Camaro_nut

Of course! A higher stall speed and a GOOD shift kit
( TRANS GO ONLY! Everything else is junk!)
all this will help better track times. I would recommend
a complete rebuild of the trans, if it's all original. Might
as well, while it's apart! Cause with a higher stall converter
and shift kit in an old high mileage 700R4 will most likely
break down sooner than later.

kretos

i always think a standard is a better way to go , but with a nice stall and a good shift kit (with full rebuilt tranny) would be as close as you could get, but if you choose this path over a t-5 , it might not be cheaper.

around here a 700r4 rebuild is $2000
stall converter is easily $500 more
shift kit another $500
then labour

you get the idea

AM91Camaro_RS

stall convertor can be had for $200-300.
shift kit is under $200 for the trans go
yes, then installation charges if you have it all done.

Jerriko 3.4

I don't mean to shamelessly post this but there isn't a for sale section on this board. I just got a 91 Formula with a T5 WC. I will be selling the complete T5 conversion as one package. The only thing that will not work with the V6 cars are the flywheel, clutch and bellhousing.

kretos

yeah i was calculating the costs of install and such

kretos

tgo has a great classifieds section, its on the main page

rx7speed

customer cai not going to gain you much
turbo cat back will help a little and even better if you remove the cats
180* thermo not going to help much
accel cap/rotor not going to be much of an improvement
the cat is going to help a bit then the stock pos cat

the auto is going to kill you
I give you a high 16 at best

mightymaro94

DUDE I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE THINKIN EDELBROCK HAS A WHOLE LINE OF PRODUCTS FOR THAT LITTLE MICRO MACHINE MOTOR OF YOURS, THAT WILL SURELY GET YOU INTO THE 15'S NOT SAYIN YOU WONT HAVE TO CHANGE DISTR. AND MAKE IT A CARBED 4 BBL ENGINE, WITH A CAM SWAP, CAMS ARE SO WORTH IT THO, EASY SWAP AND NO ONE CAN REALLY TELL WHAT YOUR ARE RUNNIN

Doward

3.1 + auto = 16.8/16.9, stock, so I'll say 16.5-16.6

ChrisFormula355

NITROUS, and MORE nitrous If the little 4 bangers with half the displacement can break 13's, I'm sure you could break 15s.

ChrisFormula355

NO WAY. Are you telling me the 3.1 auto cars are faster than the L03 V8 auto cars, because thats what the LO3s are running down here in Tucson. Perhaps with low altitude you could squeeze a 17 out of it, but no way 16s. My turd-bird ran a 16.5@84 back in the LO3 5 speed days.

My bro's 2.8 liter V6 corsica (same motor except for diplacement) ran a mind blowing 18.9 @70 with a car that weighs probably 600 pounds less.

AM91Camaro_RS

same motor except for displacement... if its a 2.8, its got the same displacement. the corsica would be FWD but its still a 2.8.

ChrisFormula355

2.8=3.1 How's that?

AM91Camaro_RS

i was thinking that there are 2.8 camaros too. i forgot about doward giving times on the 3.1s. still, 2.8 camaros normally run quicker than 18.9s.

ChrisFormula355

btw, 15.1 @88 is AWESOME for a V6, I'm impressed. Is that all motor? Major cam/heads? what did you do?

AM91Camaro_RS

thanks. actually, i'm a little dissapointed, i'm looking for high 14s out of it. yes, that's all motor. pretty big cam and a little port work done, high compression,... i'm working on a new intake manifold and throttle body for it now, i think i can unleash a few more ponies with the new intake setup. i think i have hit the limit of the stock intake.

Doward

Stock 3.1 + Stock T5 = 16.7 @79.58 on a 2.116 60'

Yes, a 3.1 / T5 is quicker than a stock LO3/A4. An automatic should be right behind there - 16.9ish

Doward

Also, 2.8 + T5, stock, runs a 17.071

ChrisFormula355

Uh, sorry, but NO.


3.1L=140hp@4400 185tq@3600 < 5.0l 170hp@4000 255tq@2400

Thats 30 HP and more than 70 ft/lb of torque advantage in the same car. How exactly is it going to run faster? Seems like simple math to me.

Doward

2950 lbs car vs 3400lbs car. Also - meant for that to be a 3.1/T5 > LO3/A4

Doward

While we're at it, let's also remember to factor in the gearing - 2.73s on the 305, vs 3.23s on the 3.1/A4, and 3.42s on the 3.1/T5

TomP

Well I ran a 16.87 on my 2.8 with a slipping trans back in 1996, Chris, and all I had was a Dynomax catback. So I guess that would've put me in for tieing a race with those Tuscan L03's!

Then over 100,000 miles later, in 2000, I could only get as fast as 17.1, but I need to rebuild. I'd hate to see what I run now (yikes, over 272,000 miles on the motor so far)!

Doward, ya beat me to it on the gearing! V8 would probably win a long, extended race (like 2 mile instead of 1/4 mile), but the V6 will get the jump outta the hole. So there's really no "Simple math" just based on horsepower/torque!

ChrisFormula355

Just thought I'd add that our track here in "tuscan" is 3,200 feet, usually with density altitudes in the 4-6K feet range, so our Lo3 auto cars that were running mid 16's would actually qualify for high 15's at sea level. If a 3.1 auto can run that, then you've sure got ME fooled. Sergio owns a 3.1 auto camaro and I ride in that thing all the time, no way in hell is it gonna own anything with V8 power unless we're talking a 4,000 boat anchor type family car.

