Well, I'm coming home from work tonight and I'm following a 95 or so GTP. He had about 18" wheels, some kinda performance exhaust, and a pretty loud system.
Anyway, I was just about to pass him at about 70 or so and he steps on it. I just let him go. But about 5 min later, I begin to pass him again. At about the time I go about 2 yards behind his quarter, he gunned it again, and he caught me at a time when I was pretty stoked. (Paradise City just finished, ) So I dropped it into drive and stomped it. I just walked up too him, let off at about the time I got to his window and gave him the Richard Petty smile, then stood on it and just walked away. I let off at about 110 or so and he was about 2 cars behind me.
I think that was pretty sweet and I wonder what those things run in the quarter?

 

95 GTP = 215 horse 3.4 DOHC V6. 97 and later GTPs are SCed 3.8 with 240 hp 280 lb ft.

95s go about 8 seconds to 60 and 16s in the quarter? Approximately.

 

Are you sure it was a 95? I don't think you would have kept up with an SCed GTP to 110mph with your TPI, so it probably was. Good kill either way.

~Matt

 

95s weren't SCed. They had the quad cam 3400s

 

just a random question i have- whats the highest speed that you should drop it down into drive?

 

for an auto trans your asking for trouble....up shifting is hard enough on them but down shifting isn't good.

sounds like you had some fun....i know a 97+ wouldn't have been nearly that easy. my best so far with my 97 gtp has been low 13's with $500 in mods.

 

The point at which you can downshift depends on your gear ratios and max engine RPM.

Kandied: Low 13s? I assume you have pulleys and a chip? Maybe exhaust? Fill me in please. That's impressive.

 

few basic bolt ons and some good driving. they are quick. lots of them running around in the mid 12's with under 3,000 in mods.

just check out mccgp or clubgp.

 

Kandied91Z, exactly what mods for less than $500 did you get into the low 13's with?

Who are you on Clubgp?

I'm not calling BS.....yet.

I'm Ultra Magnus over there.

 

A friend of mine has a 99 GTP and with a custom chip, different Supercharger pulley, K&N, and exhaust he runs 13.3-13.5 all day, suprised the hell outta me

 

If it is a 95 GTP, then it does have the 3.4 DOHC engine, and is a low 15 sec car.

 

same name...don't hang out over there much unless i have a problem and call bs all day i could care less.

 

http://www.clubgp.com/newforum/showp...sp?memid=20188

That is your profile right? You only have 8 posts. The only things you posted were about tokico struts and things like that. You 'asked' about a smaller pulley that was for sale. Sorry to go detective on your ***, but when you make an absurd claim like that, I have to do it

You never did list your mods? Please let me know and set me straight. I would love to know your exact combo, considering 97's are the slowest of the newer GTP's. I have a 97 too. I would like to get into the low 13's with just $500.

Guys, it takes more than $500 to get a 97+GTP into the low 13's.

So

 

nice job buddy..........i see your putting your free time to good use. when you decide to get a life further from the internet you let me know and maybe i'll help you out. in the meantime you mind not jacking the thread and discussing something more relevant to the topic?

 

Sorry for hijacking the thread.

As for the race, good job. Those quad cams are something else. Even to a stock 97+ GTP on a topend race, the 3.4 has the advantage, 3 more cams to better breathe with.

I think the GTP you raced posted on Clubgp saying his stereo was the reason he lost. Everyone seems to have reasons, you know? How about this, he has a faster car. Plain and simple. Again, good job.

As for you Kandied91z, I just saw this thread cuz I just saw GTP on here. Then I saw your claim. I come on here a few times a week. If anyone needs to put better use to their time it's you. You're the one with 5000+ posts and lies about his low 13 sec GTP.

Once again, sorry Firebirdconv92, I will reply no further to this thread. Kandied91z, if you wish to discuss GTP's and how hard it is to get one into the low 13's for cheap, PM me.

 

typically i would be more then happy to help you, but you seem like such a good detective i'm sure you can learn on your own.

 

Kandied, will you tell me then?

 

email me....i'd even show you.

