stockgp Posted July 27, 2005 Report Posted July 27, 2005 what w's had them? what's the diff between a regular starter and a gear reduction starter? i think i heard 97+ gps had them. is that the3100 gps, or 3800? if 3800, would that starter fit a 60*? Quote
slick Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 The 3100's had them also. Basically, they are smaller in size, and from what I understand, work better on higher compression engines. Quote
Aaron Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 They will also fit, and work well on, a 3.4 DOHC. Quote
stockgp Posted July 28, 2005 Author Report Posted July 28, 2005 so would there e any advantage to putting on on a 3.1? Quote
Robby1870 Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 just lower weight and they are smaller too, I belive. Ive heard good things about them Quote
Aaron Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 just lower weight and they are smaller too, I belive. Ive heard good things about them And the fact that they are a gear reduction starter Quote
5speedz34 Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 I put a starter off a 99 Malibu with a 3100 into my car and it was the smallest starter I could find that was listed for a 3100 at the parts store. Basically we looked at about 10 different starters and this one was the lightest and smallest. Cranks my motor alot easier (10:1 compression FWIW). Quote
GP1138 Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 I'd assume it makes the car start quicker. My 3100 has always started (even the first turn of the key after the intake swap!! :shock: ) within a half a second of turning the key. As opposed to my 2.8 which sometimes took 2 seconds. Quote
GnatGoSplat Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 the 3.1 starter is a beast at 9 lbs Only 9 lbs? Holy crap I must be a weakling. I thought that bitch weighed 25 lbs. Anyway, I'll definitely try to get a 3100 starter next time I need one. Why is the Malibu starter the smallest? I thought they would only use 1 style of gear reduction starter. Quote
Robby1870 Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 just lower weight and they are smaller too, I belive. Ive heard good things about them And the fact that they are a gear reduction starter I thought that was obvious given the title of the thread....way to contribute Quote
Robby1870 Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 the 3.1 starter is a beast at 9 lbs Only 9 lbs? Holy crap I must be a weakling. I thought that bitch weighed 25 lbs. Anyway, I'll definitely try to get a 3100 starter next time I need one. Why is the Malibu starter the smallest? I thought they would only use 1 style of gear reduction starter. I havent done a starter in like 5 years, but I coulda sworn it was more than 9lbs....Id say like 15 or so. Quote
5speedz34 Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 My stock one for the 3.4 is a heavy motherfucker thats all I can say. Now that I think about it I bet it's about 25-30 lbs. I've got a spare one I could wiegh in the garage, if someone wants me to. About the different starters I thought the same thing. We looked up about 10 different starters for N-bodies and W-bodies and that was the lightest and smallest I could find. My car still takes a few cranks, but I think thats because of the battery in the trunk and the high compression. Quote
GnatGoSplat Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 About the different starters I thought the same thing. We looked up about 10 different starters for N-bodies and W-bodies and that was the lightest and smallest I could find. How do they differ? Were the other starters you compared it to also the gear reduction type? Quote
Bossman429 Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 Also, Do you still use the same amount of shims when changing between a 3.1 and 3x00 starter, or are the newer ones designed shimless? Quote
5speedz34 Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 About the different starters I thought the same thing. We looked up about 10 different starters for N-bodies and W-bodies and that was the lightest and smallest I could find. How do they differ? Were the other starters you compared it to also the gear reduction type? It was wierd some weren't and some where. It seemed like GM haphazardly put them in different cars for different years. I thought it was all 3100's that had the different starters but I guess it was the later ones. It seemed like the bigger ones weren't gear reduction but the smaller ones were. Quote
GnatGoSplat Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 Yeah, I do think earlier 3100's got the regular big starter. Even among the gear reduction ones, some were different sizes? Quote
5speedz34 Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 Honestly I can't remember that well, but I want to say yes. Like I said I just got the smallest one I could find. Also it seems like maybe all the 60* motors went to the smaller starter around this time(late 90's) Quote
Robby1870 Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 Honestly I can't remember that well, but I want to say yes. Like I said I just got the smallest one I could find. Also it seems like maybe all the 60* motors went to the smaller starter around this time(late 90's) Yeah...I wanna say is was like 97 Quote
94CutlassSLCoupe Posted July 28, 2005 Report Posted July 28, 2005 no way one of those starters weighs less than 8 lbs...even race starters don't wiegh less than 7. Not sure if my 3100 has that starter since its a 94 Quote
stockgp Posted July 29, 2005 Author Report Posted July 29, 2005 my old 3.1 starter weighs 14 lbs. and thanks for the info guys. i think i've got what i wanted out of this thread. no wall i need to do is find a car that has one Quote
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.