I took my car out with my buddy's borrowed G-Tech today. Brand new G-Tech..it was his christmas present. I take it out to this network of empty streets..nothing on them, just woods everywhere, and found the section of it that's about 1/2 mile long.

Results:
Quarter: 16.48 @ 84.2 mph

0-60: 8.28 seconds

Look at my signature..my car isn't highly modified! So the question is..guess the mystery mod! I'm beginning to think my tranny isn't a 700-R4. Shift points at WOT are all wrong...acts like it's got a 4:1 first gear, and I don't know what else.. And also, the car was MISSING a tranny mount when I first got it...the only reason I can think of for a tranny mount to be completely missing is that the tranny was worked on and someone forgot something.. But, would a rebuilt tranny with a mild shift kit be enough to bring the times down THAT much?

I'm shocked and dismayed..but in a good way! When I looked up at the G-Tech.....well, let's just say:

:lala: :hail: :hail: :hail:

After I edited it, my sig disappeared, but here are known mods to the car:

*Tranny cooler
*Dynomax Super Turbo Catback
*Catco High Flow
*Taylor Spiropro 8mm's
*Blue Streak Cap & Rotor
*Rapidfires
*Mildly modified intake (can removed, K&N cylindrical filter)

 

maybe something internal on your car, cam & heads maybe? my car look(ed) completely stock un until i just finished building my intake, and i was snagging 0-60's in the mid to high 7's (stopwatch timed by a friend in shotgun). i only wish there was a 1/4 mile track here so i could figure out what my time on the quarter would be like

 

Not to knock, but next summer... 1/4 times... aiming for high 12's 0-60 something like 5-6 secs. then again I am bolting in over 200 more cubes. And after I get a real job after school, those times will fall even more as I will be swapping to BBC-TPI and twin Vortecs.

 

12s sound fun but id like a 9-10 sec daily driver.

I had a drag bike once and it did an easy 9.5 with a 200lb rider and it was scary as heck. But in a car it might just be fun.

you say a little prayer, you pointed it straight and let it lose. and at the end of the run you were more than ready to let off the gas and breath.

It was a 72 kaw 750 tripple 2 stroke, 20 over jugs, jeted with expansion chamber pipes, extended frame and swing arm, air shifter, 7 in slick. I had a set of 80 over jugs but never had the nerve [*****] to through them on.


oh yea and the best part, only a single disc front brake. Who needs to stop.

 

Believe me..I'm not trying to brag or anything, I'm just trying to figure out why the hell my car is so much faster than I thought it was. I expected 16.9-17.1, with a 9.5-10 second 0-60....so I was surprised as hell! I was worried as to whether I was going to break 16's, because I'm running on damn near bald rear tires and I need a tune up.

 

well that 12's mark is N/A motor with carb. now imagine that motor rebuilt,(AGAIN) and built for TPI, and 2 votecs.... 12's will be a thing of the past.

 

No you don't, trust me I have one. It never leaves the garage anymore because its such a beast to drive. When you do drive it your actually the slowest car on the road because you know you have the power, it shows, and you don't need to flant it- everyone around you knows not to mess with it.

12 sec cars are fast enough for daily drivers.

 

It'd have to be a 700r4; nothing else will bolt to your motor, besides the 3-speed 200C (which MDv6Man loves!) and the manual transmissions.

 

i think it's the G-Tech mod. i would try going to a track and get real numbers. no offense but i don't trust G-Tech.

 

You know, my fiance's parents bought me a Gtech last Christmas (of 2001), and it's still unopened in the box, on the top of my bookcase. I should really crack it open, eh?

 

Man tom if I had a G tech I would straping that thing to everything I could find, whether it be a row boat, bicycle, a friends Tempo, or even maybe my car.

 

Ok I'm lost and somehow have been left out of the loop.

What is this G-Tech your speaking of????

 

Hmm...well, I'll have to get me a working tach so I can check my rpms in OD on the highway, then in Drive, and check out all my WOT shift points to see if I can figure what's up with this thing. I mean..signs point to SOME sort of tranny work done, at least in my opinion... MISSING tranny mount. Tranny cooler installed. TV cable completely taut. Shift cable to the console out of adjustment.. But if it's not the tranny, I would think rear end..but it would have to be pretty beefy to only hit 30 mph max..MAYBE 35...in first gear...our cars are supposed to reach 40-45 in 1st from what I've heard. BUT, if my rear is THAT beefy, why does the car turn extremely decent rpms on the highway? Highway I get about 21-22 mpg.

 

I'm going to take it to the drag strip sometime in the next few months...I just need to get me some new tires, and do a few more little things...like...brakes...steering...new coil....lol...

