This ring a bell?

That is a SWEET looking car.......

It'* the SSE(i) of the 6000'*.....

Kickass! I can honestly say I've never ever seen one of those. Looks like it has the same seats as the SSE as well. Do you have any interior shots?

How hard do you suppose a 3800 would be to put in place of the 3100 those things come with?

Very difficult. My friend had a 6000, and his car was nothing like mine. However, his [87] had a 2.5L engine.


-justin

I doubt the 3800 would fit in the same place. The 3100 should be the Chebby based 60 degree V6, and the 3800 is a 90 degree design. I suspect the bellhousing bolt pattern is different too.

The 3100 is most definitely 60 degrees. I didn't realize that the 6000'* were that much smaller than the bonnevilles that there would actually be a lack of room in the engine compartment. I'm wondering why GM equipped these with AWD, but not any other models from that period. AWD and a torque-ey 3800 seem like a much more logical match than the 3100.

They are identicle, except the back is a tad bit shorter to fit the 6000, of course. I'll get some photos and do a full write up when I get a chance. Had a REALLY nice one done for my intro on the ModernOlds.net forum, but it didn't carry over when they redid the site. If I had known, I would have saved it in MS Word.


Welp, they came with the MPFI 3.1(first GM cars to do so in '88, on the AWD equipped versions), not the 3100. I think there'* more room then they're being credited for. No one'* pulled it off yet that I know of, but there are several people on the Yahoo!6000 Club that plan on it (in non AWDs). I remember coming across one guy that said he did it on a site I can't remember (it wasn't a car forum/message board, though -might have been a Carsurvey post), but I didn't see any photos or proof of it. Just the comment "this thing SCREAMS with a 3800 in it!"

I, however, have a different plan. There were 50 AWD STEs rumored to have had the same 3.1 turbo set up as the McLaren Grand Prix'. In fact, I did a long write up on the TGP forums about how I'm pretty much convinced this was true. SO.....before I bought the turbo GPs I have in my sig, I bought a TGP to part out.....keeping only the motor, and computer. I'll let you guess what'* going to happen from there.

Well.....it certainly wasn't the most powerfull option, but more then half the features found on the newer Pontiacs shortly after the demise of the 6000, started on the STEs. They had a DIC since '85, they had steering wheel controls since '86, the self leveling struts since '83, 4-wheel disk since '83, etc. The STE got the cream of the crop features at the time, even though it wasn't Pontiacs "flagship", per se.

When the AWD-drivetrain was initially being designed, the design was loose enough that they could machine it down for a variety of other applications. I can show you QUITE a few articles of some really messed up prototypes. A 305 V8 AWD Chevy Lumina , SBC V8 AWD Beretta, twin turbo V6 AWD Beretta, and a Cutlass Ciera AWD that was damn near production. The drivetrain components themselves could supposedly hold up to 400 hp! The weak link with the AWD 6000s were the HM-125C trannys. It'* the reason the turbo versions never become standard issue.

Did they give those AWD 6000'* independant rear suspension? I know that the FWD models just have a solid axle, if I recall correctly.

GM should have done a few of them in wagon form, and beat Subaru to the whole outback thing.

You are correct on the FWD. And yes, the AWD got a suspension VERY similar to that of the W-Bodys of the era. Single leaf transverse mounted spring (same exact one used on the '88 GP), struts (instead of the shocks previously used on the STEs), rear trailing arms, etc. The whole 9 yards. Only difference was the struts were part of a self leveling air system, and had brackets to bolt the rear tie rods to.