mfewtrail Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Bandimere is at 5800ft, so WHERE did you run at "6500ft"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Bandimere is at 5800ft, so WHERE did you run at "6500ft"... No shit, I would like to know this as well. Altitude has just as large of an effect on a GTP as it does anything else. The air pressure is less, therefore there is less airflow into the engine no matter what kind of power adder, period. The myth of boosted cars being better at high altitudes is false, other than you can turn the boost up at higher altitudes to make up for the pressure difference. (and at higher altitudes you can turn the boost up more than at lower altitudes because you are still moving less air into the engine than you would at lower altitude) The nice advantage of a GTP at high altitudes is you can go to a smaller pulley without knock problems, but it would still go faster at a lower altitude with a bigger pulley. You can pretty much put a 3.25" pulley on a stock GTP at like 5000+ft. and get no KR. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl3196 Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Bandimere is at 5800ft, so WHERE did you run at "6500ft"... I think Pueblo is where he went. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl3196 Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 You can pretty much put a 3.25" pulley on a stock GTP at like 5000+ft. and get no KR. Shawn I doubt it. With my mod's below (before u-bend) in denver I still had 1-2 kr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfewtrail Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Bandimere is at 5800ft, so WHERE did you run at "6500ft"... I think Pueblo is where he went. Pueblo is at 4900'...http://www.na-motorsports.com/Tracks/Pueblo.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl3196 Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Bandimere is at 5800ft, so WHERE did you run at "6500ft"... I think Pueblo is where he went. Pueblo is at 4900'...http://www.na-motorsports.com/Tracks/Pueblo.php Same altitude I ran at. (Douglas, WY) I thought I remember aaron saying pueblo was 6500ft, guess I got something mixed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 When I ran at the Pueblo track, my timeslip says 6456ft above sea level. Colorado Springs is sitting at like 7,000ft, and Denver is below us, and Pueblo is just slightly below us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl3196 Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 When I ran at the Pueblo track, my timeslip says 6456ft above sea level. Colorado Springs is sitting at like 7,000ft, and Denver is below us, and Pueblo is just slightly below us. Looks like they put down the wrong altitude. Also a quick search shows colo springs altitude at 6,008 not 7,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfewtrail Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 When I ran at the Pueblo track, my timeslip says 6456ft above sea level. Colorado Springs is sitting at like 7,000ft, and Denver is below us, and Pueblo is just slightly below us. Colorado Springs is at 6,008' http://www.colorado.com/kids/elevation.asp From Peublo's website http://www.pueblomotorsportspark.com/pmimap.JPG 4900'..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl3196 Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Matt I was editing my post when you posted yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Looks like they did. Defending CO Springs, the Fire Department and our pressure conversions(when we can't use the truck's GPS), we typically use 7,000. But I guess that is also just to be safe. At any rate, it still makes a lot of difference. I still remember taking ym car down to Missouri and Texas, God it felt so damn fast. I just slamming right through the gears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus18 Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 3.1L turbo beats all! hahahhahaha sorry marcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitaloutsider Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 I outran a 3.1 Lumina in Farmington, NM (roughly 7,000 feet) with a 92 Honda Accord.. Elevation matters big time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 3.1L turbo beats all! hahahhahaha Really? Cuz I have timeslips of me beating Luke's TGP 5-speed(11.5psi) by a half second and 5mph But his car OWNED me hardcore in Colorado. