you might get a few ford 3.8 owners to disgree with you. IIRC ford recalled ALL 3.8s to replace the head gasket problem - something buick never saw fit to have.
that was only on N/A 3.8L
I was incorrect in the HP rating but the thrque rating of the ford 3.8L SC was significantly more than the GM 3800.
I was incorrect in the HP rating but the thrque rating of the ford 3.8L SC was significantly more than the GM 3800.
Series 3 was 280 ft.lbs.
3.8SC was 330 ft.lbs
I will side with you on this one, I drove a T-Bird SC once, it was like driving a really good 5.0 5spd 93 mustang. That thing was D**N fast!
__________________
FORCE IT!,IF IT BREAKS IT NEEDED REPLACED ANYWAY!
IF IT CANT BE FIXED WITH A HAMMER, ITS A ELECTRICAL PROBLEM!
Still bitterly clinging to guns and religion.
Dave
Oregon Assistant Chapter Leader: To join the Oregon Chapter, click HERE
I've been an Olds guy my whole life. Don't get me wrong, I love my truck, and I don't have much against Ford.
One thing I have come to appreciate about my Ford is that parts, especially aftermarket performance parts, are CHEAP compared to Olds stuff.
My first car was an 84 Olds Cutlass, that had a 72 #8 headed 350 in it- I put a TH350 behind it after I smoked the T200, and it was a hard running car. I wrecked that car, and pulled the engine- putting it in a 1979 Chevy truck- Real simple to do, you just use the diesel components, and it all bolts up.
I redid that 350 with a 330 crank (steel as opposed to cast) a older edelbrock intake, mild Erson cam, and the rest was pretty generic. The crash broke the TH350, so I used a TH400 this time. That truck ran hard too.
I've always admired the small block olds for it's brute strength, peppiness, and good reliable design. The blocks are stronger than the Chevy counterparts, with more nickel in them, and while they do have their quirks, they are a pretty stout engine.
Big blocks are a bit different. Olds big blocks are torque monster, but have issues with block integrity in high HP applications- the mains tend to move like an accordion, which will wipe out your thrust bearing- The 403, in high hp applications, is a grenade looking for a pin- The mains are just too weak to take the power. These problems can be helped by using a main girdle, but that's both expensive, and no guarantee.
Granted, we are talking about high horsepower applications, like 600+ in the big block, 500+ in the case of the 403.
I know a guy in Tennesee that runs a twin turbo DX (diesel) block olds- 6 second quarters... that's cookin'.
Probably the one thing I like about the Ford community over the Olds community is how you guys don't seem to take yourselves too seriously. The Olds crowd can be a tough crowd, and there is a lot of pettiness when there doesn't need to be. Perhaps its because there is more aftermarket support here, but it is a pleasure to interact with you guys without having my credibility questioned at every turn.
I will always have a soft spot in my heart for an Olds, but I love my Ford just the same.
YMMV-
Andrew
__________________
We're here for a good time, not a long time.
1978 F-100 302/C4
65000 original miles
I will side with you on this one, I drove a T-Bird SC once, it was like driving a really good 5.0 5spd 93 mustang. That thing was D**N fast!
I owned a '95 SC. I modified it for SCCA but never really had the chance to run it in any events as I was constantly deployed in the Air Force.
I had done the following to it;
Extrude honed stock heads and lower intake
Custom ground cam from magnum powers
Super coupe performance front mount intercooler
2.2L autorotor supercharger overdriven 10% to provide 27lbs at 4500rpm
Balanced bottom end
7.8:1 JE pistons
Kooks headers
Underdrives
Spec clutch
Tremec TK0 swap
3.73:1 with stock trac-loc
Aeromotive fuel pump and regulator
60lb/hr injectors.
17" cobra r's with sumitomo htr-z 255/45zr17s
Interior was stock appearing minus the cage and shifter.
Needless to say, I drove it about 30 times on weekends, snapped a drivers side motor mount (the pain in the a$$ one to replace) about twice a month and really had no way (or room) to make a strut to hold it down. The car weighed alot at about 3700 lbs so stuff breaking was the norm.
I never got the chance to get it dyno tuned, I pulled off a basic tune on my own with a wideband and the "tweecer" module. I sold the car in late 2004 due to my injuries I had recieved in Afghanistan and that the military was moving me around from hospital to hospital. Last I heard it was in Valdosta GA and a dude put a '97 t-bird front end on it.