 

hmmm... I didn't know the quad cam GTP would beat an SCed GTP on topend. Kinda makes sense...

~Matt

 

the cars are very nice for what they offer, they do have their ups and downs like any other car too. you can make them move for relatively cheap which is a definate plus, however with all things especially automotive if you go too cheap you can't really expect the parts to hold up over time.

the bonneville comes with a better pulley for boost as well as a few suspension difference like a stb and the like so if you can find them in a yard your on your way to cheaper performance right there.

there are quite a few guys running around here with unbelievable amounts of power from these things. it's really quite amazing what can be done. program them right, do a few things to the driveline to support the boost, intercool the boost, and then all you have to worry about is traction. add some nitrous to the mix and watch out.

 

Bonevilles have the EXACT same engine as the GTP. That means the Bonneville has the same pulley as well. It does have 3.06 gears, as opposed to GTP's 2.93's. Also, the computer can't be swapped out like GTP's can. At least not as cheaply as GTP's.

But traction is a big problem for us. Slicks help alot and so do LSD's. Too bad GM doesn't offer them stock.

I'm not saying a 3.4 non s/c GTP will kill a 97+GTP, but it's top end is better. I wish I would've raced my bro's 92 GTP when I was stock, but he sold it soon after and got a 98 GTP. I'm sure it would've been interesting. He probably would've stayed even with me if not beat me by a car length.

 

maybe it's the regal i'm thinking of then? one of the comparing cars did.

 

I'm pretty sure you're confusing the gearing instead of the pulley size. All L67 equipped cars come stock with the 3.8" pulley.

The Regal GS and GTP have/had 2.93 gears whereas the Bonneville and Park Avenue Ultra and the other bigger cars, had 3.06 or whatever. The base GT and the like had 3.29 gears.

The only car to get a smaller than stock pulley "stock" was the 2002/3 GTX. But I think you have to order the parts and have it installed at a GM dealership. But even that is not stock. Because you drove it off the lot with a 3.8.

 

I had HEARD from somewhere that the 3.4 DOHC engines tested 275+ HP at the crank during their testing phase - they tried to get a FWD transmission that could handle it, couldn't do it, they had to detune the engine so it didn't grenade every tranny it was mated with. I'e always liked the early W-body platforms, hey, I own two of them, but I never was able to get a '95 or '96 GTP. I could be a jerk and up-badge my wife's car, though, it looks identical to a GTP. I suppose now, with newer tech, you could hook up a stronger transmission, re-tune the engine, and really let loose. One of the pipe dreams I had not so long back.

 

Is there really such a car as a GTX? The other day I saw a Grand Prix with a really cool hood. It was like the 2003 WS6 ram air hood on the trans am, only instead of having scoops, it had inlets. 2 really big holes right in the center of the hood. It had GTX on the door, right where the GTP emblem would be, and it was white. I thought some guy just put a cool hood on his Grand Prix, I didn't know there was such a thing. What does a GTX have?

~Matt

 

yep....look it up on a search engine like yahoo. nice looking cars but pricey. there are also a few special editions like the F1 and whatnot which have alot more power and some different styling to them.

 

Yes there is such a thing as the GTX. It's basically the WS6/Ram Air version of the Grand Prix. The GTP being the Trans Am.
It has everything the GTP has except, or it can have just as little. The hood, stripes, and exhaust are standard issue. The spoiler and wheel package are an upcharge.
Power is the same, but they add 10hp (so 250hp) more due to the exhaust and "ram air" intake. We all know ram air on a s/c car is crap. They are really nice cars. I want to make my GTP look like one.

Pvt Num 11, does your GP have the 3.4 in it? Those 3.4 quad cam engines are basically extremely detuned, removed 2 cylindered, version of the Vette Zr1 engine. They have tons of potential, but GM crapped out on the trannies late in the game. Still not a bad engine today, but extremely expensive to fix. It was the 2nd most expensive engine GM ever had behind the Zr1 engine. That's why they didn't continue it.

Also, did you guys know that the new Comp-G GTP's have WS6 suspension in them? Yup they do. Kinda cool and really lame in the same sense. I think only the Firebird should get the Ws6 option.