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurneroftheRice Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Aaron, the only problem most people have with your argument is that they have never driven a LQ1 manuel before. There are more people who drive 3.8 NA and L67s. As much as the mods might disagree there should be a sticky on exact engine power ratings for all W-bodies, as well as an area for people to post legit time slips. it could begine something like 2.4 Iron duke = not much hp 2.8 = not worth mentioning 3.1 = gettign there 3.1 turbo = could be good 3.4 =good if running 3.4 5-speed = the best if aaron's etc thoughout the years... as well as 3.8 series whatever =not bad 3.8 SC = ask club gp 3.5 Shortstar = shortwhat? not that people actually read stickies but it might clear up some questions, itd be like... Q."what power does my ....have?" A. "check out the sticky" Q. "what should my ... run in the quarter mile?" A. "check out the sticky" I suppose you could even add it to the "frequently asked questions sticky"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I agree, but that is why we have the 60* site. THey have all this, even tho few people are willing to go into it to find out. Its easier just to post and ask I guess. Yah if someone hasn't driven a 3.4L 5-speed before, I would suggest it. It is a fun drive for sure, and you really feel how much power the LQ1 really has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadz34 Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I agree with WhiteOut the LQ1 would destroy most cars. But I vote on the LQ1 over the L67 S/C because without the supercharger the LQ1 would beat the L67 so....With that being said add a supercharger to the LQ1 and see who come out on top. Obviously the LQ1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topless94style Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 My LQ1 in the vert had no problem taking down a N/A 3800 to 90mph. He had a few mods, exhaust and a little more i imagine, but his front end was with my door from start to finish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl3196 Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I agree with WhiteOut the LQ1 would destroy most cars. But I vote on the LQ1 over the L67 S/C because without the supercharger the LQ1 would beat the L67 so....With that being said add a supercharger to the LQ1 and see who come out on top. Obviously the LQ1. Then add a s/c and see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfewtrail Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I agree with WhiteOut the LQ1 would destroy most cars. But I vote on the LQ1 over the L67 S/C because without the supercharger the LQ1 would beat the L67 so....With that being said add a supercharger to the LQ1 and see who come out on top. Obviously the LQ1. For the sake of that argument, I could say "convert the L67 to DOHC." Also, the L36 runs VERY similar times to LQ1 equipped cars... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 An auto LQ1 vs. auto L36 would be a drivers race. Obviously a supercharged LQ1 is gonna make a decent amount of power, I would hope so with twice the valves, and close to the same displacement as an L36/L67. Put 4 valve heads on an L36 and you would be suprised at the power it made, even if you retain the pushrod setup. However, I doubt you'll ever get that LQ1 to make as much torque as an L67 or get a power curve near as flat. My dads L67 makes a peak of 315whp, but it made over 300whp from 4200-6200rpm. It also had peak torque of 357wtq., and that was at 3k when we started the dyno, it peaks before then I think because it just kept slowly dropping off, but we didn't start low enough in the revs. But even the torque never dropped below 250wtq. (315+ crank torque), even at the 6200rpm limiter. You'll never get a power curve nearly that flat from an LQ1. No doubt you can make them fast, but how strong is the bottom end, will it handle 400+hp? (I honestly don't know) You have to change the timing belt ever what, 60k? The L36/L67 are virtually maintenance free. Change the oil every 5k or so, and change the plugs every 50-100k and thats all they require. Obviously they can have their problems requiring more work and whatnot, but the maintenance schedule is a lot simpler than a LQ1's. There is nothing wrong with that, but I'm just saying the LQ1 is supposed to require more work to keep running. I agree with WhiteOut the LQ1 would destroy most cars. But I vote on the LQ1 over the L67 S/C because without the supercharger the LQ1 would beat the L67 so....With that being said add a supercharger to the LQ1 and see who come out on top. Obviously the LQ1. My $200 winter beater with a 4 banger will destroy most cars on the road, but that doesn't mean its fast. It can hang right with LQ1's no problem, and it makes alot more hp per liter. (78hp per liter, compared to 61 for the LQ1) But like I said, its only a low-mid 15 second car, its not fast. I honestly hope that an L67 with the supercharger removed would get owned by an LQ1, if not the LQ1 should be ashamed. With 8.5:1 compression, an extremely heavy bottom end, iron heads with 2 valves per cylinder, etc... an LQ1 with over 10:1 compression, 4 valves per cylinder, a lighter bottom end, aluminum heads, etc.. better be able to smoke the shit out of it. