=>245c) over what came from the factory. Then I decided to upgrade to the “3400” parts. I made sure I got a set of heads used on the 1999+ Grand Am GT, which featured bigger valves and roller rocker arms built in, as well as larger runners and ports on the plenum as well as an increased plenum size. I still haven’t dynoed the current setup that I’m running, but it’s enough that to date I have beaten a 1996 Convertible Z28 that was going all out to catch up to me and couldn’t until I decided to let off the gas a little. A 3.4L with parts from GM’s factory shelves, complete with casting flaws – keeping the car from being caught by a stock 1996 Z28. To me that’s a major achievement. I can get the owner of the Z28 to come on here and back me up if you need proof, I’m sure he would help me out. He’s one of the members of my car club.

I guess the point of all this is that I’m tired of people giving up on this engine. Its got a lot of potential but it is a challenge. You can’t just slap parts on it like you can with the V8. Even the 3.8 is a challenge but the 3.4 has so many design flaws that it comes across as a failure when it simply needs to be “woken up”. I’m tired of hearing that making the 3.4L perform is impossible – it isn’t. If it was then neither myself or Tiago would have gotten any results from our testing and working so hard. It is a challenge though. And it’s not an easy one at that. Lots of time and effort have to be put into it. So if you think you are up to the challenge of making something cool and custom, then stay with the 3.4 and realize your own personalized car at the end. If you want an easy way out, sell your car and buy a V8. I really don’t care either way. But sooner or later everyone will realize that the 3.4 isn’t as bad as they think. If GM had put a little more thought into the 3.4L like they did with the 3800 Series II – then the 3.4 would have been rated in the top 10 engines of all time. 200 hp is achievable in “stock” form. I’ve done it. Can you?




What I got from this is that i'd need upper and lower intake manifolds off of a 1996+ 3100 engine or 3400 engine, and the upper intake manifold is the same thing as a plenum...

As well as the throttle body and fuel rail with injectors.


Questions: How exactly would this fit under the hood, I'm guessing sideways (standing at the passenger front wheel looking across the engine bay and being able to read the 3100 or 3400)but i'm not sure.




PICTURES DIDNT SHOW UP...JUST GOOGLE 3400 ENGINE BAY AND 3.4 ENGINE BAY
__________________

__________________

Last edited by 95birdiev6; 05-28-2012 at 08:48 PM.
95birdiev6 is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 07:34 PM   #2
The "Senior" Member
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
NavyVet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 15,916
Thanks: 36
Thanked 990 Times in 892 Posts
Garage
A stock 96 Z28 can't catch a 200 hp V-6.
Sounds a little fishy to me.
__________________

__________________

96 T/A, Black/Graphite Leather, T-Tops, 6 speed, 10 speaker Delco/Bose "Monsoon"
Original owner, 193k miles and counting.
Total engine rebuild at 187,020 miles. AIR delete, bored .030 over.
Comp cams Xtreme Energy LT1 266HR-14 street cam and springs.
Custom leather interior at 190k miles.
In the paint shop now.
NavyVet is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 07:47 PM   #3
Member
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 157
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Then I decided to upgrade to the 3400 parts. I made sure I got a set of heads used on the 1999+ Grand Am GT, which featured bigger valves and roller rocker arms built in, as well as larger runners and ports on the plenum as well as an increased plenum size

No numbers were given after this was explained, and their could've been bolt on parts also, maybe not discussed. Just trying to figure this out....
__________________
95birdiev6 is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 07:59 PM   #4
CZ's Audio Yoda
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Ercmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: River Valley
Posts: 9,218
Thanks: 40
Thanked 425 Times in 395 Posts
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by NavyVet
A stock 96 Z28 can't catch a 200 hp V-6.
Sounds a little fishy to me.
Ya, no doubt!!! Agreed!! Especially since an LT1 still has about 75% more torque than his wannabe performance add on's.
__________________

2001 Camaro SS LS1
T56
"Concert Hall On Wheels"
"It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it"
http://www.camarozone.com/forum/f18/erics-01-ss-
mod-thread-178452/
http://www.camarozone.com/forum/f27/...m-poll-180546/

Last edited by Ercmann; 05-28-2012 at 08:06 PM.
Ercmann is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 08:21 PM   #5
Member
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 157
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 95birdiev6
Then I decided to upgrade to the “3400” parts. I made sure I got a set of heads used on the 1999+ Grand Am GT, which featured bigger valves and roller rocker arms built in, as well as larger runners and ports on the plenum as well as an increased plenum size

