0-60?
08-02-2010, 09:00 AM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
0-60?
Ok, I have a 2.8. I'm just wondering why people say these cars are slow. I'm working on mine but everyone said I should sell it.
Why can a l4 can pull 0-60 in under 3 seconds (Honda K20) but everyone tells me this v6 is a waste of time.
I'm not interested in horsepower, just torque. What do you guys suggest I do to my 2.8?
Why can a l4 can pull 0-60 in under 3 seconds (Honda K20) but everyone tells me this v6 is a waste of time.
I'm not interested in horsepower, just torque. What do you guys suggest I do to my 2.8?
08-02-2010, 10:14 AM
#2
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: right behind you
Posts: 2,574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: '85 maro
Engine: In the works...
Transmission: TH700 R4
Axle/Gears: 3.73 posi
Re: 0-60?
Mill the 2.8 piston crowns down .165" and put in a 3.1 crank. Should give you about 10:1 compression & the longer stroke will improve low end torq. Full length headers & better gears will also help torq.
08-02-2010, 11:24 AM
#3
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Utah
Posts: 10,401
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 89 RS 89 iroc 87 firebird
Engine: 3.1 Turbo/ 355 twin turbo
Transmission: a4 w/ 4500 stall/ a4 / t5
Axle/Gears: strange s60 /w 3:42's
Re: 0-60?
i do belive the safe limit on the 2.8 pistons is .125 id have to check my thread on 60*v6.com but i actually cut apart stock pistons to measure the thickness and have a bunch of info and pics posted
08-02-2010, 01:01 PM
#4
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 0-60?
Also, anyone know where I can get some full length headers?
Last edited by FunkyPup; 08-02-2010 at 01:11 PM.
08-02-2010, 01:55 PM
#5
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 0-60?
I asked this on yahoo answers, and someone said supercharge it. I trust you guys better. What do you all think of this idea and how hard is it to do/find one for it?
08-02-2010, 05:29 PM
#6
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: right behind you
Posts: 2,574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: '85 maro
Engine: In the works...
Transmission: TH700 R4
Axle/Gears: 3.73 posi
Re: 0-60?
Sorry, I mean .133", that'll give you 10.4:1 compression. Here's what someone over in germany did. Noone sells direct fit full length headers, but heddman s-10 headers will fit with a little bending.
08-03-2010, 02:53 AM
#7
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 0-60?
Alright! I'm not going to start for a few weeks here. So if anyone has any input, it would help. I'm not sure how parts affect performance I just know how to put most* of them on.
So if anyone has some rather basic or small parts to add that will increase that 0-60 then please post it.
I was also gonna go with the lighter weight stuff, not trying to scrap my radio or anything but maybe lighter rims.
0-60 because I never go past 70. 0-60 because all the Hondas around here go stop light to stop light. 0-60 because that's what I want to do.
P.S. If anyone enjoys putting parts together to make the best torque on paper they could send me that part list and I'll put it to use. I used to do that kinda stuff when I was in school, I'd get an Andysautosport magazine and fix up fake cars, then draw them out.
So if anyone has some rather basic or small parts to add that will increase that 0-60 then please post it.
I was also gonna go with the lighter weight stuff, not trying to scrap my radio or anything but maybe lighter rims.
0-60 because I never go past 70. 0-60 because all the Hondas around here go stop light to stop light. 0-60 because that's what I want to do.
P.S. If anyone enjoys putting parts together to make the best torque on paper they could send me that part list and I'll put it to use. I used to do that kinda stuff when I was in school, I'd get an Andysautosport magazine and fix up fake cars, then draw them out.
Last edited by FunkyPup; 08-03-2010 at 06:10 AM.
Trending Topics
08-07-2010, 01:36 AM
#8
Supreme Member
Re: 0-60?
Sorry, I mean .133", that'll give you 10.4:1 compression. Here's what someone over in germany did. Noone sells direct fit full length headers, but heddman s-10 headers will fit with a little bending.
