Coult_91

well you might be on to something there the car was beat to crap before i got it but for $400 i dont care....it was worth it ! i have been hook on birds since..... it was still fun as hell doing burnouts in it.... people thought it was fast!

transram88

I'll race wrecked!

transram88

Basically what your trying to say is.....all V6's are lemons?.. as for the added weight of T-Tops???? steel vs plexiglass?? oh wait....the plastic latches... my bad

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

the reinforcements on the roof plus the fact that the majority of ttop cars have GLASS tops makes for about a 100lbs. heavier car than hardtops.

camaro69_91RS

Just had to add , the V6 birds and camaro are still pretty much faster than alot of civics and other little 4cyl cars. unless their turbo or have alot of mods you can take them... as far as a mustang , only if its a 80's v6 stang do you have a chance

~87Bird~2.8~

my honda accord has way more get up and go then my 2.8 5spd firebird...but my top end on my firbird is awsome...when u get there...haha..still wouldent trade my firebird for any honda any were!!!

Coult_91

yea those 50 lb a peice ttops get heavy.... no no no no maybe 50lb total not a hundred and that is for the glass ones... V6+firebird = slow........
V6+turbo+trans am = really fast
trans am + Mini Van = bad mojo for T/R88

AdmAnt13

If past experience has taught me anything then you would lose.

rx7speed

the weight isn't all in the t-tops themself

just like convertables a lot of times they are heavier

and yeah it doesn't make sense
UNTIL YOU THINK ABOUT IT
the roof of a car makes for a great support piece even more so being it boxes things up
when you weaken the roof though you are able to induce flex and so to fix that you have to stiffen the chassis in other places problem is putting the support on the rear and sides of the car takes a lot more meat then having a top



I know with the rx7's the N/A hardtops can be around 2625-2750lbs
the converts we are talking 2900-3000lbs

all because that roof being gone means you need a LOT MORE stiffening to make up for it

transram88

GreyFox

i think i saw on tv the other day for every 100lbs you need an additional 15hp to get the same rate

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

i don't know about all that, but i do know that every 100lbs. you take off your car is equal to roughly .1 second decrease in 1/4 mile time.

FirebirdNYC

get your lil cousin that barelly weighs 100 to take your car down the strip

pvt num 11

Yup, turbo+trans am=fast. If I was in charge of PMD back when the third-gens were being designed, I would've mandated that a turbo V6 would've been an engine option from 1985 all the way up until 1992. Working with Buick, better and better turbo V6's would've been built (not to mention MORE OF THEM), and the Corvette can go cry itself to sleep for all I care.

The LHO is a stout little motor, don't get me wrong, but you're delerious if you think you can take on a healthy V8 car and win against it. Unless you have killer mods, that is. That or bracket racing.

TransAmMike

i never had dreams of beating a healthy v8 with a v6. more like dreams of miracles like the engine blowing up. haha

AdmAnt13

haha, yeh that would be nice

camaro69_91RS

My reply to people who want to race me is lets go , ill be right back then show up with my 69 camaro yet to be beat tho lol. But just to comment on the 3.1 VS 305 thing. I think it depends on the driver. Have a friend here with a 91 RS 305 and i have a 3.1 "both auto ". Raced him a few times and ive beat him everytime. Not by alot but still beat him. But i got in his car and beat him with him driving in mine so. i think the 305 has alittle more power and can beat the v6 if the right persons driving but the 305's are also heavier so makes up for alittle bit. V8 still faster than the V6... just the pos 305 stock sucks lol. Oh and just to clear up both our cars are stock with the exception of exhaust systems. Just a work car. If i wanted it to be fast id get a LS1 and stuff in the little rs

AM91Camaro_RS

as far as never beating a v8 mustang...i've beat 3 of them, at the drag strip. no, they weren't sitting there spinning, either! ...i've heard that one plenty of times. i have beat 305 camaros. i have beat my friend's '01 v6 stang (someone said the v6 camaros might only be able to beat an 80s v6 stang...). on the street, i smoked my buddy's LT1 camaro when it was stock. that one was because of tire spin but i was too far out on him for him to catch me once he hooked. i know how to drive my car and that's what helps me to beat lots of these "unbeatable" cars.

