Not to bash the thirdgen in any way whatsoever, but I have a question- I saw some dude in the AUDIO section post his kills in his signature and he had a 3.1 V6 RS...and he killed a 94 Mustang GT?? I dont think so...no offense to you V6 people, I mean hey, a Camaro or Firebird is just what it is, but if you race something with a V8 and you won, they were probably laughing at you the whole way. Ive driven V6s and V8s in my time and aside from a Grand National (which my dad has), I wouldnt pass up a V8 for anything, and I'd rip any V6 to shreds (again, no offense...just stating fact)

------------------
305IrocZ28- Al
1990 Iroc-Z
305 TPI
0-60 in 6.8 (timed)
2.73 Posi (3.42 or 3.73 to come)
Flowmaster exhaust
T-tops
Red w/ black racing stripes
Pioneer headunit, stock speakers, Rockford 10'' punch woofers

Ricers beware...I eat you three meals a day

 

No offense taken. Any modern('90's) V-8 would toast your average V-6, with only higher priced V-6 sports cars being the exception. I truely believe that there is no replacement for displacement, assuming all things are equal. However, V-8's(including V-6's)from the 80's tend to be a bit under-powered for their displacement, including the TPI 305's and 350's. Stock vs. stock, there are quite a few modern V-6's in front wheel drive sedans that would beat many older V-8 powered muscle cars. Infact, there are quite a few 4-bangers that could put up a good fight.

 

I think what is important to remember is hp to weight ratio. A light car is as good as more horsepower. In this board we all should be fairly equal in weight so in general V8's beat V6's. I wouldnt say that a V6 thirdgen couldnt beat a V8 thirdgen, because some of those V6 guys get pretty tricky. Sure the majority (not all) of them run on the high side of 16 second quarter miles...but so do some V8 powered thirdgens. If you through enough money/time at any car, it can be made fast. Just a thought
-'85

 

Amen to that. I think some of you v8 guys are a little thick headed thinking you can beat all v6's. I know one guy on the v6 board ran like a 13.8 in a 2.8 v6. Which I think beats all stock thirdgens besides a tta or firehawk. I don't even think I need to tell you that a tta is a 3.8 v6 and it can smoke even new 4th gens. So, no you can't beat all v6 thirdgens.

------------------
1992 Polo Green RS 3.1L K&N conical and working on the ram air....

"Yeah, it's a V6 SO WHAT!?"

 

Sorry i just feel like arguing but there'd be no way a TTA stock could take a new ram air T/A or SS, plain and simple.

 

Yes, I admit, the mighty 89 TTA is no slouch for a V6, but I was mainly referring to the near stock 2.8s and 3.1s...the Grand National/GNX and TTA are just true gods...I STILL drool over my dad's GN and I have my own car.....sad.

------------------
305IrocZ28- Al
1990 Iroc-Z
305 TPI
0-60 in 6.8 (timed)
2.73 Posi (3.42 or 3.73 to come)
Flowmaster exhaust
T-tops
Red w/ black racing stripes
Pioneer headunit, stock speakers, Rockford 10'' punch woofers

Ricers beware...I eat you three meals a day

 

In its day it was fast, still is IMO. My question is could a TTA take a L98 ?

------------------
1988 Sport Coupe 305 TBI
K&N
Flowmaster 80


Daily driver:
1988 K1500 5.7 4x4 shortbed flowmaster cat-back gutted cat.
AOL: RyanNH84

 

Of course the TTA could take an L98. The TTA were the fastest 3rd Gen. until I assume the LS1s came out.