The Thunderbird SC was far from "gutless". That Ford 3.8L SC put down more power, and was more reliable than ANY of the GM SC 3800s.
don't bet on it. How about the Buick GNX v6, 3800 V6 Turbo 276HP, 360 ft./lb at 3000 rpm. Sorry to say, the Ford 3.8 is a pile compared to this. I am no GM fanatic, but the Ford 3.8 is simply a POS compared the the GM 3800.
__________________
2003 F250 SD 4X4 5.4L 4:10 Arizona Beige
1987 Mustang GT
09 Challenger RT
A bunch of motorcycles, other cars, and a Quad.
don't bet on it. How about the Buick GNX v6, 3800 V6 Turbo 276HP, 360 ft./lb at 3000 rpm. Sorry to say, the Ford 3.8 is a pile compared to this. I am no GM fanatic, but the Ford 3.8 is simply a POS compared the the GM 3800.
Here is a Hemmings Muscle comparo between two cars with the Buick turbocharged 90 degree 3800cc V6 ....a Buick and a Pontiac firebird....both of which used the formidable Buick turbo 3.8 V6.
It also includes the Ford Thunderbird with the supercharged 3.8 Ford V6.
Of course Pontiac was sooo awesome back then, so was Oldsmobile. Now GM really made me . They screwed over all the good brands. Olds has been gone since 2004 and Pontiac is worthless to me. They make horrible looking cars.
Now I like Fords. I can't wait for the rumored 2012 Thunderbird.
Of course Pontiac was sooo awesome back then, so was Oldsmobile. Now GM really made me . I agree....GM has certainly gone downhill.They screwed over all the good brands. Olds has been gone since 2004 April 29, 2003...I remember as I had an Oldsmobile at the time.and Pontiac is worthless to me. They make horrible looking cars.
Now I like Fords. I can't wait for the rumored 2012 Thunderbird.
Didn't know one was rumoured to come out. Be interesting to know what the possible 2012 T-Bird would be like. I liked the last generation...too bad it fizzled. Beautiful car, IMO.
Here is a Hemmings Muscle comparo between two cars with the Buick turbocharged 90 degree 3800cc V6 ....a Buick and a Pontiac firebird....both of which used the formidable Buick turbo 3.8 V6.
It also includes the Ford Thunderbird with the supercharged 3.8 Ford V6.
Hopefully this will clarify and settle the issue regarding these two unnaturally aspirated V6's.
The article shows the specs, the performance capability and the driving impressions of the different cars with these two, fine engines.
They're both good.
I'm sorry, but I can tell you from experience, that the article you posted is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off. In fact, it was so biased, that I could not finish reading it.
For example; they claimed the T-bird to only have 173 hp. I had my '95 dyno'd when it was stock (unfortunately the only dyno I did) and it was 203 at the wheels.
They stated "the tires never came loose". I could get the tires to break loose on mine without a problem, as a matter of fact, the first time I EVER drag raced was in this car at silver dollar raceway in GA, I lined up and launched unfortunately buring the tires through first, second and into third. These fools in this article either cannot drive or just didn't drive the car at all.
No stock GNX slammed you in the seat from a dead stop. I have two buddies that own 1. 85 Grand national and 2. a 87 GNX. Niether of them cars do said "whamming" they have a small amount of turbo lag.
in 1991 there was a road test of the SC in motortrend, they claimed the handling to be "better than a corvette". These clowns in this hemmings article said it was "bouncy". They obviously, from that "observation" didn't even drive a SC. They don't "bounce" none of them do. Not even LX cars.
Hemmings is also GM biased if you haven't figured that out yet.
In the end, these fools tried to compare a turbocharged car to a roots supercharged one. There is no comparison and wasn't fair by any means. They should have compared the SC to a GP GTP or bonneville SSEI or one of those 3800 SC cars.
I'm sorry, but I can tell you from experience, that the article you posted is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off. In fact, it was so biased, that I could not finish reading it.
For example; they claimed the T-bird to only have 173 hp. I had my '95 dyno'd when it was stock (unfortunately the only dyno I did) and it was 203 at the wheels.
They stated "the tires never came loose". I could get the tires to break loose on mine without a problem, as a matter of fact, the first time I EVER drag raced was in this car at silver dollar raceway in GA, I lined up and launched unfortunately buring the tires through first, second and into third. These fools in this article either cannot drive or just didn't drive the car at all.