 

No, my wife's car has the 3100 in it - it's the SE version, but it has the apperance package - spoiler, side panels, everything else as near as I can tell - I'm not a W-body expert. She actually was receptive to dumping the DOHC 3.4 into the car after her engine pukes. My other GP had the older 3.1 in it, the only thing stronger for that year (89) was the kick-butt-I-really-want-one TGP, with the turbo 3.1 engine.

I had heard that the engines were expensive and a pain to maintain - something about the clearances inside the engine were particularly close, less room to play with. Wish I had a GTP so I could find out for myself.

Oh, the GTX is coOOOool.

 

Thats not cool at all. I hope they aren't trying to turn the GTP into a sportscar Just kidding. But the fact that the compG has the WS6 suspension is pretty upsetting for Firebird and f-body fans as a whole.

~Matt

 

People have put the L67 in your generation GP. Talk about the ultimate sleeper. Then they mod them and blow by everything that would normally kill it. And the s/c scream!!

I like that style of GP more than mine to be honest. Like I said my bro had a 92 GTP, the thing handled extremely well and was so solid as a car. It felt like a tank. Of course the 245/50zr16's stock helped with that feel.

I would love to find my bro's old GTP and put my engine in it.

Check Clubgp.com and go to the 89-96 forum. You'll find out alot about swapping.

 

thanx for the input guys. I know I was suprised myself because my mom has a SE and it ***** and gets pretty good.

 

I was on clubgp.com for a time, but I totally forgot my password and forgot all about it - got married and whatnot. However, the wife wanted to get on the borad there, so I signed back in, same name as here. I'm giving my old 89 away for a new aerofin for the GTA, and the power seat module will go into my wife's car - her seat motors puked out soon after we got the car, it only goes front 'n' back now.

I'll dig up some schtuff on how to do a 3.4 swap - if I can even get one out here in Hawai'i - I'll try Schofield's yard or Abe's.

Oh yeah, that all costs moola - I'll have to approve it with the Financial Planning Officer, first.

 

Uh ZR1 engine? I think not. It's the 2.8/3.1/3.4 architecture. Were the heads lotus desinged? Is the block like a ZR1, nope. Plus they are iron blocks.

It's GM's attempt to create a DOHC motor in a half assed way. They used existing 60 degree V6 architecture. the motors are loud, produce poor fuel economy, and don't last long. Power was decent, but still only ran 8 second 0-60s.

My dad was the ride handling engineer on the Cutlass Supreme from 89-96. I will admit the 5 speed cars were pretty cool, though rare.

 

You are correct, it was a GM design, but Mitsubishi or Toyota was rumoured to be involved with the head work. Which are aluminum btw.

As for reliability and noise, did you personally hav on of these engines? Once again, my bro had one for 3 years. It never caused him trouble in that time until he got an oil change and they didn't put the right amount of oil in it. Needless to say, it broke.

But up until that point, it was a smooth quiet motor. Then it sang like no other car on the highway at passing speeds.

But I would hardly say it's a crappy engine. If you treated it right and kept it in good shape, it'll last forever. Most people didn't agree with that, and that's why it was always getting warranteed. So GM dropped it. I'm not saying that people are stupid, but it needs a lot of TLC to keep together. It's not like the tbi 5.0's you guys got that will last until the dinosaurs come back. But you get what I'm saying.

As for the Zr1 remark, the original output was supposed to be 275hp. Add on 2 more cylinders (and with the overall design of the engine with 4 camshafts) it would be the equivalent to the earlier Zr1 engines. That's all I meant by that statement.

-kevin

 

There's a great website I found that explains all those little details - take care of it, and it will take care of you. Still, I'd like to have one if I could get my mitts on one. As is, the lil' 3100 the wife's car got can sing a nice tune if you mash it good and don't mind letting the tach go above 5 grand... A shift kit would be nice.

 

My bad. The heads were GM designed. Oh well.

Good luck, if you go though with your swap.