 

Those sound more like signs of tranny abuse than performance work! Gumby, here's the website; I have the Pro model; the competition one came out a few months ago: http://www.gtechpro.com

 

lol...depends on your pov. Still though, why would the moron yank a tranny mount and leave it off? Even if it was broken, it makes no sense to pull it and not have a new one put on soon after.. And about the tranny shifting hard..I only assumed it isn't because of wear because every 700-R4 that I've seen on its way out has never had a hard shifting problem. Hell, I've never seen a 700-R4 that shifted hard...they're always mushy and slow shifters, even with a taut TV cable... Mine is hard and quick...

 

Heheh, because he was a moron! You put one on there, right?

 

Yes, I put one on there. But not before stupidly mashing the gas pedal several times. By several, I mean in the double digits I'm sure. I was a freshie, ok! I didn't know a turbocharger from a power steering pump...

 

And quick question Tom..does this 1/4 mile time and trap speed sound right for my mods? I was looking at at hp estimator, and with my vehicle weight and ET, the estimator was almost dead on with my r!cer logic math... Using the trap speed instead of the ET, the estimator added about 10-15 extra horses. According to that thing, any of our cars with at least 135 hp is capable of netting ET's of at least 16.8-16.9..but all I ever hear of is 17.1's and up......

 

Apparently your efforts are paying off. That is a decent time, good enough to beat a lot of 305 TBI cars (no, no, not that, I forgot the Nomex!).

I'd say your best two improvements are the air intake and exhaust. The stock air intake is a very restricted design. I've posted pics of it here not too long ago. With a '92 3.1l the exhaust was a minor improvement. The change from stock to a Y intake was a major improvement.

I made the changeover on a Friday night and then didn't drive the car all weekend. Come Monday I had forgotten that I made the change over. Driving the car I first thought, wow, she's running decent today. Then as I drove more I started thinking, why is this car responding to the go pedal so much better?

About halfway to my destination it dawned on me, I had replaced the stock intake with the Y setup. Dang, this is better.

One thing a lot of folks don't realise is that GM will purposely slow a car down. We can't have the V6 as fast as the V8, slow it down! Which year f-body was it that GM put an exhaust restrictor in (late 3rd gen, early 4th?)? Where the pipe enters the muffler a donut with a small opening was placed inline. Killed the power.

RBob.

 

Yes, I'm pretty happy with my car! Although my intake is, as I said, MILDLY modified. It's still got the restrictive stock arm, with the two 90 degrees....only difference is the cylindrical filter is a K&N, and the air can was removed with the sensor slid under and inside the filter, so the cylinder pulls from all sides as opposed to a 1 inch hole. And yeah, I realize what GM does...dirty trickery. Such as...when they introduced the 350 into 3rd gen Camaros, they put more restrictive exhaust, etc. because the car would keep up with Corvettes...and of course, the Corvette is the flagship..nothing can outrun the flagship...

 

Well nothing from factory should outrun the flagship. If it did, then why would people buy a vette. Its like the mustang from Ford, nothing in there line up out runs it, a focus turbo is coming, and if it outruns the Stang, it will be detuned. Its the facts of life. But the good thing is we can simply change over those restrictive exhausts and have vette power.

 

Yep...the politics of business. I say..don't de-tune the Corvette engine for the Camaros..I say if the Camaro will run with the vette, then it's time the vette got an overhaul, instead of being cheap and adding restrictions to the Camaro! But, of course you look at budgets, pricing, production, costs, etc.... Well, I'll leave the math to the businessmen.

 

except for the same years TTA

 

Did the TTA really outrun the vette too? Wow.... Bet they underrated the TTA's power rating too. Pontiac only got away with that because, obviously, they're not Chevy...and the GM power car flagship is Chevy-made.

 

Yeah, Pontiac pulled a fast one with the 1989 TTA. They rated it at 250 HP @ 4400 rpm, when the redline is probably 2000 RPM higher than that. They have discovered internal Pontiac division documents that show that they knew the car was putting out over 300 HP, but they downplayed it and got them out the door. I know that the GM brass, and especially the Corvette folks, had to have been pissed over that one, but by the time they found out the cars were already being produced and sold. I guess they took some advice that my dad used to give which is: "sometimes it is easier to get forgiveness than permission."

 

How about,

A) a LOW stall torque converter to give it that kick off the line?

B) Port and polish work done to your intake and heads?

 

Hmm...have no idea. Haven't yanked the motor apart...although I'd like to sometime when I'm better prepared to get the crap out of the heads and polish those ports up... And the torque converter....how would you know if you've got a stall converter in? I highly doubt mine's anything but stock...locks at 40 mph and has a very soft, mild-mannered lock..except the fact that it has a problem knowing when to unlock.

 

Realistically, the torque converter (or a different torque converter for that matter) will really only have any kind of affect on your car from 0-30 miles an hour.

