TeeJay3800 Posted November 28, 2005 Report Posted November 28, 2005 i was glad to get back in my Lumina. Smoother ride, softer acceleration, and it didn't seem any fast than mine. I didn't like the way it lagged, it fel as if it had turbo lag, and I hate that. :shock: ......3.4 slower than a 3100...... :? What he means by "lag" is the 3.4's lack of low end torque. The LQ1 doesn't have near the low end of the 3.1/3100.
chadz34 Posted November 28, 2005 Report Posted November 28, 2005 I realize that, but a 3100 is not ''faster''.
fastbird232 Posted November 28, 2005 Report Posted November 28, 2005 The LQ1 doesn't have near the low end of the 3.1/3100. But it does. When I raced my brother's '00 GP SE, at no point was he ever ahead of me, even off the line.
digitaloutsider Posted November 28, 2005 Report Posted November 28, 2005 Tim's 3.4 runs like shit, Ray. It was obviously beat on it's entire life, and any maitenance it got was few and far between. My LQ1 never has a difficult time starting, it has never died at a red light, and has always, always tore the fuck out of ANY 3.1/3100/3400 it came in contact with. Yes, totally stock 3.4's (especially automatic ones) can leave a lot to be desired in the low end torque department, but in no way should a 3100 be faster off the line, and it should ESPECIALLY not run any smoother. My 3.4 is probably the smoothest-running engine I've come in contact with. And if you shit yourself driving a stock automatic Z34..wow..
TeeJay3800 Posted November 28, 2005 Report Posted November 28, 2005 The LQ1 doesn't have near the low end of the 3.1/3100. But it does. When I raced my brother's '00 GP SE, at no point was he ever ahead of me, even off the line. No, it doesn't. One race with unknown variables involved (driver technique etc etc) means nothing. The truth is the 3.4 doesn't start developing serious power until 3,000 rpm. However, this topic has been beat to death for years on this forum. I'm not going to involve myself further.
White93z34 Posted November 28, 2005 Report Posted November 28, 2005 Cold starts are the worst on the 3.4... they run like complete crap until they are up to temperature, which could take a whhile. Uh, no, only 3.4's in a state of disrepair do that. yeah, seriously speak for yourself, mine has never had a problem starting in the dead of winter, and now it fires right the hell up with a brand new battery and new plug wires. and mine tends to get up to temp prety quick. sure on really cold mornings i get some valve tick but thats it. so i'm totally with shawn on this one.
GOT2B GM Posted November 28, 2005 Report Posted November 28, 2005 I've put 50,000kms on my Z since I bought it with no reliability issues whatsoever. Sure, I replaced the timing belt, the alternator, water pump, brakes, and various other goodies, but nothing that doesn't eventually go on every other car on the road. Just like any other car, as long as you keep up with preventative maintenance, and don't cheap out on everything, it'll serve you well for many years. My car has 218,000 kms on it with the original motor, and it runs A1. Starts right up, no matter what the weather, and runs like a champ. You can't blame the car for you neglecting it.
solid_raiden223 Posted November 28, 2005 Report Posted November 28, 2005 I actually drove Tim's GTP, and honestly, I was disappointed. I thought this thing was gonna be balls to the wall fast. After I got done driving his 3.4, i was glad to get back in my Lumina. Smoother ride, softer acceleration, and it didn't seem any fast than mine. I didn't like the way it lagged, it fel as if it had turbo lag, and I hate that. The engine shuddered a bit when i got on it. It was rough, slower than anyone has said, and it runs like shit when started from cold. Timmy had to restart it 3 or 4 times sunday morning. ( I think it was sunday), I have the 3100 and it rides and drives better than a 3.4. But thats only one that I have ever driven. It seems That 3.4 Has somthing Wrong with it Which is Why its doing such a thing...take a ride in a car with a 3.4 thats running right and tell me that it dont accel softly.. In my experiance The 3.4s accle Way better than the 3.1's And the Smoother ride... That means there is somthing up with the suspension or somthing...
Aaron Posted November 28, 2005 Report Posted November 28, 2005 i was glad to get back in my Lumina. Smoother ride, softer acceleration, and it didn't seem any fast than mine. I didn't like the way it lagged, it fel as if it had turbo lag, and I hate that. :shock: ......3.4 slower than a 3100...... :? What he means by "lag" is the 3.4's lack of low end torque. The LQ1 doesn't have near the low end of the 3.1/3100. You do realize that the 3.4l DOHC makes more horsepower and torque AT ANY RPM than any other 60* V6 up until now right? This includes the 2.8, 3.1, 3100, 3400, etc. I have the dyno to back it up if you wish.