No numbers were given after this was explained, and their could've been bolt on parts also, maybe not discussed. Just trying to figure this out....
...no doubt 200hp will not outrun a z28 but if what is listed is true, this car isnt/wasnt making 200hp.
__________________
95birdiev6 is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 08:27 PM   #6
New Member
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7
Thanks: 8
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I have a 93 Camaro, so basically i need heads from a 1999 or later grand am gt, and and some bigger injectors is that all that your saying or is there more to it and if so explain more please cause i would really like to understand everything before i start trying to make my 3.4 a little faster, cause i know what you mean man they really are the laughing stock of the v6's and i don't wanna give up on it so please reply thanks
Dave
__________________
camarodave63 is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 08:31 PM   #7
CZ's Audio Yoda
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Ercmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: River Valley
Posts: 9,218
Thanks: 40
Thanked 425 Times in 395 Posts
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by 95birdiev6

...no doubt 200hp will not outrun a z28 but if what is listed is true, this car isnt/wasnt making 200hp.
Dyno's don't lie.... U can throw whatever u want at 3.4 laughing stock, no 3.4L performance parts in the world is gonna out run a stock LT1, not naturally aspirated. A naturally aspirated 3.4L cant flow enough air. It Would have to be super or turbo charged.
__________________

2001 Camaro SS LS1
T56
"Concert Hall On Wheels"
"It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it"
http://www.camarozone.com/forum/f18/erics-01-ss-
mod-thread-178452/
http://www.camarozone.com/forum/f27/...m-poll-180546/

Last edited by Ercmann; 05-28-2012 at 08:41 PM.
Ercmann is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 08:33 PM   #8
Token Firebird Owner
Feedback Score: 7 reviews
 
ZexGX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: All Over Southern California
Posts: 9,520
Thanks: 1,170
Thanked 509 Times in 402 Posts
They are the laughing stock of the V6's because the guy did:
Heads
Intake Manifold
Fuel rails + injectors
Throttle body
Headers
and after ALL of that money, time, and effort spent, was at the performance level of a bone stock 95-99 3.8L V6 on cast iron log manifolds... Which means it is hardly a performance car, since those are slower than many minivans and econobox family sedans nowadays.
__________________

I've got my D1SC in a box.

Last edited by ZexGX; 05-28-2012 at 08:35 PM.
ZexGX is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 08:38 PM   #9
Member
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 157
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
mhm...dynos dont lie.
__________________
95birdiev6 is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 08:38 PM   #10
Addicted Member
Feedback Score: 4 reviews
 
Michaelrulaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: DeBary, Florida, United States
Posts: 5,107
Thanks: 70
Thanked 128 Times in 109 Posts
I can't believe I real that whole thing. Next time skip the story and cut to the chase. Ill admit you did your homework but why not a v8 swap, its quicker and gets lots more power
__________________
Current Vehicles:
97 Camaro RS
85 Camaro IROC-Z
Kawasaki Ninja500
150cc Scooter


Quote:
Originally Posted by Camarojuana View Post
oh! And some tacky mother****er with a green 05 or 06 V6 Stang on some 22's" on the corner of my block. **** that dude.
Michaelrulaz is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 08:47 PM   #11
Member
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 157
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well...the whole idea and reason for the post has been misunderstood. Sooo....EDIT!
__________________
95birdiev6 is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 08:54 PM   #12
CZ's Audio Yoda
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Ercmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: River Valley
Posts: 9,218
Thanks: 40
Thanked 425 Times in 395 Posts
Garage
No it hasn't been misunderstood... U want 3.4L haters to stop hatin and it's not gonna happen. All of those little V6's (2.8, 3.1, 3.4 ) are laughing stocks. They are a joke to even be considered to be put in our cars. and the 3.8L is not too far from a laughing stock, at least it puts out 200hp in stock form.
__________________

2001 Camaro SS LS1
T56
"Concert Hall On Wheels"
"It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it"
http://www.camarozone.com/forum/f18/erics-01-ss-
mod-thread-178452/
http://www.camarozone.com/forum/f27/...m-poll-180546/
Ercmann is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 09:00 PM   #13
Veteran Member
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 1,160
Thanks: 14
Thanked 32 Times in 26 Posts
Sorry to the v6 guys on this one, but... im a firm believer that f-bodies should have only had v8 options. Its supposed to be a sports/muscle car. Not a v6 economy car.