Having a lower STALL torque converter than what is found STOCK in a car will give you that extra SNAP off the line. Basically, an automatic transmission SLIPS, as you know. The torque converter stall is the speed at which the transmission stops slipping and gives FULL force of the engine power to the driving wheels. The transmission needs some sort of a stall obviously, otherwise it would blow itself to pieces.

That's why when people build HUGE motors, and they never change out the converter, they're blowing the transmissions left and right. The higher the horsepower (in signifigant numbers), people usually go with HIGHER stall converters. This will help lower the chance that you'll break traction on a launch.

Changing out your torque converter does not affect your acceleration once the converter stops stalling. (depending on the stall of the converter, this could be anywhere from 2,000 to 3,000 or something).

However, in a V6 car, you're using a 700R4 (most likely). Since that tranny was built to support a V8, it's not likely that the whopping 175lbs of torque of the 2.8 is going to KILL the transmission... so they probably figured, to help get off the line quicker, lets put a lower stall converter in the car.


I did the same thing with my V6 Fiero. I'm going to a 3.1 with cam to replace my 2.8 V6/60. Well.. it's the same block, but I'm going with the cam kit. In any case, I snagged a torque converter from an 87 Fiero 4 cyl. It stopps stalling at 200rpms less than the factory stall converter for my V6.

This could also explain why your tranny looks like it was removed.

They could have likely pulled a torque converter from say, one of the older Iron Duke Firebirds. I bet they REALLY needed something low to get that thing going with 92bhp.

Todd

 

Hmm...thanks for the info! I had always assumed higher stall was better, but never knew what for or anything....I just assumed since higher hp cars got higher stall, it was better! But yeah...all I can say about my car is...it's a beast off the line. Now and then the throttle response is a tad sluggish...that's just engine bog...but if it's running right and I punch the gas, it'll spin the hell out of my drivetire most of the way through first gear, which encompasses right about 0-30.

 

Someone correct me here if I'm wrong, but I thought the purpose of a high stall converter was to 'flash' higher in the powerband, sending more power right to the wheels. Anyone ever seen a dyno of sub 3k rpm power? It's amazingly low. A high stall converter will wait till like 4k rpm, then snap - the tranny kicks, and off you go under high rpm power.

You will lose mpg tho, and you DON'T want a stall converter higher than your average rpm as you drive. The converter will slip like a ****, and overheat your tranny fluid - dead tranny.

 

I thought the same thing too, Doward. The result (using your example) would be like dumping the clutch on a manual tranny at 4,000 RPM.

And technically, our 700r4's weren't meant to take the strength of a v8. We've got fewer clutches in the clutch packs, and in one spot, a thin sprag and a spacer, where the v8's got a thick sprag.

 

I sure hope you are not talking about the stock TPI intakes, go with a Stealh Ram, get 60 more ponies that way

 

Actually redline starts at 5200 rpm with an amber starting
at 4700. That V6 does not need high rpms to make power.

 

Well, yeah, that's exactly what the purpose is of a torque converter, but if you have the power, having the torque converter lower is better, you get off the line quicker with less stall and slippage.

Todd

 

The torque converter serves two functions:
(1) it acts as a decoupling device between the engine and transmission. You want to match a converter to your engine's effective RPM range. If your engine has a lumpy cam and the powerband doesn't start until, say, 3000 RPM, you want a torque converter that will stall there so that when you hit the gas off the line, the engine instantly hits it's powerband. The lower the stall is, the lower the RPM is when the engine is 'fully coupled' to the transmission. The factory uses notoriously low stall speeds, so that the cars would be smooth off the line, and would not slip and heat up the trans while driving, as Doward said above. Getting a torque converter with a higher stall will help to get your engine into a higher powerband when you hit it. Also, the same torque converter will stall higher with an engine that produces more torque. It is not an 'at 3k RPM it's gonna lock up definitely' kind of thing. That is probably why your 4 cylinder torque converter works so well in your V6. The Six has more power and torque, so it is making the converter flash and stall at a slightly higher RPM, which gets you off the line quicker because the engine is making more power when it gets the load. Also point number two helps you out as well.

(2) The torque converter multiplies the torque of the engine. Usually it is by about 1.5:1 or something like that. It only does this when it is not fully locked up, so only over a certain rpm range. The closer it gets to fully locked up, the less multiplication you get until there is none.
Have you ever had your foot in your car, and when it shifted, you noticed that the engine RPMs stayed in the same place for two or three seconds, but you were still accelerating and the engine was still under full load? This happens with my car all the time. When you are holding the same RPM, but the car is accelerating, the torque converter is multiplying your torque. Some of the racers refer to this condition as being 'back on the converter.' Different torque converters can also be build with more or less torque multiplication. You want less if you are having traction problems, but more if you are underpowered. That is another reason why aftermarket converters are better, most of them have higher torque multiplication.

