95Bonneville Vs. 00Grand AM GT????
07-09-2003, 04:05 PM
#21
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
Actually, MRBonne is NA, not SC, and the 95SE data I posted is for NA. I'll do some more digging and see what numbers I can find for comparison.
There'* only one 95 SC SE on this site. 95BonnevilleSESC.
There'* iffy data all over the net. I see totally off-kilter (both ways) numbers listed for my own car quite often. It'* also hard to find data on both cars you're trying to compare on one site, which is why I use that one.
Edmunds I don't like at all. I've seen some bogus info there, and sometimes they're so far off on book values, it'* laughable. I'm not saying my data is any better, just a different source. I do know those 95 SE (NA) numbers are pretty close.
There'* only one 95 SC SE on this site. 95BonnevilleSESC.
There'* iffy data all over the net. I see totally off-kilter (both ways) numbers listed for my own car quite often. It'* also hard to find data on both cars you're trying to compare on one site, which is why I use that one.
Edmunds I don't like at all. I've seen some bogus info there, and sometimes they're so far off on book values, it'* laughable. I'm not saying my data is any better, just a different source. I do know those 95 SE (NA) numbers are pretty close.
07-09-2003, 05:04 PM
#22
Executed
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
insanek'* 90 SE
Hello, I think those times are a bunch of bull. There is no way a 92 ssei is that slow. I had a 90 SE and killed two sunfires of that same year. My freinds had them. I also beat a few z24 cavaliers and that was before I put my resistor chip in. After I put it in I was pretty much side by side with a 2000 GA GT. the margin was his front side turn signal lights, That'* what I lost by.
07-09-2003, 07:31 PM
#23
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Well.. it'* hard to go by those basis from different sources.. ( although it would be a good starting point ).. since each day.. all the variables are different.. the altitude will affect how the car is.. and even if it'* on the same location.. it diiffers from day to day .. air tempreture, wind speed, humidity, so on and so forth.. let MrBonnie tell us how it went.. I know of other kills of Bonnies SE'* and such against GA and the likes.. it comes down to maintainance I guess..
As for the Neon?
IS he on glue?? must be on Wip-It'* or something 
I would put my life savings on that one..
Just be careful with your launch as that'* one of the most important part.. don't break traction ( wheel spin outs.. burn rubber )
As for the Neon?
IS he on glue?? must be on Wip-It'* or something I would put my life savings on that one..Just be careful with your launch as that'* one of the most important part.. don't break traction ( wheel spin outs.. burn rubber )
07-09-2003, 08:06 PM
#27
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 7,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jr's3800
I'm not much for the numbers, but there were bonneville in the 92-97 range with the 3800 NA'd series II bonneville that either used the 2.97 or 3.06 gear ratio... I'm sure that the 3.06 would be better for take off and top end power... I have the 3.06 ratio in my car and my cousin has the 2.97 ratio in her car both 95 bonnevilles with the 3800 II, and mine is stronger than hers in all driving situations, and she does a couple of mpgs better than me on the interstate... I guess I'm saying that that small diffrence in the gear ratio makes a diffrerence... I feel I have seen a good bit of missinformation also, shuch as I have seen the 95 3800 II listed as High Output in the past... But the rpo'* do not say that.. I have a new chip(factory) because of some driveability issues, The old chip seemed a lot better as far as power was concerned, its a bit weaker with the new chip... But I won't worry about running the Bonnie anytime soon... I'll say though what ever happen it will be a close race... 
07-09-2003, 08:32 PM
#29
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 7,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jr's3800
Yeah, and the ratios for the newer 4T65-E'* are just a hair diffrent from out 4T60-E'*... GM likes those changes don't they... All in technology I guess...