Regal_GS_1989 Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 I don't believe any of the auto transmissions are very dependable above 100K miles. My '89 OD tranny went at around 120K miles & my '96 tranny's 1-2 shift doesn't feel too good at times. Hopefully, I can get rid of it before it goes too. Gee, my GS has over 235000 Miles on the original tranny, and it's never given me any trouble. Even my 88 has almost 200 000 miles on it, and it has naver been babied. None of my W's have had a problem tranny
Aaron Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 There isn't a motor you should stay away from. It is all what you want. If it were me, I would die before I owned any pushrod 60*V6 except for the turbo 3.1. The 3.1/3100s are but ass slow. I will gladly pay $5 a quart for Mobil 1 if it means beign able to put down more than 108 fwhp. The people that talk crap about the 3.4L DOHC, turbo 3.1, etc don't have one. If they did they wouldn't be talking crap. Sure problems arise, they will with any engine that makes more than 140hp, it is kinda the price you pay. And they really aren't that bad.
93CutlassSupreme Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 I will gladly pay $5 a quart for Mobil 1 if it means beign able to put down more than 108 fwhp. god damn, this site is fucking classic! for a change though, i do agree with Aaron on this one....
Aaron Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 I'm seripus about the 108fwhp, here is the link. 1992 Beretta, base 3.1 3-speed. It also had a chip, ram/cold air intake, and 2.25" catback. Sick eh? And it ran good too, there weren't any engine problems. http://www.dynopro.com/mhhr_detail.asp?ID=439
93CutlassSupreme Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 I'm seripus about the 108fwhp, here is the link. 1992 Beretta, base 3.1 3-speed. It also had a chip, ram/cold air intake, and 2.25" catback. Sick eh? And it ran good too, there weren't any engine problems. http://www.dynopro.com/mhhr_detail.asp?ID=439 Aaron, i didn't doubt the 108 fwhp remark. remember, i drove a 3.1 w-body for 3 years. i didn't doubt that at all. i was just laughing because that is so fucking sad, thats all.... hell, my Cutlass didn't even put 100 fwhp down, if that Beretta had a chip and catback and only put 108 down... damn, that's fucking sad.....i'm amazed that car could bark the tires from a roll, let alone spin them in the first place!
jeremy Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 uhhg, u all get butt hurt cause some1 says shit about ur motor, im not talking about maintence on a 3.4, im talinmg reliablity, all i hear on here is booo hoo my 3.4 DOHC is broke down, not many people even do there own maintence, half u freakin people dont even change ur own oil The only engine that I wouldn't want in a w-body is the 2.8 (besides the duke of course), and that is because the lack of power. None of the engine scare me away with respect to reliability issues, even the HO quad. I have owned a 89GP with the 3.1, a 92 Euro3.4, a 95GTP, and my '97 cutty so I have experience 3 different engines in a w-body. All will be "reliable" if they are treated correctly. For those of you who say that your 3100 is slower then your 3.1, you guys might wanna get your 3100 checked out.
Aaron Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 Yah I knew you weren't doubting it. The only way it'd chirp them is if you power braked all the way, and leaned back. We had to try. He used to do N drops to try and show off, and it was sad that his dad's L67 could make more smoke from a stop punch than his 3.1 could with a redline N drop
Regal_GS_1989 Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 I'm seripus about the 108fwhp, here is the link. 1992 Beretta, base 3.1 3-speed. It also had a chip, ram/cold air intake, and 2.25" catback. Sick eh? And it ran good too, there weren't any engine problems. http://www.dynopro.com/mhhr_detail.asp?ID=439 Aaron, i didn't doubt the 108 fwhp remark. remember, i drove a 3.1 w-body for 3 years. i didn't doubt that at all. i was just laughing because that is so fucking sad, thats all.... hell, my Cutlass didn't even put 100 fwhp down, if that Beretta had a chip and catback and only put 108 down... damn, that's fucking sad.....i'm amazed that car could bark the tires from a roll, let alone spin them in the first place! Damn, you must of had the De tuned 3.1L Hell, i can lay down 2 nice lil patches of rubber with my GS. And thats got a 3.1/4t60
93CutlassSupreme Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 I'm seripus about the 108fwhp, here is the link. 1992 Beretta, base 3.1 3-speed. It also had a chip, ram/cold air intake, and 2.25" catback. Sick eh? And it ran good too, there weren't any engine problems. http://www.dynopro.com/mhhr_detail.asp?ID=439 Aaron, i didn't doubt the 108 fwhp remark. remember, i drove a 3.1 w-body for 3 years. i didn't doubt that at all. i was just laughing because that is so fucking sad, thats all.... hell, my Cutlass didn't even put 100 fwhp down, if that Beretta had a chip and catback and only put 108 down... damn, that's fucking sad.....i'm amazed that car could bark the tires from a roll, let alone spin them in the first place! Damn, you must of had the De tuned 3.1L Hell, i can lay down 2 nice lil patches of rubber with my GS. And thats got a 3.1/4t60 i was talking about my Cutlass....it would peel from a small roll, hell it pulled hard from a stop, but lost all it's power after 35-40 mph
Regal_GS_1989 Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 i was talking about my Cutlass....it would peel from a small roll, hell it pulled hard from a stop, but lost all it's power after 35-40 mph Ok, I see what your talking about. Yea, I guess mine is like that too. looses power after about 4000 RPM.
Aaron Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 His wouldn't do that, but with a first gear that would shift out at 55mph, few cars would.
Prospeeder Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 whats the most powerful, and fastest 1st gen motor/car? and my spellings bad cause i type to fast for my own good
Aaron Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 The most powerful 1st gen W-body from the factory is a 1991-1993 3.4L DOHC/Getrag 284 5-speed equipped car. They came with 210hp, and 215tq.
Euro Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 ok good, at first when some of you said your 3.1 pulled faster than your 3100s, I was going to go see if my 3.1 was missing a few cylinders or something. the 3.1's suck at breaking the tires loose. When im at a stoplight facing uphill it will lay down a pretty good one, but other wise it will just chirp the tires. Except for this one time, I was backing out of a parking space at my old HS after BBall practice, and I floored it, got the tires to actually smoke!!! I was impressed.there was a lot of smoke too.left a good cloud behind me. I wasnt sure at first if it was the tires smoking or my motor
SigEpCutlass Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 dude prospeeder tried to hop on the i don't like the 3.4 b/c it's a bitch to work on bandwagon and got kicked the fuck off of it... lol
jeremy Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 we don't need another "the 3.4DOHC is the greatest engine ever vs. it's unreliable thread" Cutlass88er: good luck finding another W
Recommended Posts