I didn't mean to write a book, but just to try my best to clarify a very confusing component of the automatic transmission, and believe me, I don't understand everything about them. Most of this stuff was printed in a Car Craft or Hot Rod article a few years ago.

 

Automatics...ehhck...overly complicated. So let me get this straight..a manual has no torque converter? And where is the torque converter mounted...in front of the transmission, before or after the flexplate?

 

The torque converter is a big round doughnut looking thing. It slides into the center shaft of the auto transmission in the bell-housing. It is the reason why the bell-housing is as big as it is. It then bolts to the flywheel of the engine.

 

Yeah, a manual trans has a clutch. When a car with a manual trans comes to a stop, they have to disengage the clutch. If they leave the clutch engaged, the car's brakes will stop the axle which stops the driveshaft which stops the transmission which (thru the clutch) stops the engine- and they'll stall. This is a "mechanical" coupling of the transmission and engine.

A car with an automatic trans can just come to a stop. The brakes stop the axle which stops the driveshaft which stops the transmission which stops the torque convertor's "turbine". Since the torque convertor uses "fluid coupling", the engine continues to spin it's side of the torque convertor (the pump). Since the turbine and pump aren't physically connected, one can move while the other doesn't. This is why you can't push-start a car with an automatic transmission! Think of two fans facing each other; one is turned on at high speed, the other is unplugged. Soon, the unplugged fan starts to spin because of the fan that's turned on. Imagine trans fluid between those two, and that's a torque convertor.

I just looked for a page showing a cut-away view, and found a page that's pretty cool; it shows a cut-away, gives a description of how a torque convertor works, AND shows how an aftermarket torque convertor gets made. Link is here: http://www.thrashercharged.com/tech_...convertor.shtm

 

Right on... Yeah I know what a torque converter looks like..I've seen them before..some of the insides too..but I'm not familiar with transmissions at all or their terminology...just trying to build myself a mental image here. Ok..so the flywheel on a manual is the flexplate on an auto right...same thing? The starter meshes in with the flexplate/flywheel teeth to turn them to turn the engine.. The torque converter on an auto is BEHIND the flexplate bolted to it right? And then slides onto the center shaft in the bell housing..which is the big, basically, hole in the FRONT of the transmission, correct?

 

Yep, you got it!

 

Right....alright.. I watched a nice little video explanation on one of those Speedvision or TNN shows...I forget which one..the one with Cam and Dean in it...it was on a manual..so I understand the basic principals of that now.. But...as far as autos....ehh... Let's save the clutch packs for tomorrow..dont know how much more I can absorb right now.

 

I have "posi clutches" in my differential. I have no idea how it works, and I haven't taken it apart yet either, But I know I have to replace them because the rear end doesn't always lockup like it should (81 TransAm).

I just know it's 100 bucks for a rebuild kit.


Todd

 

G-techs aren't always 100% accurate... See what you really run at the track

 

I agree. G-techs give you a pretty good estimate that is close, but it is a little off on the optimistic side. The track is the most accurate way, but sometimes the track isn't open or not available so the G-tech is a good substitute, besides it measures other things too. Overall it is a good measurement of performance to see if what you did to your car improved anything.


I want to get one.

 

Yeah...my nearest drag strip is Orlando Speed World. I think it's a full 1/4 mile..hope so... I was going to go during Christmas vacation when I was out of school, but I had to work the last 2 days it was open..it was closed all the way through the latter end of December and like until the 8th of January. But every Wednesday and Friday now they have something like 'street race day'....$10 to drag all night...1 on 1's, grudge matches, test and tune, etc. It's a great deal.

 

Hey Nix! in four hours you can be in Savannah, fifteen bucks on a Wednesday night test-n-tune at the 1/8 mile. I got a spare room.
Our '91 vs yours. I won't put on the drag radials

E

 

Ya know if I weren't in school I would actually consider taking you up on that. Make me the offer again this summer after I'm graduated. Then, ohhh yes, it's on.

 

I suppose you're referring to the S-10..and not the Camaro, right? Hmm..I might have to nevermind ya on that. Lol just kidding. I don't mind losing...as long as I lose to someone respectable.

 

The Camaro of course!

The Cam runs 10.84 in the 1/8, the truck has done a best of 9.43 spinning one tire all through first and second gear. Never tried the drags on either one.

I traded a bed for an '82 Chevy truck that I paid $200 bucks for for a set of four 16X8 Trans Am GTA gold crosslace rims in decent shape, a couple of small corrosion spots but no curb rash, and the rears have 255/50/16 BFG drag radials on them with a few good passes left in 'em.

Anyhow Kristy's Camaro is bone stock so I think it would be a decent comparison car vs car.

Eric