i have a 84 pontiac firebird v6 2.8L. I have some questions about by car. first how come when i go in reversei can feel my back tires loose tracktion and if i give it to alot of gass it will squeel, but in drive that will never happen? and how come i can not do a burn out unless it in rain, or am i doing something wrong? i mean i cant beat anything in my car i think. is that normal for a 2.8, or is there something wrong or am i doing anything wrong.

 

It is always way easier to do a burnout in reverse because I think it has something to do with the gear ratio being different (Somethin like that).


And from what i hear about 2.8's, they are really not that fast. I dunno if you should be able to do a burnout on dry pavement or not.

 

That's not a fast or powerful car. It's the least of all these cars, except for the 4-cylinder ones. If you want a fast one, sell the 6-cylinder car and get one with a v8, except not a LG4 or L03, and go from there.

 

hey LG4's have potential

 

woohoo!!! another LG4 fan......:lala:

 

Yeah the gear ratio is lower for R allowing for the spinning.

LG4s are slow period.

 

true, but when comparing a 2.8 to all the other engines offered in 3rd gens (barring the iron duke), any v8 is a good start...

 

Good point.

 

Yeah OK....would anyone care to look at the mods in my sig? Ive run 14.90's on a STOCK LG4! The only mods being exhaust and gears. The exhaust only cost me $200, and the gears were free out of my S-10. So, I dropped over 2 whole seconds for $200, something I dont think you can do with an L98 or LB9. People shouldnt talk unless they know what they are talking about.

 

i have a 350, but it has not been rebuilt but it works fine, could i just put that in there with no cost but labor or do i have to change everything?

 

but is my 2.8 suppost to be so slow that i can not beat my friends 83 v4 volvo. how many sec should it take my car to reach 60kph. i mean i really dont think i can beat any car.

 

the 2.8 was never meant to be a performance engine. eceonomy was its main goal. i would guess you're car would do the 1/4 somewhere in the high 17's to 18 flat......

 

Um ok, or you could just throw the same mods on to the L98 and be runnin 13s.

 

So it's not stock any more... remember, we're not Mustang owners here, so if something has been changed, you can't call it "stock". The things you've changed are 2 of the main weak points of LG4 cars, so there's every reason to expect those things to really wake that car up.

You did good for your $$$, no doubt about that. But how about just buying a L69 car, and it does 15.1-15.2 off the showroom floor, when it's really stock, and then make it better? Or a LB9 5-speed car, or a L98 car, with the same sort of box stock times, and room for improvement as easily as you improved yours? That's why the LG4 and L03 aren't the best place to start: you have farther to go than if you get a performance package to begin with.

 

Reversage burnage is also helped by having the weight shift off of the drive tires. Same idea as a Metro being able to sqeal tires going forward.

 

EXACTLY.

Also, the reverse ratio is usually identical to or taller than 1st gear, so it's not gearing. The suspension is not designed for rearward movement either.

 

Just a question....why exactly are you doing burnouts in reverse? I was told thats a very easy and quick way to blow your tranny. Its okay cause I watched Knight Rider too.
LOL

 

with an automatic, is it bad for the braking system or anything else when you hold down the brake and break the tires loose?

 

You would be surprised what a tune-up would do . It wont make it like a V8 car but it will improve performance alot . Go on the V6 board and look up TomP Tune up .

 

MARK A SHIELDS:

I didnt say I could go out and kill L98 cars. I understand that they are much faster to start out with. I know because I used to have an 89 GTA. I believe it was you that said LG4's are slow....and I wont dispute this. Bone stock, they are very slow. And by the way, you took it wrong when I said "stock LG4". I may have phrased that wrong, but technically the motor is still stock. The only mods are the exhaust and the gears. So you could take it both ways. Not to mention the fact that L98's and LB9's werent available in 83...I like the styling of the 83 and thats why I bought it. I dont particularly care for the 85-92 body style. I like the 82-84's. I chose not to look specifically for an L69 car just because Im not keeping the 305 anyway. I bought this car in immaculate condition, 65,000 miles on it, receipts going back to 1984, and from the original owner. I bought it because I know what I was getting. I knew this car when I got it probably wouldnt have broken into the 16's. But you know what, as of right now, with the money in mods I have into it, im happy with it for now. Im not trying to start a war here, Im just trying to prove a point. Some people are happy with high 14's-low 15's. Im not one of those people, but for right now...it works for me.

 

my car used to be a 2.8l, it was carbed too.

i ran it at the drag strip for a highschool bracket race that we have, the best run it made was 18.94sec at a whopping 70.5 mph, and before some says something i launched it as hard as i could before spinning a tire, about 1300rpm, and it slipped the right rear a little when the lights went green

 

Peeling: Actually on a 700r4 reverse has lower ratio than 1st. It is still easier to spin in reverse. This is, I believe, mostly due to tires having a directional pattern and the center of mass shifting in the wrong direction, not giving much downforce to the rear wheels.