holstbnet Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 I have seen quite a few times in parts catalogs a 2.2 being shown as an available engine for the 93 Lumina only. I think thats the only W-body that offered it. Has anyone EVER seen one of these oddities? I have seen the uncommon 2.5 liter Luminas, and I've seen a 2.2 in an A-body (Century) but never a Lumina. Who's got pics of this thing? Can anyone even imagine driving a 2.2 liter powered W-body??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White93z34 Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 nope i have never seen one, however the 2.5 would be worse then the 2.2 by like 10hp but thats about it i rember my iron duke powered car and i don't want to go back ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 never even heard of it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 Its Dave! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henschman Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 yes, i've seen a 4cyl. lumina, and i'm pretty sure it was a 2.2. It was really plain, like the only lumina ive seen with manual windows. This one was white with red interior. I believe the guy said it was a 93 (from what you said, that was the only year they made em). Usually they say like "lumina 3.1" or just "lumina" on the side, i don't think this one had anything. The owner said it was slow as shit, and i bet he's right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White93z34 Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 well my ciera was around 2800lbs and a lumina is around 3300lbs and my ciera pulled around a 19.4 1/4 mile so you do the math edit the ciera had the mighty iron duke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z34_nut Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 yeah i've read reveiws on how blow ass the 2.2 was...can't get much worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EurosportZ34 Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 The 3.1 Luminas are slow enuf as it is, I can't image anything less powerful than a 3.1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
93CutlassSupreme Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 The 3.1 Luminas are slow enuf as it is, I can't image anything less powerful than a 3.1. Hey!!!!! those are harsh words Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euro Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 yeah harsh words Brad I cant imagine the lumina coming with a 2.2. what a waste of a car. I think riding your bike would be faster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 I would hate to imagine how slow a 2.2L lumina would be. I know when I drove my sisters '93 GP LE I just about got out and walked it was so slow (no offense to any of the 3.1 guys)...I would had to imagine how slow a w-body would be with an even LESS powerful engine. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
93CutlassSupreme Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 if you guys think a 3.1 w is slow, you don't know what slow is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob95CS Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 A friend of mine has a 2.5L powered 1993 Lumina. I also never even knew there was a 4 cyl. option until I saw this car. It is so incredibly slow too. With your foot matted to the floor, I could probably beat it in a foot race for a quarter mile. Sad, sad machine.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 if you guys think a 3.1 w is slow, you don't know what slow is. Well I think my Turbo 3.1 W is slow, so a 3.1 W is definately slow IMO. Although, our '69 VW Beetle Convertible 4 Speed was pretty slow. I always just mashed my foot to the floor in that car...it sounded like a sewing machine and had a whopping 40hp...luckily it was a 4spd or I don't think it would've moved...an auto would've been horrible. My friends Mazda Protege is REALLY slow as well. There is a certain point where a car is too slow to even be safe to drive on the road, and a 3.1 w-body isn't too far off from that IMO. Its all opinion though. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick1234 Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 hey now, my car hasn't been doing to bad lately. It actually suprised me once, hah, maybe two times. The bitch still gets up to 30 mpg, and i can smoke a tire COUGH>when turning>COUGH. no but its not all that bad. It would be quick if the gears werent so damn tall. nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 The 3.1 Luminas are slow enuf as it is, I can't image anything less powerful than a 3.1. that's a very typical statement for a Z34 owner heck yeah the 3.1 is slow, not like it was meant to be a performance engine anyways. the 3.4 DOHC is slow too, and that was meant to be a performance engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 There is a certain point where a car is too slow to even be safe to drive on the road, and a 3.1 w-body isn't too far off from that IMO. Its all opinion though. Shawn give me a break my GTS would probably run the quarter close to what your TGP does, but i still wouldn't go so far as to say that a 3.1 is so slow that it's not safe to be driven on the road. it doesn't really sound like you're giving an opinion, more like an insult. EDIT: no beer in 2 weeks makes me irratable. time for some xanax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruticus Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Its Dave! I hope not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl3196 Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Now a geo metro on the other hand is too slow to be on the road! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EurosportZ34 Posted August 18, 2004 Report Share Posted August 18, 2004 The 3.1 Luminas are slow enuf as it is, I can't image anything less powerful than a 3.1. that's a very typical statement for a Z34 owner heck yeah the 3.1 is slow, not like it was meant to be a performance engine anyways. the 3.4 DOHC is slow too, and that was meant to be a performance engine. LOL. I also own a Euro3.1 so I know just how slow they are. I don't know what your talking about, my 3.4 DOHC is not slow by any means. The only stock GM-V6 that gives it troubles is an L67. We haven't quite gotten to the point at beating them yet...damn supercharger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
93CutlassSupreme Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 trust me, there's many other cars on the road slower than a 3.1 w-body. when i first got my Supreme, i actually thought it was pretty quick, because all the cars i had ever driven prior to it ('87 3.8 Tbird, '95 3.0 Aerostar, '99 4.6 Econoline) were so much slower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldsmoBeast Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 trust me, there's many other cars on the road slower than a 3.1 w-body. when i first got my Supreme, i actually thought it was pretty quick, because all the cars i had ever driven prior to it ('87 3.8 Tbird, '95 3.0 Aerostar, '99 4.6 Econoline) were so much slower My 3100 is faster than my old 3.1...but even that was a good competitor in its days...It kept up with my brothers 2.5L Chrysler V6, and beat its fair share of civics, kept up with and lost to the odd neons...actually, now that I think about it... I knew this guy with a modded fartcan-style civic hatchback...and all the chicks that ever rode in that thing thought it was badass...and along came the 1991 3.1L CS SL SEDAN (!) and whooped its ass so bad....too slow to be safe? are you out of your f*cking mind? I hit the speed limiter in my 4-door cutty (fully loaded and heavy as hell), on MANY occasions, and it really wasn't too hard, either. Not to mention that it limits at like 15km/h higher than my 3100... wow... I just realized how pissed off I am... I shall stop now. YK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOHCRagtopguy Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 Now a geo metro on the other hand is too slow to be on the road! Hey wait a minute! Don't you be dissin' my little 3-cylinder Metro like that! It gets right up to that top spped of 65 MPH in no time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midnight rider Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 they must be rare as hell. I couldn't even find a pic of one on Google...lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excelsior Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 heres a list of cars my friends & ex's have had that a 3.1 w could take...trust me...their out there: 93 2.2l beretta 98 ford ranger 4 cyl. 5 spd. 89 hyundai excel 94 mitsu. galant, base engine auto....yea...the w could take it....altho im extremely biased towards that bitc...i mean girl now. 90 sunbird 2.0 l. 93 tempo 84 v6 camaro auto any BASE taurus. theres others.....but yea id consider a 3.1 w slow....i dont think any lesser engine wouldve worked in my prix & i had a 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.