99 Z24 VS the bonny
09-28-2003, 01:05 PM
#22
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Va Beach VA, Where ever I may Roam!
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but, that sucks, I have yet to run a close to stock newer J body that was worth a crap. Sure pour 5k and it can go like anything else. Now if it was a older Z24 with the 3.1 and I could see it, I rebuilt a '90 upped the compression to 9:5:1, and threw a Crane cam, 1.52 roller tips, stage 2 JET chip and stock type K&N and it could take down some 305 V8'*. It also ate trannys. I hated 125C'* 3 speeds.
09-28-2003, 01:16 PM
#23
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still, an older stock J-Body with a V6 is nothing special.
It'* all because of the three speed automatic. The 3-speed hampers fuel economy, and ain't too good. My dad had one ('91 Sunbird SE, V6), and on his way to work one morning... he totally got owned by a ~1993 Civic Si (~127hp) hatchback.
It'* all because of the three speed automatic. The 3-speed hampers fuel economy, and ain't too good. My dad had one ('91 Sunbird SE, V6), and on his way to work one morning... he totally got owned by a ~1993 Civic Si (~127hp) hatchback.
10-03-2003, 03:55 PM
#24
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Va Beach VA, Where ever I may Roam!
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 3 speed did suck a major ween! I killed 2 of them after I built up my Z24.
They did not do much stock. No real cam/ 8:8:1 comppress, geesh what was GM thinking? Your right the stock V6 was only "about" 140hp
They did not do much stock. No real cam/ 8:8:1 comppress, geesh what was GM thinking? Your right the stock V6 was only "about" 140hp
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post