'89 2.8L vs. '02 malibu 3.1L
12-15-2007, 11:02 PM
#1
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: IL
Posts: 1,092
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 88 IROC, 76 Malibu Classic
Engine: 350 TPI, 350
Transmission: 700R4, 4-speed
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt ????
'89 2.8L vs. '02 malibu 3.1L
who do you think would win? heres the set up
'89 2.9L:
manual t-5
no egr
cat delete
stock size all season radials
(about 4 years manual transmission experience)
malibu 3.1L
4 sp. auto
stock
'89 2.9L:
manual t-5
no egr
cat delete
stock size all season radials
(about 4 years manual transmission experience)
malibu 3.1L
4 sp. auto
stock
12-15-2007, 11:47 PM
#3
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: princeton,west virginia
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89 trans am GTA,90 model trans am 350 tuneport,87 firebird
Engine: 355 small block
Transmission: 5 speed,auto 700r4
Re: '89 2.8L vs. '02 malibu 3.1L
02 malibu 3.1 will take it,they have 200 horse power,your 2.8 might have 150 hp if its running at its best.Ive raced these 3.1 malibu,s with a stock 1976, 305 V8 2 barrel carb,in a firebird,malibu almost won!!!! 305 IN 1976 was rated at 175 horse with a 2 barrell,and 215 foot pounds of torque.
The malibu is not a heavy car, about 2400 pounds in 2001.A camaro or firebird with a 2.8 will be about 3000 pounds.
The malibu is not a heavy car, about 2400 pounds in 2001.A camaro or firebird with a 2.8 will be about 3000 pounds.
12-16-2007, 12:09 AM
#4
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: IL
Posts: 1,092
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 88 IROC, 76 Malibu Classic
Engine: 350 TPI, 350
Transmission: 700R4, 4-speed
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt ????
Re: '89 2.8L vs. '02 malibu 3.1L
02 malibu 3.1 will take it,they have 200 horse power,your 2.8 might have 150 hp if its running at its best.Ive raced these 3.1 malibu,s with a stock 1976, 305 V8 2 barrel carb,in a firebird,malibu almost won!!!! 305 IN 1976 was rated at 175 horse with a 2 barrell,and 215 foot pounds of torque.
The malibu is not a heavy car, about 2400 pounds in 2001.A camaro or firebird with a 2.8 will be about 3000 pounds.
The malibu is not a heavy car, about 2400 pounds in 2001.A camaro or firebird with a 2.8 will be about 3000 pounds.
12-16-2007, 11:56 AM
#6
Moderator
Re: '89 2.8L vs. '02 malibu 3.1L
My mother owns one. I'm going with the Mali.
12-16-2007, 03:53 PM
#7
Supreme Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ohio, near columbus
Posts: 1,068
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 89 iroc-z
Engine: 305tpi
Transmission: wc-t5
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt 3.08 posi (4 now)
Re: '89 2.8L vs. '02 malibu 3.1L
my sister has one and it basically was dead even with my old l03 with 1.6 roller rockers, 3in catback, smog delete, and open element so your real screwed sorry to say.
although if you can run them to over 100 you may win!
my sis's is governed to 100 mph hers is a 2k or 2k1 can't remember.
although if you can run them to over 100 you may win!
my sis's is governed to 100 mph hers is a 2k or 2k1 can't remember.
Trending Topics
12-16-2007, 04:50 PM
#8
Supreme Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: CC, TX
Posts: 5,144
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1999 Yamaha Banshee
Engine: 379cc twin cyl 2-stroke stroker
Transmission: 6 spd manual
Axle/Gears: 14/41 tooth
Re: '89 2.8L vs. '02 malibu 3.1L
Limit your races to pedestrians, tractor-trailers, and bicyclists....
You'll be golden then...
You'll be golden then...
Last edited by brodyscamaro; 12-16-2007 at 04:54 PM.
12-17-2007, 08:48 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: CHICAGO
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89 FORMULA 350
Engine: 5.7 L98
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 9 BOLT/ 3.27 GEARS
Re: '89 2.8L vs. '02 malibu 3.1L
I own a 99 Malibu with the 3.1. Even though it has a cylinder misfiring,,, its still quicker than my 86 Camaro with the 2.8 motor.