First off, do a full tuneup if you haven't yet, fuel filter, air filter/s, oil filter, oil change if needed. Far as parts....higher lift cam, 1.6 roller rockers, since you only ever do 70 mph put some 4.10 gears in, posi, anything that reduces rotational and or unsprung weight, most notably swapping to an aluminum driveshaft, porting, stroking it to a 3.1, hybrid swap and or 3.4 swap, underdrive pulleys, crank scraper and or windage tray, porting, ram air intake, catback exhaust and high flow cat. Also turbocharging is a lot easier to setup than a supercharger unless there is a kit available, just easier to fabricate, and imo turbochargers are just better on a v6, but for 0-60 keep it small otherwise the lag will make it useless to you probably. And if you go turbocharging route, then don't buy headers as you won't need them.
Drop some weight, junk the A/C if you don't use it or if it isn't charged and you don't plan to do anything about it, swap to a fiberglass hood, and a lexan hatch window, double check its legal first though, i know lexan windshields are not, sadly..
08-07-2010, 02:04 AM
#9
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: Lots of 'em
Re: 0-60?
Uh...... What? 
Horsepower = Torque X Engine RPM / 5,252.
Torque = L (Length) X F (Force).
You can have all of the low end Torque you want, but still pull extremely crappy 0-60's. You have a multi-speed transmission, not a CVT. Not a multi-step clutch system out of a top fuel dragster. Even with some of the lowest stock gearing, you still need to ring out 1st gear, and depending on your setup, nearly rev to the end of second.
Why do people buy 3,000 RPM stall Torque converters? Why do people buy 3.73 and 4.10, or even 4.56 gears? Low in the RPM range, less work is being accomplished. When you have an engine that can rev, you may be able to apply twice the amount of Torque over a certain amount of time.
1 Horsepower = 33,000 LB-FEET/Minute.
Basically James Watt figured that the average horse could pull something with an amount of friction equal to 180 pounds, at 181 FPM. 180 pounds X 181 FPM = 32,580 LB-FEET/Minute.
Lower that amount of weight and/or friction to 100 pounds, nearly cutting it in half, but raise the speed to 500 FPM, and what happens? You get 50,000 LB-FEET/Minute. 50% more power generated.
To sum it up, the best 0-60 times are, and always will be accomplished by a high stall (If automatic, which most drag cars are), high revving, lightweight vehicle that is running some good slicks. Not a Torque happy tractor engine. Just remember, 1,000 FT-LBS. of Torque at idle is useless, but only 600 FT-LBS @ 6,500 RPM is insane. A nearly 800 Horsepower thrill ride, to be specific.
Heh. That mighty 1,000 FT-LBS of Torque at an 800 RPM idle is a measly 152 Horsepower, that you would probably stall when combined with low enough gears to move anywhere.
Horsepower = Torque X Engine RPM / 5,252.
Torque = L (Length) X F (Force).
You can have all of the low end Torque you want, but still pull extremely crappy 0-60's. You have a multi-speed transmission, not a CVT. Not a multi-step clutch system out of a top fuel dragster. Even with some of the lowest stock gearing, you still need to ring out 1st gear, and depending on your setup, nearly rev to the end of second.
Why do people buy 3,000 RPM stall Torque converters? Why do people buy 3.73 and 4.10, or even 4.56 gears? Low in the RPM range, less work is being accomplished. When you have an engine that can rev, you may be able to apply twice the amount of Torque over a certain amount of time.
1 Horsepower = 33,000 LB-FEET/Minute.
Basically James Watt figured that the average horse could pull something with an amount of friction equal to 180 pounds, at 181 FPM. 180 pounds X 181 FPM = 32,580 LB-FEET/Minute.
Lower that amount of weight and/or friction to 100 pounds, nearly cutting it in half, but raise the speed to 500 FPM, and what happens? You get 50,000 LB-FEET/Minute. 50% more power generated.
To sum it up, the best 0-60 times are, and always will be accomplished by a high stall (If automatic, which most drag cars are), high revving, lightweight vehicle that is running some good slicks. Not a Torque happy tractor engine. Just remember, 1,000 FT-LBS. of Torque at idle is useless, but only 600 FT-LBS @ 6,500 RPM is insane. A nearly 800 Horsepower thrill ride, to be specific.
Heh. That mighty 1,000 FT-LBS of Torque at an 800 RPM idle is a measly 152 Horsepower, that you would probably stall when combined with low enough gears to move anywhere.
08-07-2010, 03:47 PM
#10
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 0-60?
Uh...... What?
Horsepower = Torque X Engine RPM / 5,252.
Torque = L (Length) X F (Force).
