Where are my auto enthusiasts?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-11-2022, 01:59 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: If I ever have the time and money to put into an older vehicle, I'd like to build an 84-86 era F-250 4x4.  I'm also partial to late '60s Mopar and Pontiacs.


The current Sunsetmobile

I’d like to have a classic truck from the 1960s or older.

[*SHRacerX*]

(05-16-2022, 05:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, we love ours. We don't have the Turbo, but it's best with the wife driving. I'd imagine the Red Line and the GXP are quite "peppy". I'm thinking about upgrading to a Boxster, but I just might put money into the Solstice. 

In High School I had a '78 T/A. I was told they came with 2 engines; A 400 CID Pontiac and a 403 CID Oldsmobile (High Output). Mine had the 403. I was told you could tell because the 403s had factory chrome valve covers and the Shaker hood said T/A 6.6 instead of 6.6 Litre. Put that may have been made up.

The Boxters are dirt cheap now...fun to drive but nightmare maintenance.  


I'm not sure about identifying the different 400s in the Trans Ams...all I know is their value went crazy high.  I always had a place in my heart for the turbo 4.9L.  They were choked with emissions, but could be "opened up" and perform quite well.

Pontiac wanted to put the turbo 4.9 in the new 1982 Trans Am, but in that lighter platform, it would have made it faster than the Vette, so it got cancelled.  Too bad.  There is just something about "TURBO V8".  

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(05-16-2022, 10:10 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Very cool.  Although my collection is hardly "classic", they are old enough that they aren't overly complex like today's cars.  Love the CRX.  One of the most fun cars of all time.   A friend had a race-prepped one that he used to autocross.  It was insane.  Had everything not essential stripped out of the car and had the motor built professionally.  The thing could corner like it was stuck to the road.  Had 13" lightweight rims that were about 9" wide.  They also fit the Miata because I bought them off him when he was done with them and the Miata looked hilarious with them on.

I didn't have a trailer, so I would put my racing tires on at home and drive to Kil Kare (Xenia) where the autocross used to be held.  The Hoosier racing tires were so gummy that if you hit a pebble, the tires would grab it and fling it at you.  Since they stuck out of the fenders about 4" on each side, I actually wore my helmet when I drove it one the street.  Looked like I was racing just out in the open road.  My miata was in C-street prepared and so was his CRX.   That was the only year I didn't win.  My miata just wasn't modded enough to compete in CSP.  You could do a TON to cars in that class and all I had was koni adjustable shocks with eibach springs and a borla exhaust (and an open air intake).  

I did a lot better in E-stock in my 1993 Saturn SC2 (those really did well) and C-stock in my 1988 Fiero Formula.  Won 4 championships in different years with those cars.

Back to "classics".  I had a 1969 Firebird convertible that I sold when I got married.  Damn market blew up on them RIGHT after I sold mine.  

I have always like Corvairs for some reason and thought it would be fun to Restomod one of those with a hotted up powertrain.  Probably won't ever do it.   My dream Frankencar is still that LS-powered DeLorean.  

My dad had a Corvair, damn near got killed in it.

Yeah, I was going to sell my CRX to fund my VW project. The Honda needs a lot of body work done, but I've replaced just about everything mechanically speaking besides some suspension components. Those cars are glued to the road stock. I run some 15" × 9" wheels with 45 series rubber on it. It needs new shocks all around. I guess I'll just keep saving and fix it up. I'd like more power, and always wanted to autocross. Maybe eventually. I've redone the braking system front to back, including lines, new cv axles, dropped a beefier Civic wagon engine in it a few years ago, new ECM, almost all relays replaced, recent clutch, new radiator, and several sensors replaced. I'd drive it about anywhere, it's just not very pretty right now, lol.

[*SHRacerX*]

(05-18-2022, 01:52 AM)Wyche Wrote: My dad had a Corvair, damn near got killed in it.