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteOut Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Don't drag me into this fight. All I said was that an LQ1 could keep up with most cars without looking stupid, I never claimed it was a speed demon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 an LQ1 with over 10:1 compression, 4 valves per cylinder, a lighter bottom end, aluminum heads, etc.. better be able to smoke the shit out of it. Shawn Driver's don't make a difference on automatics...Wow, you powerbreak and floor it... Anyways, the compression is 9.25, not "over 10." A half liter down isn't "close to the same displacement." "but it made over 300whp from 4200-6200rpm." So in essence, you're saying that the car's powerband is from 4200-6200. That's leaves you with 2,00rpm. Then the car shifts, and you land at 3,000 and have to wait 1,000rpm for it to really start making power. However the 3.4L DOHC, which has a power curve from 4,000-7,000, is never really out of its range(especially on a 5-speed). But even the autos land at like 4500rpm after shifts, which isn't at all bad. I'd be willing to bet that a 3.4L DOHC, making 315hp(probly around 300tq), would beat your daddy's car, even if you had fucking jeff gordon driving it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 an LQ1 with over 10:1 compression, 4 valves per cylinder, a lighter bottom end, aluminum heads, etc.. better be able to smoke the shit out of it. Shawn Driver's don't make a difference on automatics...Wow, you powerbreak and floor it... Anyways, the compression is 9.25, not "over 10." A half liter down isn't "close to the same displacement." "but it made over 300whp from 4200-6200rpm." So in essence, you're saying that the car's powerband is from 4200-6200. That's leaves you with 2,00rpm. Then the car shifts, and you land at 3,000 and have to wait 1,000rpm for it to really start making power. However the 3.4L DOHC, which has a power curve from 4,000-7,000, is never really out of its range(especially on a 5-speed). But even the autos land at like 4500rpm after shifts, which isn't at all bad. I'd be willing to bet that a 3.4L DOHC, making 315hp(probly around 300tq), would beat your daddy's car, even if you had fucking jeff gordon driving it First off, the horsepower was NEVER below 260whp, even at 3k, and 260whp is WELL over 300 at the crank. And second, when the car shifts at 6200 its at around 4500rpm in the next gear depending on which shift it is. Once you hit 4k in 1st gear, its making over 300 WHEEL horsepower until you let off the gas. Not that it matters anyways, because there is no traction in first gear whatsoever, so basically, once you gain traction your putting out over 300hp to the ground until you decide you don't want to go faster anymore. The gears are actually fairly close, but due to its very broad torque curve and tall final drive ratio, you can get away with it easily. If I had my scanner hooked up I'd post the dyno sheet so you can see what i mean about how flat it is, it really is rediculously flat. I highly doubt you've even seen a dyno sheet with a power curve this flat. Umm, drivers do really make a difference. I gained over a tenth of a second in my STE by learning the best time to shift it myself, and when you have the torque to roast the tires off the line, you have to learn how to launch it to. (although I would imagine this isn't a problem in a LQ1 auto due to their torque being higher in the powerband) If you "powerbrake" my STE and floor it, your just gonna sit there and make a smoke show. Just because its an auto, doesn't mean you can't shift it when you want either. And really .4 liters is pretty close displacement, especially with the lighter block, lighter internals, and twice as many valves comes into play. And, for some reason I thought I remembered the LQ1 having 10.25:1 instead of 9.25:1, honest mistake there. Still, thats a lot more than 8.5:1. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWeb80 Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 A stock auto LQ1 vs a stock L36 is close but the L36 wins at the end. Motor trend did a test between the 97 Z34 and the 98 Z34 MC's and the L36 was slightly faster in the 1/4 mile. Also the LQ1 is heavier than the L36. All that aluminum adds up. plus the L36 has that weight saving plasitc intake manifold i have not read this whole post .....but .. When I had the Cutty that Sean has.... It had 116K on it and my bros 2000 GP GT had 50K on it......we drag raced 3 times and each time i would beat him to 100 MPH.... But, it also had a Auto Chip in a Manual car......I Bet it would blow the L36 away now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.