Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Memories Of The Old GM And Its Cars
383 messages, Last post on Nov 12, 2009 at 5:33 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: berri (Jun 16, 2009 12:08 pm) When it was not very old my parents also bought a Tempo for unknown reasons...the Tempo seemed like a degree higher in technology to me, mainly because of its shape and the engine, with FI, looked more modern. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Jun 16, 2009 10:56 am) If you drive in 3 instead of OD, that will be somewhat gone. The tranmission likes to upshift to 4th and lock up the torque converter at about 45-48. I could look it up in my service manual. When it's locked up in OD, the economy is great, but the feel of zip for those who want it is, well, underwhelming. But floor it and it downshifts and all hell breaks loose. I also believe, having owned three of these, that the fuel trim in the computer changes based on whether you are accelerating from a dead stop through those speeds at a smart pace or you are cruising gently and step on the gas. It's like it takes time to unlock TCC, shift to 3, and flush extra fuel out of the injectors. But if you just accelerated hard and step on it again, it's ready to continue. Despite the detractors on that motor in the GP (a noisy car in my opinion in terms of sound proofing), I hit the fuel economy reset near Downtown Dayton and had 39 mpg when I got to the Ohio River downtown Cincy. I cruised at 60 and some at 55 in light traffic. No AC. Return trip was about 35 with AC on and slightly faster moving with traffic.
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jun 16, 2009 3:18 pm) If you drive in 3 instead of OD, that will be somewhat gone. I have no choice. Mine is stuck in 3rd for the duration. It does the 3rd gear lockup at 47-48 mph and drops from about 2200 to 2000 revs. Used to shift into 4th and drop to 1600 revs at 47 mph. Now at 2400 revs at 60 mph, It gets awful quiet when I get to the off ramp and revs fall in half as if it finds 4th gear when I take my foot off the gas. I've lost 5-6 mpg not having 4th gear, but still manage 22 in summer. Gran Prix is not supposed to have the sound insulation or the gearing of a Buick. The Buick hood has a rubber seal around all 4 sides and the engine is even boxed in underneath. The carpet is 3 times as thick as a Grand Prix's. My Mustang has factory headers so you wouldn't expect much sound insulation. |
|
|
I still have fond memories of my '69 Z-28. It was the first car I owned (and no, I paid for it myself). For a late 60's muscle car, it was real sleeper in that the engine really didn't come into it's own until the tach hit 4,000 rpms. So, its zero to 60 times and quarter miles times were a little conservative in so far as what its true performance was. It was based on the Camaro Penske was racing (and winning with) in the Trans Am series, which required that the car be based on a minimum production run of 5,000 or 10,000 units a year (may have the numbers wrong here). Because of that relationship, its handling was much better than most other big-bore muscle cars of the era. Gave me 12 mpg, on high test (which was really high test back in those days), pretty much no matter how I drove it. But then again, gas could be found for only 27 cents/gallon.
|
|
|
Replying to: srs_49 (Jun 17, 2009 4:48 am) That "302" (if you do the math, it's really a 301, just like the Ford 302) was rated at 290 hp gross, but supposedly it was under-rated. I've heard claims of 400 hp, but I dunno if that's a bit of an embellishment or not.
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 17, 2009 5:01 am)  . Big Holly 4-barrel on top (which was actually stolen off the top of my engine one night). Yes, it did have a good top end and would pull just fine well past the 6,000 rpm redline. 0-60 in first gear, if you were so inclined  The 290 hp rating was generally considered conservative, to keep it under the 300 hp and the 1 hp/pound metric some of the insurance companies were using for rating purposes. I don't know about the 400 hp claim - something between 325 and 350 hp was probably more like it. |
|
|
Replying to: dieselone (Jun 16, 2009 8:46 am) Not true. "My 1996 SC 400 had an original MSRP of $56600. I bought it in 2001 with 80K for $15,500.....but it still feels, drives and smells as if it were new". About a ’93 SC400: What really send chills down my spine is the purr she makes when taking off and her raw acceleration power when taking off and, cruising on the highways. 510 combined HP&T sparked those 2 comments about a V8 Lexus from the era I was commenting on. The 12 valve GM pushrod is 522 HP and Torque to the ’09 Altima’s 528 combined. “Note that the ’06 uplevel Altima Coupe 3.5 SE, which starts around $25,000, beats the others (Honda and Camry) with 270 horsepower and 258 lb-ft of torque at 4400 rpm coming from a 3.5-liter, double overhead cam V6”. Ten years and 12 valves later, up by 1% (528 to 522) compared to ‘adequate if has SC’ pushrod. The Turbo add on to the GM 4.3 in the ’81 Syclone added 100 HP and 100 ft-lbs. You can’t compare SC with Turbo in power added or in reliability. Can you compare 12 valves with 24 and call it fair?
|
|
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Jun 17, 2009 4:37 pm) Your still comparing supercharged 3800 to similar displacement nonsupercharged engines. Gee, I don't know, do you think a Nissan 3.5 v6 with a supercharger just might create a lot more than 528 HP/TQ combined. Ford's 3.5 Ecoboost engine is 715 HP/TQ combined (I know it's turbocharged, but I can't think of any supercharged v6s around anymore). GM's DI 3.6 is 577 hp/tq combined, not bad at all. Nissan's 3.7 is cranking out 600. I'd say that's good progress, since these are N/A engines that don't need forced induction. Comparing apples to apples, lets compare the 3.6 to a 3.8 n/a. Fair comparison as the 3.8 has a bit more displacement. That would be around 430 hp/tq compbined to 577. That's about a 26 % increase in power and more importantly an even larger improvement in refinement. What baffles me is you own a Lexus with one of the smoothest running v8s out there and you also find the GM 3800 smooth. Would you prefer the 3800 in place of the 4L v8 in your Lexus? |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Memories Of The Old GM And Its Cars
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