------------------
"Rice burners are like tampons...Every pu$$y has to have one"
'86 IROC
T-TOPS, TINTED WINDOWS, BRAKE LIGHT BLACKOUTS
GM GOODWRENCH 350
EDELBROCK TES HEADERS
3" Hooker CatBack w/Aero Chamber muffler
EDELBROCK 600CFM CARB.
KN AIRFILTER
ACCEL HEI DISTRIBUTOR
160* Stat
3:73 Posi
Rebuilt 700R4
B&M Megashifter, 5" Autometer Tach w/shift lite

 

Stock, the tta ran a 13.6 in the quarter or something close to that. Depending on the driver of the all mighty ls1's it could take some. And the 0 to 60 time is the same as my friends 2002 ws6 t/a. Talk to kyle f on the v6 board if any of you have questions. Some people even think the tta is the fastest f body ever. That and the firehawk. I think it could give a lot of stock Ls1's a run for it's money. And it could kill all lt1's stock. Anyways, all it takes is a boost in the turbo and it WILL smoke the LS1's.

------------------
1992 Polo Green RS 3.1L K&N conical and working on the ram air....

"Yeah, it's a V6 SO WHAT!?"

 

I agree that the tta is the fastest f-body, especially when you compare the difference in the technology with today's engine.

I can't remember what show it was (something like autoweek, or some speedvision car magazine show), but they did a whole firebird commemerative (sp?) edition, and the TTA beat the 35th (the white 4th gen convertible with blue stripes and the big ram air nose) in the 1/4. Even the host of the show admitted that the TTA is the fastest 'bird

 

im sorry but i personally think that pontiac put a little more heart into their motors and a little more effort than their cousin the camaro. i mean the firehawk is rare but was worth the money pontiac wnated for it. same with the tta. This is my opinion and i hope some agree with it....Pontiac built these rare cars for a couple of reason's.
the turbo v6 why? because pontiac wanted to show everyone that it could be done and that it could be fast. why the firehawk? because i think they wanted a car to challenge the vette. the next question kills me why wouldn't chevy answer back with a blazing fast z28 or something. the only rare fast oen i know of is the l98?but it wont turn a 1/4 in under 14.0 right? i love the camaro but i think pontiac put more effort in the firebird!
recaro xfire
p.s. hope i didnt offend anyone
chevy and pontiacs are both gods!!!

 

Well, I guess all the fast stock thirdgens were pontiacs. The TTA is NOT the fastest because the firehawk ran a 13.2 stock. But considering how few were made (26 or something), I think the TTA would be the fastest regular production thirdgen. To the original poster, remember that a car doesnt have to be fast to be a great car, and us V8 guys would probably save hundreds in gas with a V6. Think about how much time we actualy spend every day with the foot to the floor, and how fast we really need to accelerate for daily driving. That said, I just thought about all the times I floor it, and im glad I have a V8 .
peace

 

My personal take on the whole v6/v8 thing..If you've got the power of the darkside under the hood(that good ole GM turbo v6) you're going to pretty much walk all over any stock v8 f-body. I was in a GN one time a few months back with a friend of mine and just so happened that a camaro SS wanted to give it a go and we left him in the dust..Assuming the camaro was stock the GN just had the boost turned up..an 87' practically stock vehicle beating a 00' stock vehicle..pretty impressive if you ask me.



------------------
"Turn a 12 second dream into a 10 second reality"

 

even the newer grand prix's are pretty quick considering that they are a v6 my roomate has a GTP and he runs high 13's without NOS and he just got a new zex nitrous kit so he should be able to beat most stock v8's and the only real mods he has is smaller pulleys, cold air induction and new mufflers.

 

Ha, good one. Get your numbers straight, then come to the table with facts.

Allow me to lay it on the line for you. My friend has 1992 Firehawk number 24, you know, THE green one. It is not (and he will tell you this) faster than an 89 TTA. The 89 TTA still reigns supreme on the top of the F-body heap. Yes, that means it's faster than the almighty LS1 cars and most certainly faster than the Lt-1 cars.

Oh and if you think that Chevy didn't answer the Firehawk, I would like for you to take a ride in a true 1LE car. Then come back and tell me they aren't even close. The 1LE (above mentioned friend's dad) was just about as quick, and although it would get beat in the 1/4 mile, the 1LE would hand the 'hawk his @ss. Also, Pontiac did not persue the building of the Firehawk. SLP approached GM about it. I have seen the documentation that proves that if anyone wants to know where I got my info.

