3.1 1/4 mile times
Supreme Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,564
Likes: 1
From: Central FL
Car: 91 Camaro
Engine: 3.1...not hardly stock
Transmission: 700r4....not stock either
Axle/Gears: 3.73
normally, they seem to run around 16.5 at best then slower from there. correct me if i'm wrong but this seems to be about the best i've seen on a stock motor.
Supreme Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,827
Likes: 1
From: Gainesville, FL
Car: 1988 Chevy Camaro Hardtop
Engine: Turbocharged/Intercooled 3.1
Transmission: World Class T5 5 Speed
Sounds about right... see the sig (below) for a stock 2.8 / T5, in good tune - that's my last run, with no mods...
Supreme Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
From: Palm Bay, Florida, USA
Car: 95 E-150 & 07 Kawasaki ZX-6R
Engine: A slow one & a fast one
Transmission: A bad one & a good one
Axle/Gears: A weak one & a chained one
Sounds right to me.
My old automatic 3.1 Camaro with 106,000 miles ran an unofficial G-Tech 1/4 mile of 16.48 at 85 mph, with slight intake work, a ghetto tuneup (plugs, wires, cap/rotor, and O2 sensor), and exhaust, on 235 width BFG Radial T/A's on some nice rough pavement.
My old automatic 3.1 Camaro with 106,000 miles ran an unofficial G-Tech 1/4 mile of 16.48 at 85 mph, with slight intake work, a ghetto tuneup (plugs, wires, cap/rotor, and O2 sensor), and exhaust, on 235 width BFG Radial T/A's on some nice rough pavement.
Supreme Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
From: Palm Bay, Florida, USA
Car: 95 E-150 & 07 Kawasaki ZX-6R
Engine: A slow one & a fast one
Transmission: A bad one & a good one
Axle/Gears: A weak one & a chained one
Keep in mind though that's a G-Tech run. G-Techs have been rumored to be a little 'optimistic'. Plus it was on a rough launch surface so I hooked instantly. My G-Tech 0-60 was supposedly 8.28 secs, which I find a little hard to believe myself.
Supreme Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,029
Likes: 6
From: Illinois
Car: 1988 Trans Am
Engine: 305 TPI
Originally posted by Nixon1
Keep in mind though that's a G-Tech run. G-Techs have been rumored to be a little 'optimistic'. Plus it was on a rough launch surface so I hooked instantly. My G-Tech 0-60 was supposedly 8.28 secs, which I find a little hard to believe myself.
Keep in mind though that's a G-Tech run. G-Techs have been rumored to be a little 'optimistic'. Plus it was on a rough launch surface so I hooked instantly. My G-Tech 0-60 was supposedly 8.28 secs, which I find a little hard to believe myself.
Trending Topics
Supreme Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,473
Likes: 0
From: chesapeake va
Car: 08 Sierra, 08 Silverado, 91 z28
Engine: 5.3, 4.3, 5.7
Transmission: autos
Originally posted by Nixon1
My G-Tech 0-60 was supposedly 8.28 secs, which I find a little hard to believe myself.
My G-Tech 0-60 was supposedly 8.28 secs, which I find a little hard to believe myself.
Supreme Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,461
Likes: 0
From: BFE, MD
Car: 13 Ram 1500/ 78 Formy
Engine: 5.7 / 7.4
Transmission: 6sp / TH350
Axle/Gears: 3.55 posi / 3.23
has anyone actually taken a g-tech to the track for a direct comparison? I'm sure this would help out lots of peeps in the conversion factor, may even make TomP take is out of the box 
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
From: Solomons Island Maryland
Car: 1991 Camaro RS
Engine: 4 bbl 305
Transmission: 700R4
guys i watched a 2.8 take on a 3.1 they ran the same times almost 2.8 went a 17.49 the 3.1 went a 17.37 the 3.1 only has 140hp and like 15 more ftlbs of torque its not that much to make that big of a difference
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
evilstuie
Tech / General Engine
22
Jan 9, 2020 08:29 PM
