Useful 1/4 Mile Info - Page 2 - GM Forum - Buick, Cadillac, Chev, Olds, GMC & Pontiac chat


Lounge For casual talk about things unrelated to General Motors. In other words, off-topic stuff. And anything else that does not fit Section Description.

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-04-2002, 02:17 AM   #11
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 41
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
theduckylittle is on a distinguished road
Default

For those interested : Wet Weight of 3700 lbs (you should be able to reasonably get the weight down to this).

ET........HP
16.0.....200
15.5.....225
15.0.....250
14.5.....275
14.0.....310
13.5.....340
13.0.....380

This is generated via a calculator program to which I have access.

-Duck
theduckylittle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2002, 02:34 AM   #12
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 41
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
theduckylittle is on a distinguished road
Default

Martin -

Another '92 SE, Maybe we have a "magic" year ... LOL! Cuz I wouldn't think that hitting a high 14 would be hard at all in my Bonneville. Especially with some sticky tires and a bit of lightening up.

Ah well, we'll let the dissenters argue against the math and results.

Not having any money means you learn to get smart about how to go faster ... having less than know money ... I've gotten pretty smart. LOL (Not meant as a jab.)

There'* two ways to make your car faster:
* Have more power (more HP)
* Have less things to move (lighter)

Doing a little of both makes a huge difference.

-Duck

-Duck
theduckylittle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2002, 07:25 AM   #13
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 971
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
99BonnevilleSE is on a distinguished road
Default

Well that would be true if we have V8'* in our cars. But the 3.8L'* N/A don't have that low end grunt, so the theory of 200HP running a 16.0 doesn't work since the engines are designed to make power up top, not down low. They make their HP peaks are like 5200 rpm and torque peak at 4250. And with the factory restrictions it takes a while to get up there. The exhaust is really restricted since that is what an engine that spins needs to get rid of fast so it can inhale more air/fuel mixture. If we have the low end torque of a V8, I would agree with your numbers.
99BonnevilleSE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2002, 10:17 AM   #14
Senior Member 8-16-02
Posts like a Northstar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 529
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
complinitor is on a distinguished road
Default

These numbers must be at the crank. Please let us know if that is true. Since I normally run between 14.5 and 14 flat (unstripped...with a back seat) in my 98 NA Bonneville, you are telling me that I have output between 275 and 310 HP. Tell that to the dyno. My last number on the mighty wheel was 231, so I am going to assume that it is crank HP.
complinitor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2002, 12:46 PM   #15
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 41
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
theduckylittle is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by complinitor
These numbers must be at the crank. Please let us know if that is true. Since I normally run between 14.5 and 14 flat (unstripped...with a back seat) in my 98 NA Bonneville, you are telling me that I have output between 275 and 310 HP. Tell that to the dyno. My last number on the mighty wheel was 231, so I am going to assume that it is crank HP.
Yes, those are crank horsepower numbers. Sorry...

CrankHP * 80% (drive train loss) = 231 HP
WheelHP * 1/(80%) = CrankHP
231HP * 1/(80%) = 288 HP
1/(80%) is the inverse of 80%
add in weather and launch conditions and viola you have your difference in times accounted for.
-Duck
theduckylittle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2002, 12:53 PM   #16
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 41
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
theduckylittle is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 99BonnevilleSE
Well that would be true if we have V8'* in our cars. But the 3.8L'* N/A don't have that low end grunt, so the theory of 200HP running a 16.0 doesn't work since the engines are designed to make power up top, not down low. They make their HP peaks are like 5200 rpm and torque peak at 4250. And with the factory restrictions it takes a while to get up there. The exhaust is really restricted since that is what an engine that spins needs to get rid of fast so it can inhale more air/fuel mixture. If we have the low end torque of a V8, I would agree with your numbers.
I disagree. The 3800 has a very long rod, and a sqare bore/stroke. That'* not idea for revving, infact that'* anti-Revving. This engine REDLINES at 5000 RPM. Usually "revving" motors redline somewhere around 7-7.5. Most "revvers" go even higher to around 8. Considering my '92 is considered like 190 HP and 230 ft/lbs of torque ... doesn't sound much like a revver. Even the TurboRegal boys shift at 5500... the same (and usually lower) RPM as the SBC boys. The SHO people at nearly 8000. Honda'* at around 9,000. RX-7'* (built) at nearly 12,000. Who'* a revver now?