Sent from my PHOTON using CamaroZone
__________________
Blank94z28 is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 09:07 PM   #14
Member
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 157
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well...first of all if you hate v6s, so be it. What was actually asked in the orginal post was how would it fit in the engine bay. I was not questioning horsepower/torque whats best for my buck. Just was looking for a single answer. Everyone seems to get caught up in your own opinions. You have em, great, i've got opinions too....but your opinions do not answer simple questions. I was looking for advice and knowledge on this matter. Not opinions, if someone post a question, simply post an answer no need to get carried away with nonsense. There are very few of those on this site who do exactly that.
__________________
95birdiev6 is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 09:10 PM   #15
CZ's Audio Yoda
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Ercmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: River Valley
Posts: 9,218
Thanks: 40
Thanked 425 Times in 395 Posts
Garage
What was the question? I guess I missed that part ? How would the motor fit in the engine bay? Must've been the pix that didn't work
__________________

2001 Camaro SS LS1
T56
"Concert Hall On Wheels"
"It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it"
http://www.camarozone.com/forum/f18/erics-01-ss-
mod-thread-178452/
http://www.camarozone.com/forum/f27/...m-poll-180546/

Last edited by Ercmann; 05-28-2012 at 09:11 PM.
Ercmann is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 09:17 PM   #16
Member
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 157
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
That was the question yes, it was in bold just above where I had mentioned the pictures. No worries though. I'll hunt for an answer myself, thank you though.
__________________
95birdiev6 is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 10:04 PM   #17
The "Senior" Member
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
NavyVet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 15,916
Thanks: 36
Thanked 990 Times in 892 Posts
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by 95birdiev6 View Post
That was the question yes, it was in bold just above where I had mentioned the pictures. No worries though. I'll hunt for an answer myself, thank you though.
Dude, I can tow that V-6 faster than it will go by itself.
__________________

96 T/A, Black/Graphite Leather, T-Tops, 6 speed, 10 speaker Delco/Bose "Monsoon"
Original owner, 193k miles and counting.
Total engine rebuild at 187,020 miles. AIR delete, bored .030 over.
Comp cams Xtreme Energy LT1 266HR-14 street cam and springs.
Custom leather interior at 190k miles.
In the paint shop now.
NavyVet is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to NavyVet For This Useful Post:
Old 05-28-2012, 10:06 PM   #18
Token Firebird Owner
Feedback Score: 7 reviews
 
ZexGX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: All Over Southern California
Posts: 9,520
Thanks: 1,170
Thanked 509 Times in 402 Posts
I'm pretty sure the answer is "it will fit just fine" considering the guy already did it...
__________________

I've got my D1SC in a box.
ZexGX is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 11:08 PM   #19
LS Swap It Brah!
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
AmorPatriae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paradise, Florida
Posts: 4,684
Thanks: 87
Thanked 169 Times in 122 Posts
Garage
Lol. I'm sad I missed out on this one.
__________________

96 LS1/T56
07 Yamaha R1
96 LS1 Swap Write Up
COM March 2013
AmorPatriae is offline  
Old 05-28-2012, 11:16 PM   #20
CZ Supporter
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DavesWS6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Johnsburg, IL
Posts: 1,208
Thanks: 56
Thanked 72 Times in 44 Posts
Garage
I'm not.
__________________

__________________

1997 Pontiac Trans Am WS6 - F-Body of the Month April 2012
2006 GMC Envoy SLT 4x4 (Daily Driver)
2006 Honda Civic Ex (Wife's Daily Driver)
1973 Triumph TR6 (project car)
2008 Chevy Silverado 2500HD (Farm Truck)

"It's a never ending battle of making your cars better and also trying to be better yourself." ~Dale Earnhardt
DavesWS6 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
would anyone like to make me a new sig? 99camarogirl Photoshop and Editing 0 09-12-2011 11:17 PM
How much power would this make..? 96z 4th Gen (1998-02) Camaro and Firebird Tech 5 03-22-2011 11:05 PM
this will make you cry bigbludavid Pictures and Videos 15 01-27-2009 02:40 PM


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright © CamaroZone.com

CamaroZone.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by General Motors or Chevrolet.

Camaro News Delivered to your Email!

Get the latest Camaro news straight to your inbox!

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]