96' bonneville ran 16.9@83 mph
06-07-2006, 06:54 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by BlownBuick
The cat is brand new (less than 2 weeks old). He replaced it because the car was so slow and has 116,000 miles on it. He'* also got a magnaflow muffler, but the stock resonator and stock pipes, so they're not too large for his car.
I cleaned the MAF off, and it was pretty dirty, so I guess that might help. He'* still got to test if it made a differeance.
The oxygen senser is probably stock, he'* never changed it.
He'* also got an intake (not true cold air, but it should still flow better than stock).
It does have a 2.84 gear ratio and a 2000 rpm stall torque converter, so that'* not helping him any. He does have, however, smaller tires and his speedo is pretty reading pretty high, so he should be equal to around a 3.06.
He also knows this guy with a 2000 Grand Prix GT, and it destroyed him. It wasn't even a close race.
Maybe it'* just a lazy motor???????????????
I cleaned the MAF off, and it was pretty dirty, so I guess that might help. He'* still got to test if it made a differeance.
The oxygen senser is probably stock, he'* never changed it.
He'* also got an intake (not true cold air, but it should still flow better than stock).
It does have a 2.84 gear ratio and a 2000 rpm stall torque converter, so that'* not helping him any. He does have, however, smaller tires and his speedo is pretty reading pretty high, so he should be equal to around a 3.06.
He also knows this guy with a 2000 Grand Prix GT, and it destroyed him. It wasn't even a close race.
Maybe it'* just a lazy motor???????????????
Plus the 3800 II L36 just doesn't have that super strong low end torque that a series I engine would have.... But it does have some legs once it gets there...
Having that 2.84 Gear ratio and being able to get into the high 15'* is respectable in my opinion.... I doub't if my L36 with 3.06 gearing would be much faster
Damn.... Edit * I must not be able to read *
Wow 16.9 ... OMG I think an 88-91 could pull off a High 16 with 2.84 gears.... What gives
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
06-07-2006, 07:00 PM
#12
Senior Member
Posts like a Supercharger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the best he did was a 16.9, and that was after running his car over 15 times. He usually got 17.3 - 17.5.
He would launch it with the brake to the floor, gas to the floor, and wouldn't even spin the tires. I drove it twice down the track, and didn't believe he launched it like that, but it was true.
I could see if it ran 16.3 - 16.5, that wouldn't be that far away from reality, but over 16 and into the 17'* is just crazy.
Maybe I should try the Tornado or Turbinator??? j/k
He would launch it with the brake to the floor, gas to the floor, and wouldn't even spin the tires. I drove it twice down the track, and didn't believe he launched it like that, but it was true.
I could see if it ran 16.3 - 16.5, that wouldn't be that far away from reality, but over 16 and into the 17'* is just crazy.
Maybe I should try the Tornado or Turbinator??? j/k
06-07-2006, 07:00 PM
#13
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: maitland fl
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i've got a 16.9 PB with a 17.1 average in my 3600 lb van... it'* not inconcevable that a lighter bonneville could hit 15'* with only minor mods.
06-07-2006, 07:04 PM
#14
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Philly
Posts: 4,508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has he ran a scan tool on his car?
That gearing is definitely killing him.
GPGTs have 3.29'* and are much lighter.
Plus with 117k the suspension is probably hurting the launch.
That gearing is definitely killing him.
GPGTs have 3.29'* and are much lighter.
Plus with 117k the suspension is probably hurting the launch.
06-07-2006, 07:26 PM
#15
Senior Member
Posts like a Supercharger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He'* at my house and I just checked his fuel pressure, it'* 50 psi exactly. And his regulator is still good because no gas came out of it with the vacuum line off of it.
I've got a Mastertech ODB-II scanner but no specific GM program card, so the data list updates SO slow, it'* not even worth running it on the car. When I had a Tech-II or even my scanner with a GM card in it, all 30 or so parameters updating twice a second, so until I can get a good scanner on it, I have no idea what the conputer is doing. I'll run mine on it sometime tommrow hopefull, but it probably won't reveal much.
I've got a Mastertech ODB-II scanner but no specific GM program card, so the data list updates SO slow, it'* not even worth running it on the car. When I had a Tech-II or even my scanner with a GM card in it, all 30 or so parameters updating twice a second, so until I can get a good scanner on it, I have no idea what the conputer is doing. I'll run mine on it sometime tommrow hopefull, but it probably won't reveal much.
06-07-2006, 07:29 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Would anyone happen to know how much torque management there is in the 96 PCM?
I know the 97+ are managed to Hell and back
The 95 PCM'* almost seem to be go till you blow...lol
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
I know the 97+ are managed to Hell and back
The 95 PCM'* almost seem to be go till you blow...lol
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
06-07-2006, 09:15 PM
#17
Senior Member
Posts like a Supercharger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine that the 96 PCM is like the 95 because it'* the same transmission.
I just did a compression test on all 6 clynders.