No stock GNX slammed you in the seat from a dead stop. I have two buddies that own 1. 85 Grand national and 2. a 87 GNX. Niether of them cars do said "whamming" they have a small amount of turbo lag.
in 1991 there was a road test of the SC in motortrend, they claimed the handling to be "better than a corvette". These clowns in this hemmings article said it was "bouncy". They obviously, from that "observation" didn't even drive a SC. They don't "bounce" none of them do. Not even LX cars.
Hemmings is also GM biased if you haven't figured that out yet.
In the end, these fools tried to compare a turbocharged car to a roots supercharged one. There is no comparison and wasn't fair by any means. They should have compared the SC to a GP GTP or bonneville SSEI or one of those 3800 SC cars.
Good job, you found crap.
I have to disagree with your opinion of the article. I don't think the T-Bird 3.8 with it's significantly less power was designed by Ford to compete with either the Buick or the Pontiac with their higher tuned Buick engines.
Ford's Mustang V8 was the machine in the Ford line up that assumed that high performance duty...a duty it did quite well .
The T- Bird SC in my opinion was designed for the individual who wanted a very nice personal luxury car with added performance, but not ultra high performance , which again if you wanted that in a Ford...the Mustang GT in either the 5 liter or 4.6 liter V8 form, was ready and willing to take on all comers.
Whether something 'whams' you in the back is subjective IMO. The GNX and other GM variations with the Buick 90 degree Turbo engine were known to be very high performers, because of the high state of tune of the engine.
In the end, both the Buick 3.8 and the Ford 3.8 liter are great engines. They can provide many levels of service for different applications...it all depends on what performance parts are built into them for a particular application.
No stock GNX slammed you in the seat from a dead stop. I have two buddies that own 1. 85 Grand national and 2. a 87 GNX. Niether of them cars do said "whamming" they have a small amount of turbo lag.
I'm not sure how a 4.7 0-60 time (GNX spec) isn't enough rapid acceleration to push you back in the seat. You must be quite a bit bigger than me. What stock T-bird can accelerate that fast?
__________________
We're here for a good time, not a long time.
1978 F-100 302/C4
65000 original miles
I hate to tell you this but unles you modify the crap out of a thunderbird - ANY thunderbird, it aint going anywhere fast. its a heavy, top heavy slug with any engine. always has been. the numbers hemmings posted were factory numbers - they never claimed to hook up the machines for this test. I know personally the guy who got the very last 87 gn built, in fact his aol/aim handle is last87gn and any summer weekend you can find him at englishtown running mid 12's with not much more mods than a twist of a screw driver.
the FACTORY difference of 2.3 seconds is essentially 2 different races - a couple blown buicks storming by followed by a wheezing chase car later, so much later its in danger of hitting spectators who stepped out onto the track to watch the turbos disappear.
post your own slip, all the mods you made maybe on a cool day maybe put you within a second. think what happens when the buick owners start shopping the kenne bell catalog. 1000hp twin hairdryer doorslammers are not that uncommon on sunny sundays
and when you point out the weight difference aint that great and the published hp difference aint that great you are right: GM constantly understates HP (the GNX is well known to push 300+ ponies from the factory - yes it most certainly does make 276hp at 4400rpm, and it still builds up to its 5200rpm peak....) and ford is well known for overstating HP by using an older weighting that they had to finally ditch in the early 90's (which is why the mustang GT magically dropped one year from 225 hp to 205hp while posting identical numbers proving no engine change was made)
remember what I told you that hp = W*(trap/234-235)^1/3? and that it understates hp for trap >100mph?
if we assume the buick had 200lbs of driver and fuel, it raced at 3745lbs and to cook off 104mph it had to have *AT LEAST* 328 ponies on tap.
same parms for the SC, means it raced with 208hp on tap.
the transmaro? 295. seeing the pattern? these HP shenanighans are well documented thru the years, starting back in the 60's where a massive cam, 4 or 6bbls of carb, huge ports, added '10hp' to 400+ inch motors in GM A bodies. If buick posted the true GNX HP numbers they would have violated a strict edict: no car may advertise more HP than the vette. in 1987 what was cooking under the hood of the vette?
How did the 460 stack up against the 3 different 455s of GM in the pre emissions era? I am too young to know this, which is why I ask.
__________________
Jim "Iron Giant" Fahlin ~ A high performance car is like a guitar, you have to tune it to achieve your best operation and pull ahead of the competition.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
. They screwed over all the good brands. Olds has been gone since 2004 and Pontiac is worthless to me. They make horrible looking cars.
