Shortstar.. What do we like, dislike, want to change, can be changed, etc?

[Dirty Rockstar]

Seriosu inquiry.. After reading IronDogg's reply in 97LoudCuts threadm about sellin his cutlass, I am interested in the Shortstar now..

 

Has anyone seen numbers or even seen on turbo'd?

 

I now they put out about 215HP/230? ftlb tq. mated to the 4t65.. (Which is the same as the bone stock LQ1 I have)

 

One thing that "Intrigued".... ... Me about it was the Chain Driven dual overhead cams.. THis I think is a more bulletproof system than the Belt drive of the LQ1..

 

I imagine a 5 speed can be bolted to it without much issue..

 

I read and read on these things, and they become more and more interesting by the minute!

 

Chime in with your thoughts please! I'm dying to know!

[chadz34]

ONLY for durability, the rubber belts on the LQ1 are more responsive and have less drag, but need to be replaced more often. I obviously vote LQ1 blown....would rip some ass on the road.

[IRONDOG442]

For turbo info on the shorstar look at my resposnse to Turbo sedans inquiry on the 97Loud posting, 500 Horse WHAT?!?!?!?! it's funny I read this posting after I had already posted an answer to your question.

 

Likes: Mad torque usable at nearly any rpm range, incredible 60-100 mph time, sweet ass sound when WOT is achieved , even better with good dual exhaust system (like my SC3 Intrigue), The lower ends can actually handle a supercharger/turbocharger witout lasting damaging effects. A complete assmebly with a 4t65e trans and entire ECU system with 36,000 miles with the engine cradle still bolted to it on ebay a few months back sold for $231 and since they used them in the Auroras and Intrigues they fill the salvage yards up, they last forever so no one needs replacments as a result engine assmeblies COMPLETE are dirt cheap and they usually come withh all accesories and sensors. DOHC 24 valve v-6s rule!!!

 

Dislikes: after 36k miles they use 1 quart of oil every thousand miles, this is due to the fact that the tolerances inside the engine are so tight that the oil rings on the pistons actually spin letting trace amounts of oil into the combustion chamber burning about 32 ounces per 1,000 miles. Coil pack assemblies are like the quad 4 which is the spark plug wire the igintion module and the coil packs are all one unit, this means that there is no aftermarket company producing them and they are a dealer item only they cost $300 each.. but the good news is you can go to a salvage yard and buy a complete engine with them mounted to it for the same price all while getting the other sensors free. Replacing the alternator on them is a PITA although its not as bad as the LQ1.

 

And the timing chain is a single row roller unit that lasts up to 300k miles and has very little friction while turning the cams. The intake manifold on the 3.5 is much more efficient as well.

 

Info I found the second one is about a manual trans flywheel centerforce now produces.

 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is_2000_Jan/ai_62949280

 

http://www.jpmagazine.com/projectbuild/154_0505_1953_jeep_dj_3a/

 

I have a sweet GM official book all about the design of the Shortstar but I cant find it.

 

[slick]

Don't you already have an LQ1 all taken apart though?

[Brian P]

hmm

[Pontiac6KSTEAWD]

Sorry I have to vote for the ShortStar. I apsolutely detest the LQ1, and anything related to the miserable pathetic excuse for a motor. The S* has much better reliability, driveability, fuel economy, parts availability (if and when it does break). The question is this, can a pilot bearing be put on the S* for the 5 speed conversion? Or does it even need one?

[pwmin]

I apsolutely detest the LQ1, and anything related to the miserable pathetic excuse for a motor.

 

oh, noes, here we go again

 

i love the 3.4 but i'd go with the 3.5 if its not too hard

[Dirty Rockstar]

I'm an LQ1 guy, and yes, I already have one torn apart.. But its just that..

 

Don't get me wrong, I ADORE the LQ1.. Hell, I worshipeed each bolt and lifter as I pulled it apart..

 

..But I am mainly curious as to the possibilities (Maybe a shortstar equipped vert?)..

 

If I were to change ot the Shortstar, I would need ot research what Turbo options there are for it.. WHich to use, trims, A/Rs, etc..

 

Question: The "1 quart every xk miles".. How can I fix that? Is it possible to fix the issue Irondogg described in 97loudcut's new car thread?

[DiscoStudd]

I thought we came to the conclusion a couple of years ago that the Shortstar is too wide to fit in a 1G (at least that's what I was told when I had the idea of turbo'ing a S* ...)