Azrael91966669

the point was you a stock fbody v6 isnt going to beat a 5.0 mustang
my other point was ive raced older Z28s "and im not talking tpi here" and won
and ive also beat v8 Rs's
and ive also lost a few got spanked by a saturn ion redline lol
my iroc smokes my Rs

i have done very little to the engine compartment other then mass cleaning and a dual snorkle intake
other then that my Rs atm is stock other then apperance
the point of getting the Rs was to be able to drive my car everyday and save on gas but still have the look of the iroc

Powerage90

Hi, my name is Tim, just found this site tonight...

I have a 1990 Firebird with a stock 3.1 After 130,000 miles it still runs pretty strong. Other than a K&N air filter, no mods. It will get up and go. I've had this car for about 5 years, it's my 3rd Gen 3, I had a '86 base Camaro I bought in '88, I ran it into the ground and back a few times, this car refused to die...except for the radiator and water pump. I then bought a '91 Firebird, all power, t-tops, and got hooked on the tops. I did not really care it for the care all that much though. Got a 1990 instead, handle windows, ground effects, t-tops...great car, I plan on holding on to it. I'll post a few pics tomorrow.

I just found this site tonight, surfed in from Google, the other sites were good, this one is 100 times better.

rx7speed

welcome aboard powerage you shoud like this site just fine. lots of ppl here to help out and learn from as well as lots of people you can give a helping hand to

Powerage90

Thanks rx7. I'm here to learn, I don't think I can help to many people out though

ScrapMaker

erm... 3.1 v6's get in the ballpark of 17-18 second 1/4 mile runs...

a civic gets low 16's typically...

my friend's 2.3 ford ranger can almost beat me...

all that in mind, I'd still rather have a 4cyl firebird, than a 4cyl r!cer.

Doward

2.8/M5 = 17.071 STOCK.
3.1/M5 = 16.7ish
3.1/A4 = 16.8ish

ScrapMaker

that is VERY optimistic...

the fastest I've ever seen a stock 3.1mpfi auto go is 17.4

7plagues

iTrader: (1)

no they arent. i ran a 16.9 spinning off the line with bald tires. i had a best 60 of 2.5 lol.

ScrapMaker

did you put magic tablets in the gas tank?

my de-tuned, 100k motor ran 17.7 or so... I bet my brand new, fully-tuned 3.1 will still only run 17.0 or so... just from the 'feeling' of how much power I have gained.

ScrapMaker

also, sometimes spinning your tires in a v6 can help you... because the engine gets to it's power band quicker, rather than bogging through the first 2500rpms...

kinda like a high-stall torque converter...

clearly a good Torque converter would be the wiser choice

Coult_91

You are right that is funny! lol 16.9....if its true please show us your track slip! ... then i ll believe ya!

Coult_91

ScrapMaker

I bet 17.0 is as fast as a the v6 3.1 would have ever gone, the day you brought it home from the dealership back in 1992...

of course there are *expensive* ways of making it almost as fast as a stock 305, or a 350...

turbo = expensive

Doward, are we still looking at the ballpark of $2,000 for your kit?

AM91Camaro_RS

I can see a 16.9 being possible. I don't consider my motor to be expensive and its probably gonna be doing atleast 14.8s before much longer...N/A.

ScrapMaker

well how much money have you put in, rather... how much SHOULD it have cost you, if you got any parts for free, that is...

typically it's always more expensive to crank the ponies out of the v6's... and friggin' dirt cheap to get them out of the v8s...

man I screwed up big... I got my v6 three years ago, and at the time, the price difference between a 6 and an 8(350) was like $500...

I was just in too much of a hurry to get a car that I didn't even care what it was, (internally)... it just looked sweet.

Doward

I ran a documented 17.071 @ 79.58 mph on my 2.8L motor, 98k miles on the clock, STOCK. I posted the timeslip way back when - search, it should still be there.

I popped the 3.1L in, with the MTC-5 cam, and came away with a best of 16.4 @ 81.32 mph. I don't think I ever uploaded that timeslip, though...

Yes, a stock 3.1L stick shift will run a 16.7-16.8. A stock 3.1L automatic runs a 16.9-17.0

If you are running any slower than that, then either a) work on your driving, or b) DO A TUNE UP!

ScrapMaker

so Doward, what's your consistent quarter mile with the turbo 3.1?

no point in bickering over the difference between a crappy 16.5 and a crappy 17.5...

last I heard you were 14'ish? but that was a while back, and may have been on your destroyed 2.8...

