gimp19 Posted January 8, 2005 Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 I dont like either of them, 95 montes looked much much better. I hope they are beefing up alot of drivetrain parts on those things its gonna take alot of strength to hold up to v-8 torque in a FWD car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted January 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 Yeah it's not like Nissan's 3.5L is any better.. it's only getting near what, like 300HP terratory? Ah, but GM's 3.5L consumes less fuel for what power it does put out, and it also produces much more HP per pound! HP/liter is a silly way to compare engines anyway. What does displacement efficiency do for anyone? It doesn't make an engine any less thirsty, it doesn't make an engine any lighter, it doesn't make an engine any more compact. I think HP/pound makes more sense, or HP/unit mass. More power in the same (or less) space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted January 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 Said it was really plasticy feeling inside the car. Isn't that how most new cars are these days? Isn't that how all domestics have been since the 1980's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intimidatorz34 Posted January 8, 2005 Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 This just makes me wonder how realistic it is to assume that these cars were going to bve rwd by 2008 model year, with GM investing in a fwd motor and drivetrain. Also considering the GTO isnt a hot seller, all this could be sending the marketing clowns the wrong message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuttySup Posted January 8, 2005 Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 Anything is better than the current Impala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted January 9, 2005 Report Share Posted January 9, 2005 i wanna know what their doing to the 3500 to get 211hp out of it... GM's finally letting it breathe? Yeah it's not like Nissan's 3.5L is any better.. it's only getting near what, like 300HP terratory? Nissan's 3.5L Pushrod V6? okay. Considering GM hasnt done much to the 3x00 V6 to get to 211 HP other than opening up the intake ports, improving the plenum, bigger TB, a few pts higher comp ratio, and better exhaust manifolds, I think I made my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutlassdude96 Posted January 9, 2005 Report Share Posted January 9, 2005 Nissan's 3.5 is a DOHC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudefyet Posted January 9, 2005 Report Share Posted January 9, 2005 Honda's 3.5 is SOHC and makes 300HP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted January 9, 2005 Report Share Posted January 9, 2005 I know, heathbar. I mean compare apples to apples!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp19 Posted January 9, 2005 Report Share Posted January 9, 2005 The "shortstar" 3.5 in my intrigue is rated 215 hp @ 5600 rpm 230 ft-lbs @ 4400 rpm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuttySup Posted January 9, 2005 Report Share Posted January 9, 2005 You can't really call the styling bland. Don't complain if you think it is. Remember the last time GM tried to be "expressive": Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1138 Posted January 9, 2005 Report Share Posted January 9, 2005 The only expression that monstrosity gives me is the same as the guy getting screwed IDB in the background of that picture... least that's what it looks like.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prospeeder Posted January 9, 2005 Report Share Posted January 9, 2005 IDB? In da Butt? lol, thats freakin halarious, lol those are monstrosity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intimidatorz34 Posted January 9, 2005 Report Share Posted January 9, 2005 You can't really call the styling bland. Don't complain if you think it is. Remember the last time GM tried to be "expressive": The sad thing is that sells better than the gto....and they cancel the aztek ( even though it never should have been born) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted January 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 The Asstek isn't any uglier than the 300C and Magnum you guys love so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1138 Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 The Asstek isn't any uglier than the 300C and Magnum you guys love so much. !!! You can't even begin to compare the 300C with the Aztek! The Aztek reeks of nasty Gremlin-style... styling! It's terrible, with that stupid point sticking out at a wonky angle! The 300C is somewhat ugly, but at least it's ugly in a threatening way, and a retro way, rather than an offensive way. It's an asset, not a detractor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no1kicker Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 This could make a real LS1 swap a lot easier for us. Use the motor mounts designed for the 5.3 assuming they're the same or real close. And use the same tranny and axles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted January 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 The 300C is somewhat ugly, but at least it's ugly in a threatening way, and a retro way, rather than an offensive way. It's an asset, not a detractor. I find it no less offensive than an Asstek, and the cars it is retro-based on were as stylistically offensive to me as its retro-reincarnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimZ34 Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 I dont like the new looks of both cars.. But there is alot of things i dont like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuttySup Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 This could make a real LS1 swap a lot easier for us. Use the motor mounts designed for the 5.3 assuming they're the same or real close. And use the same tranny and axles.Why the hell would you want to put an LS1 in that? An LS1 application in a FWD car is just pointless. There'd be so much torque steer the car would be incapable of going straight. Think about it. 350lbs-ft. The Northstar is bad enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted January 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 This could make a real LS1 swap a lot easier for us. Use the motor mounts designed for the 5.3 assuming they're the same or real close. And use the same tranny and axles.Why the hell would you want to put an LS1 in that? An LS1 application in a FWD car is just pointless. There'd be so much torque steer the car would be incapable of going straight. Think about it. 350lbs-ft. The Northstar is bad enough. It would only be pointless if gas pedals were binary. My car has an analog variable gas pedal. 70's Eldorados put down 525ft-lbs to the front wheels. You'd need more than just tranny and axles to put in a real LS1 though. You'd need to swap the intake manifold, timing cover, all accessories, etc. They are specially designed for the transverse fitment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOHC_WBody Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 This could make a real LS1 swap a lot easier for us. Use the motor mounts designed for the 5.3 assuming they're the same or real close. And use the same tranny and axles.Why the hell would you want to put an LS1 in that? An LS1 application in a FWD car is just pointless. There'd be so much torque steer the car would be incapable of going straight. Think about it. 350lbs-ft. The Northstar is bad enough. It would only be pointless if gas pedals were binary. My car has an analog variable gas pedal. 70's Eldorados put down 525ft-lbs to the front wheels. You'd need more than just tranny and axles to put in a real LS1 though. You'd need to swap the intake manifold, timing cover, all accessories, etc. They are specially designed for the transverse fitment. That, and the crank is physically shorter on the LS4..there's a few other things that GM did to make it fit. I read an article about it that says the block's architecture is physically the same. I'm having wet dreams about the LS4 and a set of LS6 heads though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gp crazy Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 can you put a 5 speed to it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted January 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 If it has a FWD bolt pattern (and I believe it does), then yes, you could put a 5-speed behind it. GM FWD 5-speeds aren't all that strong, so you'd have to baby it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gp crazy Posted January 11, 2005 Report Share Posted January 11, 2005 Even an old 282 out of an 1989 gp ? Not strong enough? I thought it would hold 200+ hp easy ? 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.