 

It'll be some time - the stock motor has to die before the wife will even consider a swap - but I could speed that up a bit by doing e-brake burnouts... j/k. After a swap, her car could keep up with mine, but only if I haven't done any mods to the GTA at that point. Wonder if she'll like bracket racing. Guess I should save up for it now, eh?

 

It's been my understanding that the head design is from the QUAD 4, which could explain the identical cylinder bore dimension, since there were no pushrod 3.4 versions of the 60 degree V6 until a couple years after the DOHC. And I'm tempted to think the 275 hp thing is a myth. If you figure the output of a HO QUAD 4 in relation to the size of the 3.4 DOHC, the numbers are comparable, which makes me think somebody was just crunching numbers. By the way, the QUAD 4 HO has higher compression and bigger cams, so it's not like 275 hp would be all that easy to get out of a production 3.4 DOHC.

 

It was based off the Quad, using better stuff. The Quads could do close to 200 HP, as far as I knew. The N-body cars that had it only had a 5-speed, GM didn't have an automatic that could survive for long. Hence why they detuned the 3.4 - Hydromatic couldn't deliver an automatic OD tranny that would last. Now, today's tech, it'd be easy to do that.

Link: www.angelfire.com/ca2/34Performance/dohc.html

Also try www.60degreev6.com for more schtuff.

 

Yeah, I've seen that before. I think there's more to it than just an issue of the tranmission being able to handle it. The 3.4 DOHC, if tuned for topend horsepower in the same manor as the HO QUAD 4, would be quite lousy when mated with an automatic transmission. Better gearing to make up for it would have hurt fuel economy, and a staged intake to broaden the torque curve would have added cost to the engine. And I think it goes even deeper than that, such as in the mechanical limitations of the timing belt system used on the 3.4 DOHC, which can't handle the high valve spring pressures that the HO QUAD 4 uses and might limit how big you can go with the cams (not that there's anything available for it other than stock!).

 

Yeah GTP I didn't mean to offend anyone just pointin out that's a very different bird than an LT5. the first ZR1s were 375 hp.

As for 275 hp, I doubt it. How could a new Acura motor with Variable valve timing, DOHC, 3.2 liters, and probably better FI and electronics only make 260 hp? I'm sure the Honda tech is better than late 80s GM stuff, at least I would expect so.

Personally I have never owned a 3.4 DOHC, reliablity being the reason. I do have a 3.1 liter 97 Lumina LS which has had its share of problems. Like i said my dad is very close to the problems that GM has had with the 3.4 DOHC, he knows there have been a large number of complaints/warranty claims. I'm not saying you can't make one live with good care and maintenance, but the average idiot may not remember to even change their oil!

I'll agree that the 3.4 DOHC was a step in the right direction technology-wise, but their execution needed help and money. It's no aluminum Lotus designed masterpiece.

anyway, how bout those F bodies?

 

I've owned 3 and my bro has owned 2. One of those was my first one.

My first was my first car ever. 1989 Firebird v6, 5psd with the Trans Am apperance package. It was an awesome car. I thought I could take on anything in that car. Not really though. When I found out it had only 135hp as opposed to my 175hp, (hey it felt like it to me. I was 17 years old and didn't have internet). Anyway, sold that to my bro and got my first Trans Am. A mint 1988 Red Trans Am with my automatic. I love automatics. I like the leather wrapped t-handle. Anyway, I thought that car had 190hp. Again, I was wrong. I've tried looking it up but there are like 3 different numbers for the tbi 5.0 in 1988. Like 150, 165, 170. Either way, it wasn't fast either. But goddammit it looked bad ***. It had the 16" silver GTA style wheels and 245/50 tires. Well, w/i one month some ****er stole both of those cars in the same night. I was crushed.

Then another month goes buy and I find a 1985( with a rare GTA package, had the emblems in all the right places ) Anyway, open the hood and lo-and-behold, the fabled TPI 5.0. I was in heaven. Anyway, the engine/tranny and a bunch of everything was ****ed up on the car. I had a shop put in a 350 block, so now I have a L98 clone in there. What a monster. I swear to *** I owned just about every stock LT1 in my part of town. It was a beast. It had the 3.23 gears out back and WS6 susp. It was a monster. I shredded the tires for 2 blocks in my neighborhood one morning.......aaahhhh

I'm going to go now, thoughts of selling my GTP are needing to get supressed again. Sorry for the novel, and once again, hijacking the thread. Go fbodies, watch out for those 97+ GTPs.