TomP

My first time to the track gave me a 16.87 in the quarter. A couple hundred thousand miles later, fastest I could get was a 17.1. I'm sure my timeslip chart could be found thru a search of the v6 forum, too.

I'm surprised this post hasn't been locked yet; seems like it turned into a V8 vs V6 argument. Only way to find out stock versus stock is to find some collector who has a 3.1 with 20 miles on the odometer, and a 305 with 20 miles on the odometer, and race them.

Otherwise it's all bench racing as far as "stock" goes.

ScrapMaker

if I get my tranny rebuilt, I'll have a totally original stock setup...

with like 5,000 miles or less... I can't remember the exact mileage when I had it rebuilt.

mustbeatmopar

mid 17s sounds about right. i estimated mine at about 18. (lots of miles)

devianb

Id like to think my car would do a 16.9 but reality probably does 18s. If my car could get into the 15s one way or another I would be satisfied. Right now as long as its running its all good.

7plagues

iTrader: (1)

Wow... for some reason I've lost my time slip of 16.9. but seeing all these ignorant people on this board makes me laugh. your right im not gonna bicker over a few tenths of a second but here is the only time slip i could find. this one was with my girlfriend in the car. so my 60 was a little better. and my time was slower

There you go. that was my first run of the night so my reaction was crap. let the bs calling commence. im goin to the track later this month so ill post up a better slip.wow....

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

i ran consistent 16.7's in a 2.8 car with a dynomax catback, a 2500stall converter and a powertrax locker. other wise, it was bone stock.

ScrapMaker

that sure is a lot of money for a 0.3 1/4 mile gain!

7plagues

iTrader: (1)

...right im goin to the track in a few weeks and all i have now changed from the time i was at the track and ran a 16.9 is about 6k in miles (now have 105,000) and a slp take off. so we'll see how i fair. and i dont think he was fishing for your comments or rude remarks scrapmaker, he was simply say that he has run this time providing further evidence that these cars do run into the 16s!!!!! not that thats fast by anymeans.

ScrapMaker

if stating the obvious truth is a rude remark to you, then you're living in the wrong century, my friend.

7plagues

iTrader: (1)

you have no idea what he spent on those parts. you can only go off "new" prices. and that could of and probably did pick up alot more than .3tenths in the quarter.

ScrapMaker

no offense, but if he bought those parts solely for a speed increase then it wasn't worth it, in *my opinion*... but if he really enjoys that (0.3-0.5) 1/4-Mile increase... then by all means, he's welcome to, and I encourage him, or anyone else for that matter, to do what makes them happy.

You're right, I don't know how much those parts cost him, but I am assuming $500+... probably much, much more, but I don't know... nor does it matter if he's content.

it would, however, make much more sense if his converter was bad, so he replaced it with a better one... in cases like that, why not?

AM91Camaro_RS

I think you all might be talking about someone else's money into their V6. But, I think someone did ask me about how much I had spent on my motor. When I originally built the motor, I figured that I had around $700 in it. That's including the gasket kit, the bearings, rings... I had to buy all of them seperately...the parts store couldn't manage to get the whole kit then way I needed it. Now, with the new intake, and all of the other things I've put in it along the way, I'm guessing I might have a grand total of about $1,200 or so in the motor....that's tops. That includes another complete rebuild at the beginning of last year cause I thought it had internal problems, turned out it was okay. So, I just dropped the fresh motor in it. And, I've got spare parts sitting around that I got while I was building this motor, Doward bought my old motor from me. So, I've made back some of that money anyways. My whole car, including the pearl paint job, I would say I have about $3k in it, maybe... I don't consider that to be that bad for a N/A 3.1 capable of running 14s with a nice paint job and custom seats (original seats...custom color scheme).

2 second increase in the quarter....I like it.

ScrapMaker

I read your post... 14's? But I read the 14.97

AM91Camaro_RS

That's why I said capable of 14s. Yes, 14.97 is the best pass to date. But, head porting is in the works right now, new headers will be on their way, shortly. So, before too long, especially with tuning, I'm really looking for *atleast* another .1 in the 1/4.

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

well, the converter that i had in the car originally was trashed, so we put a 2500 stall converter in it. the dynomax catback is a must cause it sounded good. the car ran 17.5's before those, so i'd say a .8 second decrease in 1/4 mile time is DAMN respectable. however, i wasn't content, look in sig...