Cylinder 1 - 165 psi
Cylinder 2 - 170 psi
Cylinder 3 - 165 psi
Cylinder 4 - 170 psi
Cylinder 5 - 125 psi
Cylinder 6 - 170 psi
WTF??? His Dad owned the car since it was new and religiously changed the oil every 3,000 miles with 10W-30 Mobil1 synthetic oil, so I would think that the motor isn't too worn out.
By the readings, I could only figure that the rings on cylinder 5 are either worn out excessivly or broken. But it'* "only" about 40 psi low, and I'm pretty sure broken rings would yeald lower compression.
I added some oil to #5, and the compression went up to 200 psi, but I think I added way too much oil. When he started the car to burn off the oil, there was a huge cloud of smoke.
IDK. The saga continues.
I just did a compression test on all 6 clynders.
Cylinder 1 - 165 psi
Cylinder 2 - 170 psi
Cylinder 3 - 165 psi
Cylinder 4 - 170 psi
Cylinder 5 - 125 psi
Cylinder 6 - 170 psi
WTF??? His Dad owned the car since it was new and religiously changed the oil every 3,000 miles with 10W-30 Mobil1 synthetic oil, so I would think that the motor isn't too worn out.
By the readings, I could only figure that the rings on cylinder 5 are either worn out excessivly or broken. But it'* "only" about 40 psi low, and I'm pretty sure broken rings would yeald lower compression.
I added some oil to #5, and the compression went up to 200 psi, but I think I added way too much oil. When he started the car to burn off the oil, there was a huge cloud of smoke.
IDK. The saga continues.
06-07-2006, 09:43 PM
#18
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sauk Centre, MN
Posts: 5,459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jr's3800
That 2.84 is a far cry from a 3.06.... Thats some really tall gearing meant for MPG'*.... I'd bet with the proper size tires he could do 35 mpg'* on the open road going about 75 or so...
Plus the 3800 II L36 just doesn't have that super strong low end torque that a series I engine would have.... But it does have some legs once it gets there...
Having that 2.84 Gear ratio and being able to get into the high 15'* is respectable in my opinion.... I doub't if my L36 with 3.06 gearing would be much faster
Damn.... Edit * I must not be able to read *
Wow 16.9 ... OMG I think an 88-91 could pull off a High 16 with 2.84 gears.... What gives
06-07-2006, 09:59 PM
#19
Originally Posted by BlownBuick
I would imagine that the 96 PCM is like the 95 because it'* the same transmission.
I just did a compression test on all 6 clynders.
Cylinder 1 - 165 psi
Cylinder 2 - 170 psi
Cylinder 3 - 165 psi
Cylinder 4 - 170 psi
Cylinder 5 - 125 psi
Cylinder 6 - 170 psi
WTF??? His Dad owned the car since it was new and religiously changed the oil every 3,000 miles with 10W-30 Mobil1 synthetic oil, so I would think that the motor isn't too worn out.
By the readings, I could only figure that the rings on cylinder 5 are either worn out excessivly or broken. But it'* "only" about 40 psi low, and I'm pretty sure broken rings would yeald lower compression.
I added some oil to #5, and the compression went up to 200 psi, but I think I added way too much oil. When he started the car to burn off the oil, there was a huge cloud of smoke.
IDK. The saga continues.
I just did a compression test on all 6 clynders.
Cylinder 1 - 165 psi
Cylinder 2 - 170 psi
Cylinder 3 - 165 psi
Cylinder 4 - 170 psi
Cylinder 5 - 125 psi
Cylinder 6 - 170 psi
WTF??? His Dad owned the car since it was new and religiously changed the oil every 3,000 miles with 10W-30 Mobil1 synthetic oil, so I would think that the motor isn't too worn out.
By the readings, I could only figure that the rings on cylinder 5 are either worn out excessivly or broken. But it'* "only" about 40 psi low, and I'm pretty sure broken rings would yeald lower compression.
I added some oil to #5, and the compression went up to 200 psi, but I think I added way too much oil. When he started the car to burn off the oil, there was a huge cloud of smoke.
IDK. The saga continues.
Try running a can of sea foam through it. You may have valves not closing all of the way due to carbon build up. Running on five and half cylinders would certainly cause a loss of power. It'* better to try the cheap fix before tearing things down.
06-07-2006, 10:05 PM
#20
Senior Member
Posts like a Supercharger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That'* why I think his car should be at least able to get a 16.0 to 16.2, but no way should he get a 16.9.
His front brakes are new, so they're not dragging. I'm going to check the rear drums sometime soon, but they probably aren't dragging: they're not making any noise and his car stops really good.
Just crazy thinking, but could his LIM gasket be misaligned so as to block the intake ports somewhat? I know the UIM gasket would be impossable to misalign, but what about the LIM gaskets? I know we'd never know without taking the UIM off, but has anyone ever seen anything like this happen?
His front brakes are new, so they're not dragging. I'm going to check the rear drums sometime soon, but they probably aren't dragging: they're not making any noise and his car stops really good.
Just crazy thinking, but could his LIM gasket be misaligned so as to block the intake ports somewhat? I know the UIM gasket would be impossable to misalign, but what about the LIM gaskets? I know we'd never know without taking the UIM off, but has anyone ever seen anything like this happen?