[slick]

I thought we came to the conclusion a couple of years ago that the Shortstar is too wide to fit in a 1G (at least that's what I was told when I had the idea of turbo'ing a S* ...)

 

I believe your right.

[CSI_MuNkY]

Sorry I have to vote for the ShortStar. I apsolutely detest the LQ1, and anything related to the miserable pathetic excuse for a motor. The S* has much better reliability, driveability, fuel economy, parts availability (if and when it does break).

 

After my recent experiences with the costs involved in fixing the LQ1, and the complexity of the job (not having time, space, or know how for timing to do it myself) I'm going to have to agree. The LQ1 has balls but its just been a pain in my ass for the last 5 months...

Myself... I'm going L67... back to pushrods for me, I KNOW how to work on them...

 

Jamie

[digitaloutsider]

Even if the 3.5 does fit, I don't think you'd have much room at all on any side of the motor to work on it. It looks tight even in the 2nd gens.

 

 

Really big picture: http://superchargedv6.com/lx5big.jpg

 

 

[5speedz34]

Shawn, that's the same picture Wikipedia uses! And it has a Wal-Mart battery.

[5speedz34]

Sorry I have to vote for the ShortStar. I apsolutely detest the LQ1, and anything related to the miserable pathetic excuse for a motor. The S* has much better reliability, driveability, fuel economy, parts availability (if and when it does break).

 

After my recent experiences with the costs involved in fixing the LQ1, and the complexity of the job (not having time, space, or know how for timing to do it myself) I'm going to have to agree. The LQ1 has balls but its just been a pain in my ass for the last 5 months...

Myself... I'm going L67... back to pushrods for me, I KNOW how to work on them...

 

Jamie

 

See that's the thing people are too much of pussies/don't want to learn to work on them.

[Pontiac6KSTEAWD]

Sorry I have to vote for the ShortStar. I apsolutely detest the LQ1, and anything related to the miserable pathetic excuse for a motor. The S* has much better reliability, driveability, fuel economy, parts availability (if and when it does break).

 

After my recent experiences with the costs involved in fixing the LQ1, and the complexity of the job (not having time, space, or know how for timing to do it myself) I'm going to have to agree. The LQ1 has balls but its just been a pain in my ass for the last 5 months...

Myself... I'm going L67... back to pushrods for me, I KNOW how to work on them...

 

Jamie

 

See that's the thing people are too much of pussies/don't want to learn to work on them.

 

If the motor had been designed properly to begin with, no one would need to learn how to work on them. I reiterate my point. The LQ1 is plainly a HUGE paperweight. Nothing more, nothing less.

[digitaloutsider]

Shawn, that's the same picture Wikipedia uses! And it has a Wal-Mart battery.

 

[dohcfiend]

looks, like i missed a good discussion..better late than never i guess. my vote is inconclusive for now. i do not have much data on the S*. it is a 90 degree v6 right? bore, stroke, compression ratio, combustion chamber design and most importantly any headflow numbers?

 

depends on what u want to use the car for. if handling is your goal. i say go for the S* b/c it is lighter and it makes almost identical power to the lq1 n/a. for all out power, id say LQ1. there is a guy running a turboed one in a fiero pushing 387hp to the wheels on stock internals and a mild rebuild and there is a mm guy pushing 325 to the wheels on a 100k+ engine completely stock.

 

also i am concerned about that the other guy said about durability of the S* and it using oil like that. sound to me like if a S* was boosted you may encounter serious blow-by problems. not quite sure on the S* but the N* has been prone to headgasket failure if the same is true on the S* boosting it will definately be a bad idea.

 

don't listen to the lq1 haters. any engine i can pull the intake off of in less than 30 minutes gets my stamp of approval. only real design goofs i can name are the alt location and the way they done the timing belt drive. i would absolutely love the lq1 if the cams were driven directly from the crank instead of the balance shaft(aka dummy cam). i have never had the displeasure of working on a S* but on a N* the chain drive is a PITA..yes the chain drive is more durable, too bad you can't say the same for the headgaskets. another TOTAL PITA is if you have to replace the headgaskets, cheaper just to get another engine at that point.

 

so for boost, this is how i weigh it out. timing belt vs headgaskets. re-timing an engine vs either tearing the top end off or removing and replacing then engine entirely.(this is based off of N* goofs not sure if the same is true for the S*)

 

for n/a go for the S*!!!! car will be faster and handle like a dream (compared to a lq1)provided u build the suspension a little. my .02