Chris

 

It's about time! Someone else finally agreed with me. The TTA can still kill most fbodys plain and simple. Not to mention, it looks a lot better than the Grand National.

------------------
1992 Polo Green RS 3.1L K&N conical and working on the ram air....

"Yeah, it's a V6 SO WHAT!?"

 

Pontiac rated the turbo V6 at a conservative 250 hp. The truth is most motors actually dynoed closer to 300. My view on stock is if you didn't add any parts just adjusted some it is stock. What do the fourth gens weigh?

------------------
'87 Silverado
350 4 bolt main bore .040 over
TB Injected
Ported and Polished heads
Comp cams 268h cam and top end
Flowtech headers
3.73s on Detroit locker

 

You mean to say he brought a 15 flat car to the high 13's with a 3.25" pulley, cold air, mufflers, and no slicks. I don't think so. Take a look at the Oct 01 issue of High Performance Pontiac. The guys that ran without slicks couldn't touch that number without major engine work. I'll bet your roomate will hit the 13's on the spray though.

 

If you check out some GTP sites, you'll find that many of them run high to mid 14's stock.

 

Don't the TTA's have a top speed of around 165 or so? I haven't seen any specs from any 4th gen that rival this... If we're talking fastest then the quarter mile isn't the way to compare, because thats only acceleration... the top speed is an indicator of raw power.

------------------
1984 Firebird - Daily driver, 305 LG4, T5 - Hurst short shifter, Edelbrock 600 CFM Performer Carb + Intake - Edelbrock Pro-Flow air filter, gutted cat, IROC 16x8 Wheels, AIWA bargain basement (from Sears of course) CD player, Eight-ball shift ****
Check out my ride here - My $1300 Toy

"IT'S SNOWING! TO THE HIGH SCHOOL PARKING LOT!" - The Mustang and Firebird face off in the dead of winter.

 

[/B]

Actuall he ran 13.87. The only other thing i can think of that he had was a set of drag radials.

I had barely beat him out i got 13.84



[This message has been edited by rudys119 (edited October 04, 2001).]

 

No, actually, top speed is an indication of gearing and weight.
You could go 100 miles an hour with 1 horse, but you would have to weigh almost nothing, have low (numerically) gearing.
For example, my friends GN (neat how my comparison ties into the V6 thing, no?) is slower than my TBI Firebird top speed. Unfortunately, the 700r4 keeps his speed low, due to the damned downshift thing. I suppose he COULD accelerate real slow in 4th (so as to not downshift), but that's not how it usually works. I have my VSS on a toggle switch, so in 5th I can cruise WAY over my tires rating, and pass the car with superior horsepower.

------------------
No guts, no glory.

 

I thought the same thing, but you need HP in order to push the car faster. It needs the power because of wind resistance and other factors. If you don't believe me ask Vader on the engine board, I believe he was the one that pointed this mistake out to me. But gearing and weight definately play a role.

------------------
"Rice burners are like tampons...Every pu$$y has to have one"
'86 IROC
T-TOPS, TINTED WINDOWS, BRAKE LIGHT BLACKOUTS
GM GOODWRENCH 350
EDELBROCK TES HEADERS
3" Hooker CatBack w/Aero Chamber muffler
EDELBROCK 600CFM CARB.
KN AIRFILTER
ACCEL HEI DISTRIBUTOR
160* Stat
3:73 Posi
Rebuilt 700R4
B&M Megashifter, 5" Autometer Tach w/shift lite

 

This goes back to the original post- let me just give a suggestion to all V6ers, just for clarification...chances are if you "beat" a V8 it was because he didnt bother racing you. Personally, if something pitiful comes up next to me, I usually dont race it unless its a ***** (in which case, I win)...but if it was like something that i knew I would beat I wouldnt bother. Hence, a '94 Mustang GT (even the auto), would have trounced a 3.1 RS any way you decide to look at it.

