digitaloutsider Posted September 6, 2007 Report Share Posted September 6, 2007 I think I have one a lot of us forgot..... RELOCATION OF THE FRIGGIN ALTERNATOR ON THE LQ1'S!!!!!!!!!!! What dumbass came up with that idea?????? It's really NOT THAT BAD. Where else are you going to put it? Something would have to go down there, and I'd rather it be the alternator than say the PS pump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo Posted September 6, 2007 Report Share Posted September 6, 2007 Use a rod-based linkage system for the E-brake. Pulling up closes it and pushing down disengages it with rods pulling fully open the caliper instead of cables that can stretch or seize in their shroud. It's easier to replace a rod and linkage than a cable which is just straight up annoying as hell when one side pulls more than the other. V8's in upscale Cutlasses, Grand Prix's, Luminas and Regals with V6's for base models. They had the ability to put FWD V8's in cars at that time so what the hell. Face it ... the standard RWD V8 was hitting around 170hp and a FWD V6 was low balling 130hp? Sheesh! The GNX was in a league all it's own and why we got the worst off all this technology is beyond me. NEVER use cheap ass materials like Pleather/Plastics that cracked so easily from UV damage. Seating that has seams which don't come apart before the warranty is up (or right after). Goddamn distributor drive shaft uselessness that was hands down almost as bad as intake/head gasket issues. No friggin monoleaf. No 14-15" wheels. Bleh! it isn't the 70's anymore. I have never witnessed anyone using a trunk rack ever, why use em? Hood latches that don't break under the strength of a 3 year old. Stronger hinges for coupes that actually can hold the door without sagging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1138 Posted September 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2007 Rust really ISN'T that bad on these cars. You should see the 1990 era Subaru Legacy wagons and sedans we have come in. EVERY SINGLE ONE has rust holes in the rockers and some in the doors. I've cleaned cars that I've been able to kick rust holes in the rockers. W's really aren't bad for rust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CNBZ34 Posted September 6, 2007 Report Share Posted September 6, 2007 I think I have one a lot of us forgot..... RELOCATION OF THE FRIGGIN ALTERNATOR ON THE LQ1'S!!!!!!!!!!! What dumbass came up with that idea?????? It's really NOT THAT BAD. Where else are you going to put it? Something would have to go down there, and I'd rather it be the alternator than say the PS pump. Actually I disagree, that's exactly what they should have done. Powersteering pump located where the alt is with an external reservoir and an adequate cooler. I've seen it on many other GM's. Especially given the failure rate of alternators on the LQ1's, even with the ducting and internal cooling fans as is on 2nd gen LQ1's. Just my opinion. After having to change mine 4 times now and each time having to remove the half shaft, splitting the ball joint and tie rod end and fighting with the rear bracket nut in addition to blindly hooking up the cooling duct. Very poor design in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
93cutty Posted September 6, 2007 Report Share Posted September 6, 2007 Should of made a 442 with a tune port V8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo Posted September 6, 2007 Report Share Posted September 6, 2007 Should of made a 442... I know I am cutting your quote in half. They did make a 442. Guess we expected more than a 4cyl, 4valves/cyl, 2door... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Cutlass94 Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 really I dont think the brakes are that bad at all. You get what you pay for in that department, remember that folks. Whoever said manual tranny's +1 to you! I wish there was more. If GM knew what they do now about these cars. More than likely most of these things would have been addressed. However for the era that they were made, most of it was current technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addicted To Boost Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 GM did a pretty damn good job on the first gen W's for their time. Sure they had their flaws, but they were still pretty damn good. Afterall, there are still TONS of them around alive and running. I love my W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olds88Cutlass Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 GM should have put more Quad 4's in the supreme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 I think people are completely forgetting the 87' Buick Grand National. Now stack that against pretty much all the 1st gen W-bodies. Do you really think GM did the best they could at that time??? I think not. Rear Wheel Discs should not have happened because the cars at that time were not fast or powerful enough to justify it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1138 Posted September 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 Rear discs should not have happened until '95... and even then they put drums on the Luminas and Montes, so they must have known they fucked up... the brakes on my Z are dismal, on first startup, they're totally useless, I live on a hill, and I roll backwards out of my driveway and have to all but literally stand on the pedal to get the car to stop barring putting it into gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addicted To Boost Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 The brakes on my TGP work excellent... stops very fast, and very hard... as good if not better than any other car I've driven. I think the discs were a good idea. Drums suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwmin Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 you and i seem to be on the same page, nick i fear for my life when i have to stop the camaro or blazer w/ those rear drums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addicted To Boost Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 you and i seem to be on the same page, nick i fear for my life when i have to stop the camaro or blazer w/ those rear drums. I think we are... take both of my cars, mustang and TGP- the TGP stops MUCH faster. Mustang is a little scary... again, drums suck ass! And with no ABS on the mustang it will just skid forever... in a stop the TGP takes 50 feet to stop, teh stang will take at least 100 ft. I have MUCH more faith in the TGP brake system than just about any other car I've ever driven. Oh and I've NEVER had the wheels lock up on the TGP, not even the rears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitaloutsider Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 Don't compare PMIII to typical first-gen brakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addicted To Boost Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 PMIII IS first gen 1 . I have to admit I've never driven a vacuum brake gen 1 though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White93z34 Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 ok ok ok the 88-93 brakes are downright awful.... with the exception of the 89-91 Powermaster III cars, those stop on a dime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addicted To Boost Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 the 89-91 Powermaster III cars, those stop on a dime. Agreed on that part for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwmin Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 Don't compare PMIII to typical first-gen brakes. how do you know i dont have PMIII? okay, i dont i have pretty much the same brakes as my 96 did now. i did think they werent too good when they were old stock, but still better than the other two. i dont think the cobalt stops much better than the 96 did and theyre supposed to stop pretty well. ok ok ok the 88-93 brakes are downright awful.... with the exception of the 89-91 Powermaster III cars, those stop on a dime. yeah, if the PMIII is working Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synistershadows Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 heres what i say! - better rear brakes - a V8 option - RWD!!!!!!!! - handbrake - stronger tranny - a bit more agressive looks on the cutlass(good for the time though) - a 442 model Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euro Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 ok ok ok the 88-93 brakes are downright awful.... with the exception of the 89-91 Powermaster III cars, those stop on a dime. yeah, if the PMIII is working EXACTLY!!! At least our brakes don't fail over time besides the usual......frequent pad/rotor change. I think discs were a good idea, drums blow ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1138 Posted September 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 I feel like Loudcut.. I have a four page thread in a day and a half. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdrckt_92 Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 off the top of my head: Better paint/clear-that shits just terrible More powerful 3.1 better sealing of the trunk, so it doesnt leak all the time better 88-93 rear brakes maybe use different springs so they sit a little lower, I dont really think the huge wheel gap is necessary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadz34 Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 I think GM should have had the 3100 in the early models and not even made the 3.1, it was too underpowered. Secondly, if the 3.4 DOHC was to be a performance engine, it should have had a bit more power and maybe been in higher scaled W's, or have a turbo or supercharged special edition. L67's needed to come into play before they did. Interiors needed to be less bland and not blind you when you look at them. Alot of controls were hard to reach my 92' Lumina Z34 has no cup holder and some interior pieces look cheap for 17 or 18 thousand dollars new......That's all I can tihnk of now...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdrckt_92 Posted September 7, 2007 Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 o I forgot one, better intake gaskets for the 3100 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.