You can have all of the low end Torque you want, but still pull extremely crappy 0-60's. You have a multi-speed transmission, not a CVT. Not a multi-step clutch system out of a top fuel dragster. Even with some of the lowest stock gearing, you still need to ring out 1st gear, and depending on your setup, nearly rev to the end of second.
Why do people buy 3,000 RPM stall Torque converters? Why do people buy 3.73 and 4.10, or even 4.56 gears? Low in the RPM range, less work is being accomplished. When you have an engine that can rev, you may be able to apply twice the amount of Torque over a certain amount of time.
1 Horsepower = 33,000 LB-FEET/Minute.
Basically James Watt figured that the average horse could pull something with an amount of friction equal to 180 pounds, at 181 FPM. 180 pounds X 181 FPM = 32,580 LB-FEET/Minute.
Lower that amount of weight and/or friction to 100 pounds, nearly cutting it in half, but raise the speed to 500 FPM, and what happens? You get 50,000 LB-FEET/Minute. 50% more power generated.
To sum it up, the best 0-60 times are, and always will be accomplished by a high stall (If automatic, which most drag cars are), high revving, lightweight vehicle that is running some good slicks. Not a Torque happy tractor engine. Just remember, 1,000 FT-LBS. of Torque at idle is useless, but only 600 FT-LBS @ 6,500 RPM is insane. A nearly 800 Horsepower thrill ride, to be specific.
Heh. That mighty 1,000 FT-LBS of Torque at an 800 RPM idle is a measly 152 Horsepower, that you would probably stall when combined with low enough gears to move anywhere.
Horsepower = Torque X Engine RPM / 5,252.
Torque = L (Length) X F (Force).
You can have all of the low end Torque you want, but still pull extremely crappy 0-60's. You have a multi-speed transmission, not a CVT. Not a multi-step clutch system out of a top fuel dragster. Even with some of the lowest stock gearing, you still need to ring out 1st gear, and depending on your setup, nearly rev to the end of second.
Why do people buy 3,000 RPM stall Torque converters? Why do people buy 3.73 and 4.10, or even 4.56 gears? Low in the RPM range, less work is being accomplished. When you have an engine that can rev, you may be able to apply twice the amount of Torque over a certain amount of time.
1 Horsepower = 33,000 LB-FEET/Minute.
Basically James Watt figured that the average horse could pull something with an amount of friction equal to 180 pounds, at 181 FPM. 180 pounds X 181 FPM = 32,580 LB-FEET/Minute.
Lower that amount of weight and/or friction to 100 pounds, nearly cutting it in half, but raise the speed to 500 FPM, and what happens? You get 50,000 LB-FEET/Minute. 50% more power generated.
To sum it up, the best 0-60 times are, and always will be accomplished by a high stall (If automatic, which most drag cars are), high revving, lightweight vehicle that is running some good slicks. Not a Torque happy tractor engine. Just remember, 1,000 FT-LBS. of Torque at idle is useless, but only 600 FT-LBS @ 6,500 RPM is insane. A nearly 800 Horsepower thrill ride, to be specific.
Heh. That mighty 1,000 FT-LBS of Torque at an 800 RPM idle is a measly 152 Horsepower, that you would probably stall when combined with low enough gears to move anywhere.
08-08-2010, 01:29 PM
#11
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: right behind you
Posts: 2,574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: '85 maro
Engine: In the works...
Transmission: TH700 R4
Axle/Gears: 3.73 posi
Re: 0-60?
No. Pacesetter doesn't sell full length headers. There really isn't anything to be gained with an alum driveshaft, the v6 driveshaft is about the same weight.
Torq is motivation. The higher ratio gears & higher stall converter you have the more torq multiplication you have. The easier you can overcome the car's static inertia the better acceleration will be. Doesn't mean you need to go crazy with the gearing and a loose converter to get moving, if you go too far you'll be speed limited & have so much slip through the converter that your acceleration actually suffers. You really don't need a ton of gearing with the 700r4 anyway because of it's low 1st gear. Just need to find a combo that works well. Check out what AM91Camaro_RS did with his camaro. A properly set up car will launch with authority.