------------------
305IrocZ28- Al
1990 Iroc-Z
305 TPI
0-60 in 6.8 (timed)
2.73 Posi (3.42 or 3.73 to come)
Flowmaster exhaust
T-tops
Red w/ black racing stripes
Pioneer headunit, stock speakers, Rockford 10'' punch woofers

Ricers beware...I eat you three meals a day

 

Apparently, the orginal post was a bash on the base V-6's. You might as well bash the lo-po 305's, too, since most of those are slow as *****.

 

Where did this bash on the 6's come from? All I was saying is that NO, YOU CAN'T BEAT ALL V6'S! I admit your car is nice and I would like one someday with an 8 cylinder. BUT, I would not get a car with a 305. I would get a 350 so I could beat ALL 305's. Whoa, who do I sound like? Now don't be dumb about this. It all depends with how much money you want to put in to it. There are plenty of people around with 4 bangers that could beat you. I do believe that there is no replacement for displacement. So mod for mod, a v8 will always be faster than a v6. But if I was to mod the crap out of my 6 and you kept your car stock, I could beat you too. It's all about the $dinero$! No reason to be ignorant.

------------------
1992 Polo Green RS 3.1L K&N conical and working on the ram air....

"Yeah, it's a V6 SO WHAT!?"

 

back when the thirdgens came out in the 80's once the fuel injection was put on v6's they were pretty fast for a V6 back then. even now with the fourth gens putting out 200 stock HP is pretty nice. thats pretty damn close to the stock 215 the first TPIs put out. i do agree with you about more cubic inches equals more power. but there are alot of V6s out there that can stomp on a V8. and you have to remeber that mustang GTs arent exactly a stock muscle car like a LS1. the only reason y i didnt but a V8 is because of insurance. me being an 18 year old male with a 95 camaro V6 alreay costs me 260 a month to insure. the LT1 97 z28 i wnated cost 340 as month to insure. i would love a LT1 or LS1, but just cant afford the insurance. and yes, i have seen a 3.1 out of a 91 bird run 13's. its possible, but like people said, it costs a little more.

 

The fastest Pontiac Firebird I ever seen street race was a 70 455HO. Dont forget about the 69's either. The magazine times don't mean s*** because those cars had outrageous torque and crappy tires,so of course 0 to 40 mph times sucked, but with slicks things were different.

 

all this talk of the fastest f-body have you forgotten about the Baldwin Motion '70 camaro? What about the Yenko Camaro? and the fastest firebird, that would go to the '70 455 H.O.

 

this is sad

why the v6 bashing. yeah so we know that a v8 has the ability to make more power
but ya know it is fun to take a smaller motor and have some fun with it

again and again this my ***** is bigger battle rages on.
is an f body not an f body anymore just cause it has a v6.
oh well I guess I will leave this bickering stuff to you guys while I am putting in my new motor and turbo setup..


------------------
ICQ 4116192
AIM RXspeed87
Got rotary?
hon-duhs breakfast of champs
gotta love the camaro

 

ummm, wasn't the first year of the 455 in the '71 trans am? The 70 had the 400 I believe.

-=]

------------------
88 Firebird, 2.8, auto
*K&N air filter
*Flowmaster complete cat-back exhaust system

88 GTA Trans AM, 5.7, auto
*K&N air filter
*New MAF
(Future Mods.)
-JET chip stage II
-180 thermo.
-exhaust
-cold air induction
-intake runners
-cam?

 

From what I can tell, this is the fastest F-body production package ever... I was on the Car and Driver site when I saw this:

Pontiac Hurst Firebird by Lingenfelter

This car was made for the '97 production year and installed on a total of 9 cars... It claims a top speed of 182 MPH It doesn't have a turboed six... its a 350...

[This message has been edited by ChillPhatCat (edited October 05, 2001).]