Getting into this whole performance thing, SHO
Senior Member
Posts like a Corvette
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,369
Likes: 1
From: springfield il
A buddy of mine has a 97 sho. it has around 200 hp and its no comparison to the bonnie. SHOs are nice and i like them but i probly wouldnt get one just because of the cost of maintaining one of those things, you have to take off the whole upper end of the motor to get to the spark plugs, and on top of that, the cams like to go out in some of them.
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 19,756
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by ComfyCar
Why the weight variations in Bonnevilles
What changed?
I figure Ill ask here so I wont make more topics
What changed?
I figure Ill ask here so I wont make more topics
on 2000 and afterward the bonne gained about 400lbs over the 92-99
Guest
Posts: n/a
I had a 93 SHO and I have to say that all around, it was my favorite all time car. 220hp and a whopping 200 ft.lbs torque but between the ultra low gearing and the 7000 redline, it got up and went.
It had dual intake runners that only used the primary runners until 4000rpm and then it felt like a 4 barrel kicking in above that.
Don't get me wrong, I like driving the SSEi although I don't like all the problems with it. They were indeed two totally different cars but with the 5 speed, I just enjoyed the SHO more.
It had dual intake runners that only used the primary runners until 4000rpm and then it felt like a 4 barrel kicking in above that.
Don't get me wrong, I like driving the SSEi although I don't like all the problems with it. They were indeed two totally different cars but with the 5 speed, I just enjoyed the SHO more.
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,816
Likes: 0
Actually, I think the comparison between the SHO and SSEi is very appropriate, because both cars went to unconventional means for power.
The 3.2L that was in the SHO started it'* design life as an aircraft engine, and as such, was built very lightweight, but incredibly strong for it'* size. A lot of the reason that the V6 SHO was so hot was that the motor weighed next to nothing. The V8 SHO motor weighed a lot, and so did the car, so it was actually slower than the earlier V6.
The 3.2L that was in the SHO started it'* design life as an aircraft engine, and as such, was built very lightweight, but incredibly strong for it'* size. A lot of the reason that the V6 SHO was so hot was that the motor weighed next to nothing. The V8 SHO motor weighed a lot, and so did the car, so it was actually slower than the earlier V6.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by GonneVille
Actually, I think the comparison between the SHO and SSEi is very appropriate, because both cars went to unconventional means for power.
The 3.2L that was in the SHO started it'* design life as an aircraft engine, and as such, was built very lightweight, but incredibly strong for it'* size. A lot of the reason that the V6 SHO was so hot was that the motor weighed next to nothing. The V8 SHO motor weighed a lot, and so did the car, so it was actually slower than the earlier V6.
The 3.2L that was in the SHO started it'* design life as an aircraft engine, and as such, was built very lightweight, but incredibly strong for it'* size. A lot of the reason that the V6 SHO was so hot was that the motor weighed next to nothing. The V8 SHO motor weighed a lot, and so did the car, so it was actually slower than the earlier V6.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Wolfedog50
Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning
3
May 8, 2003 01:31 PM