No, you don't need a V8 to make those horsepower numbers. Take any car from a magazine that weighs about that much. Look at the HP and 1/4 mile times they will match up. (I had fun doing this with motor trend one bored day.)

The air/fuel mixture has nothing to do with this really if you have a moderately well tuned engine making that number the times will be quite accurate.

-Duck
theduckylittle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2002, 04:49 PM   #17
Senior Member 8-16-02
Posts like a Northstar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 529
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
complinitor is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theduckylittle
I disagree. The 3800 has a very long rod, and a sqare bore/stroke. That'* not idea for revving, infact that'* anti-Revving. This engine REDLINES at 5000 RPM. Usually "revving" motors redline somewhere around 7-7.5. Most "revvers" go even higher to around 8. Considering my '92 is considered like 190 HP and 230 ft/lbs of torque ... doesn't sound much like a revver. Even the TurboRegal boys shift at 5500... the same (and usually lower) RPM as the SBC boys. The SHO people at nearly 8000. Honda'* at around 9,000. RX-7'* (built) at nearly 12,000. Who'* a revver now? -Duck
Ok, now.
The RX-7 is a rotory engine. It operates on the same principle as an aircraft engine. You can't get off the ground at 5600 RPM.
The SHO V-6 is a Yamaha..otherwise known as a YAAAAMAAAAHAAAAA. Plain Rice in an American shell.
I don't need to say anything about the Honda, do I?

My Bonneville (3800 Series II L36 - modded) redlines at 7200 RPM and shifts (if I let it) at 5600-5800 RPM. Stock SSE and SSEi shift at 5200-5500 and redline at 7000. I produce my power between3300-4800 RPM. Who needs a power band in a dangerous zone? 92'* had a 3800 Series I with a weak tranny. That has been well known for a while. If you want to pull good numbers with that car, change the tranny. And leave the revving to the rice.
complinitor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2002, 04:53 PM   #18
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 971
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
99BonnevilleSE is on a distinguished road
Default

Please, show me a Bonneville that weighs 3700 lbs with 300HP run 13'*.... And the Series II engines shift at 6000 stock and can be computer adjusted to shift all the way up to 6900 without a problem. You have the older engine. Your car redlines low. The Series II can spin fast w/o a problem. I am aware of the sqare bore/stroke is the stroke is 3.8 and the bore is 3.4 from the top of my head. A SHO engine is a 3.0L and only makes power way up high so do Honda engines, that'* the only way you can make 240HP out of a S2000. The cars you listed before when you first joined the board were pretty much all V8'*. These V6'* are a little different and the Series I and Series II engines are completely different.
99BonnevilleSE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2002, 04:55 PM   #19
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 971
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
99BonnevilleSE is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Ok, now.
The RX-7 is a rotory engine. It operates on the same principle as an aircraft engine. You can't get off the ground at 5600 RPM.
The SHO V-6 is a Yamaha..otherwise known as a YAAAAMAAAAHAAAAA. Plain Rice in an American shell.
I don't need to say anything about the Honda, do I?

My Bonneville (3800 Series II L36 - modded) redlines at 7200 RPM and shifts (if I let it) at 5600-5800 RPM. Stock SSE and SSEi shift at 5200-5500 and redline at 7000. I produce my power between3300-4800 RPM. Who needs a power band in a dangerous zone? 92'* had a 3800 Series I with a weak tranny. That has been well known for a while. If you want to pull good numbers with that car, change the tranny. And leave the revving to the rice.