LumiDriver Posted November 28, 2005 Report Posted November 28, 2005 Completely understandable, I'm not saying its slower than my 9C1, but it seemed that way. I got on it a bit, had that little lag, and it burried me in my seat a small bit, a little fun, but tim blames the stock suspension on that car. I only have 67K Miles on my Lumina, and for somereason, I got up in tims face with it (I pounced on it when he was behind me, and it took him a few seconds to catch up) Maybe something is wrong with his engine, but remember people, I never generalized about the 3.4, i told you guys its the only one I ever been in and driven. I liked its ride at higher speeds, not bad at all, but it really rought compared to mine. Maybe a couple mods would work out that suspension problem on his, but overall i don't hate it. I'm not saying mine would beat his (no possible way) but I'm saying, i won't be left in the dust.
digitaloutsider Posted November 28, 2005 Report Posted November 28, 2005 It has nothing to do with the stock suspension. It has everything to do with the fact his engine is a beat piece of shit. Hell, my suspension is so fucking soft it isn't even funny. I compare this car to my FE1 GP. It's really that bad, but you know what? It still shoves me back in the seat, and breaks the tires loose on the 1-2 WOT shift every time. Sounds like he needs a total rebuild, or shouldn't have thrown a stupid amount of money down for a 1994 3.4 car that he didn't even bother inspecting the timing belt on before he bought it.
ShockTherapy Posted November 28, 2005 Report Posted November 28, 2005 okay, i've read, i've digested, and yes, i know my LIM is most decidedly fucked. i'll get to it when time/money allows. and yes, my car rides a wee bit harsh, that's just the FE3. mah, you already called me and all that, and i accept the race challenge on Wednesday night. well, i'm on my buddy's gf's sisteras machine, so i'm gonna go, call my cell for encouragement, and or pep talks and/or death threats. well, vahalla, kiddies.
Aaron Posted November 28, 2005 Report Posted November 28, 2005 Completely understandable, I'm not saying its slower than my 9C1, but it seemed that way. I got on it a bit, had that little lag, and it burried me in my seat a small bit, a little fun, but tim blames the stock suspension on that car. I only have 67K Miles on my Lumina, and for somereason, I got up in tims face with it (I pounced on it when he was behind me, and it took him a few seconds to catch up) Maybe something is wrong with his engine, but remember people, I never generalized about the 3.4, i told you guys its the only one I ever been in and driven. I liked its ride at higher speeds, not bad at all, but it really rought compared to mine. Maybe a couple mods would work out that suspension problem on his, but overall i don't hate it. I'm not saying mine would beat his (no possible way) but I'm saying, i won't be left in the dust. It is pretty ignorant of you to blame the 3.4 for making the car ride harsh. That has very little to do with what motor resides, it is mostly an issue of suspenion and tires.
fastbird232 Posted November 28, 2005 Report Posted November 28, 2005 My FE3 suspension makes my kidneys hurt going over railroad crossings on the highway. It's just how it is.
LumiDriver Posted November 29, 2005 Report Posted November 29, 2005 Completely understandable, I'm not saying its slower than my 9C1, but it seemed that way. I got on it a bit, had that little lag, and it burried me in my seat a small bit, a little fun, but tim blames the stock suspension on that car. I only have 67K Miles on my Lumina, and for somereason, I got up in tims face with it (I pounced on it when he was behind me, and it took him a few seconds to catch up) Maybe something is wrong with his engine, but remember people, I never generalized about the 3.4, i told you guys its the only one I ever been in and driven. I liked its ride at higher speeds, not bad at all, but it really rought compared to mine. Maybe a couple mods would work out that suspension problem on his, but overall i don't hate it. I'm not saying mine would beat his (no possible way) but I'm saying, i won't be left in the dust. It is pretty ignorant of you to blame the 3.4 for making the car ride harsh. That has very little to do with what motor resides, it is mostly an issue of suspenion and tires. Read the red text...if you read it carefully, you would realize that i said why i didn't like the ride.
