FordBoy Posted December 9, 2005 Report Share Posted December 9, 2005 does anyone know the horse power/specs for a 1989 cutlass supreme international 2.8L V6 w/ a automatic. If so it would be very helpfull Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94CutlassSLCoupe Posted December 9, 2005 Report Share Posted December 9, 2005 I believe they are 130hp and 165 lb-ft of torque Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastbird232 Posted December 9, 2005 Report Share Posted December 9, 2005 Of course, wait 'til you see what it's actually putting to the ground. Ouch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
93CutlassSupreme Posted December 9, 2005 Report Share Posted December 9, 2005 don't be knocking the 2.8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Regal Limited Posted December 9, 2005 Report Share Posted December 9, 2005 125 or 130hp depending on what book you look at 160ft lbs of torque I own a 88 regal 2.8, I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastbird232 Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 don't be knocking the 2.8 Not knocking the 2.8, I'm knocking FWD driveline loss. The mighty 3.4 only puts 168 of its 210 crank horsepower to the pavement. In fairness, my old 2.8 '89 GP spun the tires much easier than my '95 GTP. Not sure why... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prospeeder Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 ummm, FWD has nothing to do with it, FWD actually has LESS drivetrain loss compared to RWD, to turn a drive shaft the length of the car, or go right there a foot or 2 to the wheels. even if the 3.4 was RWD< im sure it would have the same, if not less horspower at the wheels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prospeeder Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 don't be knocking the 2.8 In fairness, my old 2.8 '89 GP spun the tires much easier than my '95 GTP. Not sure why... and it spins better because of the fact the 2.8 has torque at low RPMs while the 3.4 has all its torque at high rpms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebojsa_o Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 don't be knocking the 2.8 Yea, my dads 2.8L does plenty of that on its own when it's cold out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 The mighty 3.4 only puts 168 of its 210 crank horsepower to the pavement. Really? I swear to God my dyno sheet shows 178. And this was on a 200hp motor, not 210. And it made 186tq at the front wheels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 your engine put down 178whp. it also had a 5-speed. 168whp sounds typical for an auto LQ1. close enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutlessSupreme Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 http://www.w-body.com/motors/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadz34 Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 The 2.8 would probably be lucky to put 100 hp to the ground. Drivetrain loss is a kick in the crotch for cars. :x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastbird232 Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 The mighty 3.4 only puts 168 of its 210 crank horsepower to the pavement. Really? I swear to God my dyno sheet shows 178. And this was on a 200hp motor, not 210. And it made 186tq at the front wheels. I got that number from you, dammit! Jesus! http://www.w-body.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=445472&highlight=#445472 I can't believe he even argues with himself!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
93CutlassSupreme Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 don't be knocking the 2.8 Yea, my dads 2.8L does plenty of that on its own when it's cold out. as long as the transmission was in good shape, i'd buy another 2.8/3.1 car in a minute Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Regal Limited Posted December 11, 2005 Report Share Posted December 11, 2005 The mighty 3.4 only puts 168 of its 210 crank horsepower to the pavement. Really? I swear to God my dyno sheet shows 178. And this was on a 200hp motor, not 210. And it made 186tq at the front wheels. I got that number from you, dammit! Jesus! http://www.w-body.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=445472&highlight=#445472 I can't believe he even argues with himself!!! PWN3D!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBoy Posted December 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2005 When I changed the plugs it lost so much power. i used to be able to squck them leaving a stop sign after we chaged them it wont do anything anymore im lost. i cant try to ware them in currently cause i broke the CV shaft so it dont move. I dont know what to do. :bawl: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadz34 Posted December 13, 2005 Report Share Posted December 13, 2005 When I changed the plugs it lost so much power. i used to be able to squck them leaving a stop sign after we chaged them it wont do anything anymore im lost. i cant try to ware them in currently cause i broke the CV shaft so it dont move. I dont know what to do. :bawl: That's a pickle. I can tell you now, unless you have a faulty plug, the plugs aren't you problem. Does it run bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted December 13, 2005 Report Share Posted December 13, 2005 The mighty 3.4 only puts 168 of its 210 crank horsepower to the pavement. Really? I swear to God my dyno sheet shows 178. And this was on a 200hp motor, not 210. And it made 186tq at the front wheels. We're definately talking about automatics here. We know that the 5 speed has about 5% less loss than the auto...thats where your extra 10hp came into play. My Turbo 3.1 put down 182.2whp and 272wtq when it was completely stock. I'm putting it on the dyno in the spring to see what 5psi more boost, ported heads, a cam, ported exhaust manifolds, and an UD pulley did. I'm hoping for 240 to the tires, but who knows what it'll actually be. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay3800 Posted December 13, 2005 Report Share Posted December 13, 2005 My Turbo 3.1 put down 182.2whp and 272wtq when it was completely stock. Seriously? All the specs I've seen on the T3.1 show it rated at 225 crank lb-ft torque. I had no idea a stock motor put down 50 lb-ft more to the wheels! Pretty awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted December 13, 2005 Report Share Posted December 13, 2005 My Turbo 3.1 put down 182.2whp and 272wtq when it was completely stock. Seriously? All the specs I've seen on the T3.1 show it rated at 225 crank lb-ft torque. I had no idea a stock motor put down 50 lb-ft more to the wheels! Pretty awesome. Mine is a freak too. That was running only 6psi when stock boost should be 7.5psi, and mines also the only LG5 powered w-body to go 14's stock. And my trans guy didn't believe that the completely stripped off gears in the trans weren't caused by neutral drops. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay3800 Posted December 13, 2005 Report Share Posted December 13, 2005 My Turbo 3.1 put down 182.2whp and 272wtq when it was completely stock. Seriously? All the specs I've seen on the T3.1 show it rated at 225 crank lb-ft torque. I had no idea a stock motor put down 50 lb-ft more to the wheels! Pretty awesome. Mine is a freak too. That was running only 6psi when stock boost should be 7.5psi, and mines also the only LG5 powered w-body to go 14's stock. And my trans guy didn't believe that the completely stripped off gears in the trans weren't caused by neutral drops. Shawn That is awesome as heck. I can't believe GM rated at engine at 225 crank torque, when it put down 270+ at the wheels. That's well over 300 lb-ft at the crank! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 That is awesome as heck. I can't believe GM rated at engine at 225 crank torque, when it put down 270+ at the wheels. That's well over 300 lb-ft at the crank! Just take a look at what the 5 speed guys are putting down with very mild mods. With just a chip they're putting down like 320+wtq. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwmin Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 very similar to the s/c ecotecs (just not as drastic) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gp90se Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 When I changed the plugs it lost so much power. i used to be able to squck them leaving a stop sign after we chaged them it wont do anything anymore im lost. i cant try to ware them in currently cause i broke the CV shaft so it dont move. I dont know what to do. :bawl: first, i'm sorry your parents raised you wrong being a ford boy and all Pull the bosch plugs out (just a guess) and buy 6 delco plugs, your spunk should return. The CVs in these cars are pretty easy to replace. pull the 36mm bolt and washer, pop the balljoint out and slide a tire iron behind the axle where it slides into the tranny, pull a few times it will pop out. put the new one in by doing everything in reverse, ta da, 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.