12-17-2007, 11:27 AM
#12
Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: La Mirada, California
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1991 Camaro RS
Engine: L98 350 TPI
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: ZT LSD with 3.42 - LS1 brakes
Re: '89 2.8L vs. '02 malibu 3.1L
My gf used to have a 98 Malibu with the 3.1 (3100 series II) and it would kick the crap out of my 91 LO3...
So I would put my money on the Malibu
And Semi-trucks with double 53' trailers...
Electric cars...
And if you are lucky... Geo Metro Auto (3 speed)
haha...
-Tim-
So I would put my money on the Malibu
Limit your races to pedestrians, tractor-trailers, and bicyclists....
You'll be golden then...
You'll be golden then...
^ .... don't forget street sweepers.
Electric cars...
And if you are lucky... Geo Metro Auto (3 speed)
haha...
-Tim-
12-17-2007, 12:40 PM
#13
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hou. TX
Posts: 5,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 86 TA, 91 B4C
Engine: 5.3, 4.8
Transmission: 4L80 4000, T56
Axle/Gears: 4.30 M12, 23.42 10 bolt
Re: '89 2.8L vs. '02 malibu 3.1L
Pretty sad when you can be told that you would be better off with a 305.
12-17-2007, 01:52 PM
#15
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Elverta, California
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1988 Z28 Camaro
Engine: TPI 350
Transmission: TH350
Axle/Gears: 3.73 10 bolt
Re: '89 2.8L vs. '02 malibu 3.1L
Hey i got a lo3 in my car. jk jk lol my lo3 is junk getting a new 350 next week. Bout the race i woulg just stand on the gas and dump the clutch at like red line. Well just drive the crap out of it, but i think i have to go with what everybody else said. The malibu might take you.
12-17-2007, 05:58 PM
#16
Supreme Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ohio, near columbus
Posts: 1,068
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 89 iroc-z
Engine: 305tpi
Transmission: wc-t5
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt 3.08 posi (4 now)
Re: '89 2.8L vs. '02 malibu 3.1L
The malibu might take you.[/QUOTE]
no mights about it, they will beat a l03 car from factory and stay probably nose to nose with a tpi auto car honestly.....
i ran my sis's at the track once with a mildly slippy tranny it got a 17.1 not bad considering i run terrible at the track and the tranny slipped a little lol.....
definetly use to make me look bad on the 50-80 sprints lol.
hell i run a 15 flat with my 305 5 spd tpi car car with full bolt ons so yah if i can run a 17.1 with a malibue then youre in trouble.
no mights about it, they will beat a l03 car from factory and stay probably nose to nose with a tpi auto car honestly.....
i ran my sis's at the track once with a mildly slippy tranny it got a 17.1 not bad considering i run terrible at the track and the tranny slipped a little lol.....
definetly use to make me look bad on the 50-80 sprints lol.
hell i run a 15 flat with my 305 5 spd tpi car car with full bolt ons so yah if i can run a 17.1 with a malibue then youre in trouble.
12-17-2007, 07:52 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kirkland Washington
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 84 Camaro. 90 integra
Engine: LG4, 1.6 (402hp)
Transmission: 700r4, JDM ITR w/ kaaz LSD
Re: '89 2.8L vs. '02 malibu 3.1L
sad you have a "sports car" and he has a cheap family car.
12-17-2007, 08:26 PM
#18
Supreme Member
iTrader: (45)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Northern, VA
Posts: 3,970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: Pair of 92 Z28s
Re: '89 2.8L vs. '02 malibu 3.1L
I pick the mali. by a long shot.
Id be embarrassed to even try, shrug it off your "too good" for that kind of race anyway...lol. Seriously i wouldnt even try to race anyone in an L03 third gen...my gf's old RS probably couldn't even hang with half the soccer mom minivans on the road. Let alone a 2.8...
Id be embarrassed to even try, shrug it off your "too good" for that kind of race anyway...lol. Seriously i wouldnt even try to race anyone in an L03 third gen...my gf's old RS probably couldn't even hang with half the soccer mom minivans on the road. Let alone a 2.8...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
HoosierinWA
Tech / General Engine
5
10-07-2015 10:15 AM