Aaron Posted November 29, 2005 Report Posted November 29, 2005 I never generalized about the 3.4, i told you guys its the only one I ever been in and driven. I liked its ride at higher speeds, not bad at all, but it really rought compared to mine. Maybe a couple mods would work out that suspension problem on his, but overall i don't hate it. You gave us a noun of which you'd refer back to, the 3.4. Then you used the pronoun it to refer us back to the 3.4, in the phrase, its ride at higher speeds, thus referring us to the 3.4s ride at higher speeds. You then introduce another noun, the ride at higher speeds. You then refer back to this by saying it was really rough. So if the ride was really rough, and the 3.4 controls the car's ride, I think it is safe to say that according to you, the 3.4 makes the car ride rough, which by proof is completely untrue. And since you initially used the 3.4, then talked about its ride quality at higher speeds, you inidicate, backed up by English Grammar, that the engine provided a critical role in the ride quality at higher speeds.
TeeJay3800 Posted November 29, 2005 Report Posted November 29, 2005 he LQ1 doesn't have near the low end of the 3.1/3100.You do realize that the 3.4l DOHC makes more horsepower and torque AT ANY RPM than any other 60* V6 up until now right? This includes the 2.8, 3.1, 3100, 3400, etc. I have the dyno to back it up if you wish. If the 3.4 makes more torque from 1000 to 2500 rpm than the 3.1/3100, then that's news to me. I have the factory dyno graph of the 3.1 from a '90 Olds catalog. If you have a factory 3.4 graph that would be cool to see just for kicks.
Aaron Posted November 29, 2005 Report Posted November 29, 2005 Post it up. Dyno must be a wheel horsepower and wheel torque reading from a calibrated dynojet, in a running car with all accessories, all stock with no modifications.
chadz34 Posted November 29, 2005 Report Posted November 29, 2005 LumiDriver, as for the race...you will lose...badly. There's just no way your gonna beat a 3.4 with a 3.1, 3100, 3400 or even a 3800 Series I. The Series II and L67 really are the only threats. You do realize you have the lowest powered 60* V6 right minus the 2.8.
LumiDriver Posted November 29, 2005 Report Posted November 29, 2005 Godammit, people PAY ATTENTION, I SAID I KNOW I WOULDN"T WIN, fuck, READ PEOPLE, read.
chadz34 Posted November 29, 2005 Report Posted November 29, 2005 You said you wouldn't get left behind....and you will.
TeeJay3800 Posted November 29, 2005 Report Posted November 29, 2005 Hmm I dunno man. Like I said it's a factory graph on an all-stock motor. It's also crank power, not at the wheels. I just think its neat to see what these motors produced at certian RPMs when stock. The tq curve is very flat, but there's a few dips at certian RPMs where the power drops by 10 or so. I'm curious to know what causes those dips and spikes in the power across the RPM range.
LumiDriver Posted November 29, 2005 Report Posted November 29, 2005 Plus, Aaron, if you have to fucking split hairs about grammar? You have something seriously wrong with you. I got my Lumina for less than 900 dollars. And if timmy pays so much for his damn GTP and the fucking thing won't even stay runnign in the morning, something is wrong with it. The only thing I have had to do serious to my car is the damn thermostat. the 3100 aint as bad as you say it is, and the 3.4 isnt as good as you say it is. If you wanna be dicks about, lemme go grab the chevelle, and see if ANYONE HERE can beat me. I doubt that shit you know why? 600BHP at the rear wheels bitch..I was just plainly stating that the 3.4 doesn't rock my boxers, but you guys had to fucking make a huge goddamned deal and then!, only then! start bitching about grammar on a goddamned forum. Grow the fuck up already.
Aaron Posted November 29, 2005 Report Posted November 29, 2005 Hmm I dunno man. Like I said it's a factory graph on an all-stock motor. It's also crank power, not at the wheels. I just think its neat to see what these motors produced at certian RPMs when stock. The tq curve is very flat, but there's a few dips at certian RPMs where the power drops by 10 or so. I'm curious to know what causes those dips and spikes in the power across the RPM range. Well post the graph anyways. We will just inflate my3.4s graph proportionatly so that max power is at 210hp and max torque is at 215.
chadz34 Posted November 29, 2005 Report Posted November 29, 2005 That's kinda wierd that it would lose 10 hp at different rpms. Usually an engine makes a build up of peak power and then the power drops off, weird that it doesn't build, it builds, dips, builds.
Recommended Posts