Torq is motivation. The higher ratio gears & higher stall converter you have the more torq multiplication you have. The easier you can overcome the car's static inertia the better acceleration will be. Doesn't mean you need to go crazy with the gearing and a loose converter to get moving, if you go too far you'll be speed limited & have so much slip through the converter that your acceleration actually suffers. You really don't need a ton of gearing with the 700r4 anyway because of it's low 1st gear. Just need to find a combo that works well. Check out what AM91Camaro_RS did with his camaro. A properly set up car will launch with authority.
Last edited by bl85c; 08-08-2010 at 02:17 PM.
08-08-2010, 02:15 PM
#12
Supreme Member
Re: 0-60?
Full length? I'm guessing you mean longtube headers, because mine have a Y-pipe and everything and I got them just a couple months ago, and if longtube is what you meant then yeah, the pacesetters are midlength, but either way, they will still improve torque just not as much as longtubes would, unless its shorty's that give more torque, can't recall which way it goes.
The aluminum driveshaft is about 11 lbs, half the weight of our ~22 lb steel ones, the v6 cars and v8s have the exact same driveshaft, there was a decently long thread about this very topic, and thats what the people who actually went and checked concluded...
The rest I agree with, oh and I think you meant to link something? "Check out what this guy did with his camaro." I want to check it out but can't,lol.
The aluminum driveshaft is about 11 lbs, half the weight of our ~22 lb steel ones, the v6 cars and v8s have the exact same driveshaft, there was a decently long thread about this very topic, and thats what the people who actually went and checked concluded...
The rest I agree with, oh and I think you meant to link something? "Check out what this guy did with his camaro." I want to check it out but can't,lol.
08-08-2010, 02:20 PM
#13
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: right behind you
Posts: 2,574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: '85 maro
Engine: In the works...
Transmission: TH700 R4
Axle/Gears: 3.73 posi
Re: 0-60?
Yea, I was trying to find a video of AM91Camaro_RS outrunning a corvette at the track. Still looking.
08-08-2010, 02:23 PM
#14
Supreme Member
Re: 0-60?
Ahahaha, sweet, thats allen right? the guy that had a builtup N/A hybrid or something like that?
08-08-2010, 02:37 PM
#16
Supreme Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Central FL
Posts: 2,564
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 91 Camaro
Engine: 3.1...not hardly stock
Transmission: 700r4....not stock either
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Re: 0-60?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuzQW45kv0s 
yep, it was an iron headed 3.1. I forget the exact # but I weighed my steel driveshaft one time and it wasn't very heavy...its stock.
and, for the record, I didn't outrun the z06...just got out of the hole a lot quicker
yep, it was an iron headed 3.1. I forget the exact # but I weighed my steel driveshaft one time and it wasn't very heavy...its stock.and, for the record, I didn't outrun the z06...just got out of the hole a lot quicker
08-08-2010, 03:36 PM
#17
Supreme Member
Re: 0-60?
Damn that is a nice takeoff,lol, I bet with an N/A 3.4 hybrid with aluminum heads a 3rd gen would have beat him after seeing that...
08-08-2010, 10:37 PM
#18
Supreme Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Central FL
Posts: 2,564
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 91 Camaro
Engine: 3.1...not hardly stock
Transmission: 700r4....not stock either
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Re: 0-60?
if you got him off the line again like that...you might hold him off. he was a ways ahead of me when I went through the traps.
08-08-2010, 10:57 PM
#19
Supreme Member
Re: 0-60?
Yeah, but imo that was because of the inherent lack of flow thats present with the iron heads and stock manifolds, 3x00 stuff would probably keep pulling hard like that after launch I think.
08-09-2010, 10:05 PM
#20
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Jacksonville, NC
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89 firebird
Transmission: 700r4
Re: 0-60?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuzQW45kv0s yep, it was an iron headed 3.1. I forget the exact # but I weighed my steel driveshaft one time and it wasn't very heavy...its stock.
and, for the record, I didn't outrun the z06...just got out of the hole a lot quicker
yep, it was an iron headed 3.1. I forget the exact # but I weighed my steel driveshaft one time and it wasn't very heavy...its stock.and, for the record, I didn't outrun the z06...just got out of the hole a lot quicker
that things a beast, and id love to do that to my own car (except id probably pay a mechanic to do most of it )
edit: nvm found your website
Last edited by obrien; 08-09-2010 at 11:30 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
theformula
Aftermarket Product Review
4
11-15-2000 10:23 PM