-Kevin

 

Ha, I won't even begin to talk about my first car... Stinkin' 92 Hyndai Excel. Exceled at breaking the camshaft... I didn't even drive it hard - not that driving it hard was even possible... Need to keep the W-body (it keeps me from driving like an idiot, as the GTA likes to do to me), I wanted to salvage my 89, but the front fascia is all boogered up and won't pass the stoopid saftey laws here - can't aim the lights properly. Oh well, I got two bright red Pontiacs - A GP-SE and a GTA. Must... paint... cars... black...

 

Tom84L69, the HO QUAD4 only used DOHC, and was also all alluminum like the LT5, and at its highest output in the Oldsmobile Achieva SCX was rated 190 hp and 160 lb.ft.. To put that in perspective, using output per liter, the LT5 would have to be making about 470 hp and 396 lb.ft. of torque to match it. The 3.4 DOHC would be making about 280 hp and 236 lb.ft. of torque.

By the way, variable valve timing, like staged intakes, is about maintaining a broad torque curve. You don't need it to make high rpm horsepower, as proven by the HO QUAD 4.



BigWhiteGTP, you make me want to trade my Z34 in for a 3rd gen f-body. In the mean time, as a temporary fix, I might have to visit my brother for a ride in his '84 Firebird.

 

Blood, I never said anything about the quad 4. That's a great little motor, but I was talking about the 3.4.

The advantage to VVT is that you can have high performance cam profiles yet still make emissions and good idel quality and torque. This allows better cam timing than a non VVT car. There are just more compromises to make in regards to cam timing on a non VVT car. So, yes, VVT gives the option to build in more power, even at high RPMs. If you built a non VVT car to build asmuch power, you compromise low end, idle, drivavbility, anf fuel mileage.

Keep in mind Acura makes a 2 liter in the RSX with 200 hp, the quad 4 is 2.3.

 

Well, I only brought up the QUAD 4 due to the head design of the 3.4 DOHC being based on it. As for the Honda numbers, I'm surprised you didn't bring up the 240 hp 2 liter engine in the S2000, but I guess you're just being realistic. Honestly, I think Honda is truly a benchmark for production SOHC/DOHC engines. If GM is going to continue to build DOHC engines the half-arsed way they have in recent years, they might as well stick to larger displacement pushrod engines thumping out lots of torque. And, surely, nobody on this message board will mind that.

 

I'll take basic push rod technology thumping torque over japanese hi-tech low torque any day of the week.

Those RSX and S2000 may be rev machines, but in order to get those claimed times, they need to rev till 8 grand then dump the clutch, meanwhile I rev too 1700 and blast off.

As for my old T/A's, *** I can't wait to get another 3rd gen. I like the 4th gens as well, but I grew up on Knight Rider and seeing black Trans Am's when me and my bro were like 6 and 4 years old. Talk about a fantasy that could see out the window on a friday night. A black Trans Am sitting next to your door. And you think to yourself, his sounds more powerful than kits car. And what's those letters GTA stand for? Great Trans Am? Whatever they mean, I bet it's cool.

 

Grand Tourismo Americano (or Grand Touring America, in English)

 

Knight Rider rocks! KITT rocks! Red scanners sweeping back and forth rocks! Just one reason I plan on painting my GTA black, but the wife said NO scanner. Oh well. Knight Rider got me at an impressionable age. If KITT was a Mustang, I'd probably own one of them. (But the Fox-bodies are pretty cool looking, anyhoo) There's just no replacement for displacement. HP win brags, but torque wins drags. I've always like that seat-of-your-pants "SITDOWN!" feeling torque gives.

 

LOL!! I knew what GTA stood for. I'm just making a reference to my youth when I used to see Black Trans Am's while riding in the backseat of my parents car. And wondering what GTA stood for way back then.

Do you guys know what "GTP" stands for?