Thank you. Someone who understands the Series II. But these engines can rev if you wish as Complinitor describes.
99BonnevilleSE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2002, 05:23 PM   #20
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 41
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
theduckylittle is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 99BonnevilleSE
Please, show me a Bonneville that weighs 3700 lbs with 300HP run 13'*.... And the Series II engines shift at 6000 stock and can be computer adjusted to shift all the way up to 6900 without a problem. You have the older engine. Your car redlines low. The Series II can spin fast w/o a problem. I am aware of the sqare bore/stroke is the stroke is 3.8 and the bore is 3.4 from the top of my head. A SHO engine is a 3.0L and only makes power way up high so do Honda engines, that'* the only way you can make 240HP out of a S2000. The cars you listed before when you first joined the board were pretty much all V8'*. These V6'* are a little different and the Series I and Series II engines are completely different.
I have never played with a Series II, conceeded. I don't know how they're setup. The cars I've played with that have 3800'* are all "series I" and usually forced induction. My bonneville being the Sole N/A version. And I don't play a "ton" with it. I'm not asking for a 300 horsepower, I'm just saying those are the numbers you need to go that fast and it really isn't as difficult or expensive as y'all make it out to be. Reduce weight, increase horsepower: That'* how you go faster.

On a personal note. ONLY ONE OF THE VEHICLES I'VE EVER BUILT MYSELF WAS A V8!!! I'm WAYYY more creative than that... my SHO was a V6, the MESStang is a Turbo-2.3L SVO engine, and The Turbo-Regals are 3800'*. The only time I've ever really worked with V8 cars was at work, where I repaired Lightning'* and Cobra'* for a local SVT dealership. Oh, and the Ls1 I put into a Olds wagon for a friend of mine. But that'* besides the point.

Answering Complinitor:
Apparently you don't do much work on cars....
The SHO engine isn't rice last I checked. It'* made by Yamaha congratulations. It'* a far more technologically advanced, not to mention more powerful than the 3800. 3.0L, DOHC, Hemispherical heads, Generates more average torque than a factory 5.0.
Did I mention that they can be built to 500+ Horsepower? Out of a 3.0L Engine? (If you don't believe me check: http://www.shoshop.com )

Rotary engine, yes, but still a revver. And yes, compared to a Honda, the 3800 doesn't rev worth ****. Now, do I prefer those two latter platforms, no. I don't like either. However, discounting how they work and their engineering simply because you dislike them isn't fair. They still hold merit. Disliking a car or brand for a particular reason (hate the person, or people) who drive them is fine. Not recognizing the merit or legitamacy of the engineering is just ignorant.

This discussion seems a bit rediculous to me. I have done nothing other than offer facts about how fast a car should go at a given weight and horsepower. No one here has offered anything than a "shut up that doesn't work" remark. However, no one has done this.

Here'* some (free) Quater mile calculators...
http://www.evotuners.com/quarter.htm
http://www.boostcontroller.com/hpcalculator.html

Took me like 5 seconds on Yahoo!. Find one that disagrees. Getting your bonne'* wet weight down to 3700-3800 might be a little difficult but it'* not impossible.

Listen, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I am pretty much right... if you wanna talk to me about it feel free:
IM: theduckylittle
MSN: [email protected]

-Duck
theduckylittle is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which scan tools provide the *MOST* useful information? dimprov 1992-1999 5 11-29-2005 10:09 PM
Useful Work Phrases BadTA00 Lounge 2 12-24-2003 01:52 AM
Useful information for beginners installing subs danpuzak Audio (and aftermarket electronics) 2 10-03-2003 01:15 PM
Very useful info from Magnusson (Eaton) willwren Forced Induction 1 07-12-2003 11:28 PM
useful site 95naSTA Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 6 04-28-2003 06:28 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:26 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.