ChrisFormula355

Uh, actually, my firebird was originally an Lo3 and it had 3.08 gears, which worked quite nicely with the torque and 5 speed.

And how exactly does a V6 car weigh 450 less?? A v6 is at most 150 lighter than a 305, and the rest of the car is pretty much the same. Where do you come up with 450? When I weighed my firebird when it was stock, it weighed 3,300.

Seriously though, why in the heck would GM even offer the LO3 engine option if a V6 was faster and better on gas?? I think its basic math: more power+more torque at every point on the graph=faster. 100-200 pounds is not going to make up for a 70 ft/lbs torque loss.

And apparantely I'm not the only one who see's this as ludicrous:

https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=270549

Doward

240lbs difference in the motors.
4.6lbs difference in the A/C
101.9lbs difference in the transmission (T5 vs 700r4)
7lbs difference if you have power locks/doors
5.3 lbs difference if you have cruise control.


Ok, more like 358.8 lbs difference between my V6 and your average 305TBI. about 390lbs difference, if that 305 TBI has TTops

Considering 10lbs = 1 hp, that's between a 35.8 and 39 equivalent hp difference. 175.8-179 hp vs 170. ON TOP OF THE GEARING DIFFERENCE. Anyone here will attest to the difference 2.73s vs 3.23s can make.

And do we also need to factor in the fact that the T5 will always put a higher percentage of power to the ground?

Yeah, post that a V6 beat a V8, on the TBI forums. No offense man, but most the guys on there would claim I still couldn't outrun an LO3, even with the turbo. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there, that swear that no V6 can outrun any V8.

Reminds me of a lot of the "OMG NOTHING CAN BEAT TEH HONDA!!!"

Of course, the good question is, why am I even bothering to argue this? I, in a stock 3.1/T5, outran a slightly modded 2.73 equipped automatic 305 TBI.

There's your proof.

ChrisFormula355

Is this another one of those races from 45-80 like the one posted in your sig where the driver didn't even know he was supposed to be racing you until the race had already begun? Do yourself a favor and remove that nonsense from you sig. A KILL is a no-nonsense 1/4 mile beating.

Anyways, you're right about posting on the TBi board, which is just the same as V6 guys posting on the V6 board that a V6 is faster, of course everybody is going to agree that it is.


So I guess you're right, GM intended for the lower output, lower option, smaller engine car to be faster Makes perfect sense!:lala: :lala:

TBI board guys are right, arguing about 17 seconds cars is retarded, hell, even my girlfriend 4,200 pound barge 9C1 caprice runs mid 15s

Doward

1) LS1 had the jump. Since you don't understand that, HE hit the gas first, then I followed suit. Jump = first move. He had that, and got held off. He let off @ 80mph, with me still in the lead. Get over it.

2) Obviously, you don't know how to read, as I posted that in the TBI forum. I ran a 16.7 @ 80mph vs his 16.9 @ 82 mph. Yes, he has more power. I still won. I crossed the line before him. That = a win in any drag race.

And you're right. Obviously, GM never intended the 60º V6 to be any kind of power plant.

http://www.gmgoodwrench.com/perfpart...297&section=ep

Jerriko 3.4

When I had the 2.8L in my car, the best run out of it I got was a 15.67@85ish (or something like that) and that was on motor. The car had a beefed up 700R4, the suspension was perfect and there was a good amount of weight reduction. The only reason why I ran the 2.8 was because all of the mods I was doing were going to transfer over to the 3.4L. I just really tired of v6 haters coming on here siting GM's infinite wisedom as to how GM would never make a V8 slower than a V6. GM didn't intend anything. I am really sure they lost a lot of sleep over the stock performance of a V6 and TBI 305. ChrisFormula, get a life.

redraif

Ok here is one for you...
Mine: 3.4 with auto, shift kit, stall convertor, and 3.73 gears
Weight: 3555 without me in it... (heavy)

Dyno...
Max Power = 134.1 @ rear wheels (+20%) = 160.92hp @ the fly wheel
Max Torque = 207.4 @ rear wheels (+20%) = 248.88ft-lbs @ the fly wheel

Runs 16.8 in the 1/4...no traction and tranny hanging up...hitting rev limiter about 3/4 way down track...not tuned...

*************
AM91Camaro_RS: 3.1, auto, not sure on gears...
Weight: stock

143hp and 165tq. (dynojet calibration might have been off)

Best: 1/4 15.13@88mph

**************
AM has 9hp on me...
I have 42 torque on him...

Now how is it that his car has a 1.67 second faster 1/4 mile time....thats a pretty serious difference in our 1/4 mile times & dyno times. I think weight is playing a huge factor! My car is so much heavier then stock!

Doward

General rule of thumb -

Loosing 10lbs = gaining 1hp.

Lose 500 lbs = gain 50hp.

redraif

Just thought of something to get a better idea what the car was running that day...I think the tranny problem was after the 1/8 mile mark, so I can use the NHRA sactioned conversion to take an 1/8 mile time and calculate a 1/4 mile...

If I take the best 1/8 mile time from the timeslips that day...
multiply my best 1/8 mile time(10.64) by 1.538...
that will give me the approx 1/4 mile time.
so that is 16.36 in the 1/4 mile

FbodTrek

Dang Redraif, I like that conversion MUCH better than the one I've been using (1/8 mile X 1.57). That puts me at a 15.39...:rockon: Where did you find that info Raif?

redraif

Its the conversion Joe said he was told...think its the right one

FbodTrek

Mkaes me happy, I just droped 4 tenths without making a pass (j/k).