Yeah, I was going to sell my CRX to fund my VW project. The Honda needs a lot of body work done, but I've replaced just about everything mechanically speaking besides some suspension components. Those cars are glued to the road stock. I run some 15" × 9" wheels with 45 series rubber on it. It needs new shocks all around. I guess I'll just keep saving and fix it up. I'd like more power, and always wanted to autocross. Maybe eventually. I've redone the braking system front to back, including lines, new cv axles, dropped a beefier Civic wagon engine in it a few years ago, new ECM, almost all relays replaced, recent clutch, new radiator, and several sensors replaced. I'd drive it about anywhere, it's just not very pretty right now, lol.

Yeah, the Honda's rusted like crazy...not as bad as early Nissan's (Datsun).  The one car that really seemed to handle it all well was the early RX-7.  They are inefficient and cost a ton to repair (and they fry a lot of exhaust pipes) but I really loved the 13B Rotary.  I had an 84 GSL-SE that was silver and it was a great runner.

Those cars were so simple in their design, lightweight, and revved forever....

I apologize if you already said, but what is your VW project?

I just got the radio for the Sunbird.  Pretty cool, as it looks like the same basic radio that they came with but has different lighting to match interior lights and bluetooth.  Can't wait to get it in and see how the speakers are.  It's funny....my Camaro is spotless, has more than double the horsepower, and a blast to drive, but I find myself farting around in this little turbo vert....Must be nostalgia.  

[fredtoast]

CRX was a small car in its day. It probably seems microscopic now. A 2022 Civic is 5 inches longer than an Accord from the '80s.

[fredtoast]

(05-17-2022, 06:50 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: I'm not sure about identifying the different 400s in the Trans Ams...all I know is their value went crazy high.  I always had a place in my heart for the turbo 4.9L.  They were choked with emissions, but could be "opened up" and perform quite well.

Pontiac wanted to put the turbo 4.9 in the new 1982 Trans Am, but in that lighter platform, it would have made it faster than the Vette, so it got cancelled.  Too bad.  There is just something about "TURBO V8".  

Turbo's today are so much more efficient than back in the '80's.   It costs a ton of money to take an engine apart and add power with different heads, cams etc. But a turbo swap can be pretty simple and a more modern turbo can add tons of power.

With my Integra I added a supercharger to a normally aspirated engine that was already tuned for high performance.  The problem with doing this is that normally aspirated performance engines have a high compression ratio and engines designed for boost have lower compression ratios.

So it is much more efficient to upgrade a turbo on an engine that was originally designed for boost.

I am not familiar with the 4.9L V8, but I have seen some crazy stuff done to that V6 that was in the Grand National.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(05-18-2022, 09:03 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Yeah, the Honda's rusted like crazy...not as bad as early Nissan's (Datsun).  The one car that really seemed to handle it all well was the early RX-7.  They are inefficient and cost a ton to repair (and they fry a lot of exhaust pipes) but I really loved the 13B Rotary.  I had an 84 GSL-SE that was silver and it was a great runner.

Those cars were so simple in their design, lightweight, and revved forever....

I apologize if you already said, but what is your VW project?

I just got the radio for the Sunbird.  Pretty cool, as it looks like the same basic radio that they came with but has different lighting to match interior lights and bluetooth.  Can't wait to get it in and see how the speakers are.  It's funny....my Camaro is spotless, has more than double the horsepower, and a blast to drive, but I find myself farting around in this little turbo vert....Must be nostalgia.  

I kinda mentioned it....I got a turbo Jetta for my wife a few years ago. It was the four banger turbo with 5 valves per cylinder. Absolute blast to drive. Slapshift automatic, 17" wheels with 40 series rubber stock, had the winter package with leather, Monsoon stereo, really nice little car. With an upgraded turbo, downpipe, and intercooler, you could get some serious HP out of that little jewel. In those days, all you had to do was buy a VAGCOM patch chord for your laptop and get full access to the ECM to tune it for free. I've seen those tiny cars with excess of 700HP on the web. They were around 200 HP stock, I was gonna try for 300-350 HP, and beef up the suspension a bit , but the wife had other ideas when she smashed it into the barrier wall on I-75 a few years back. 

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(05-18-2022, 11:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: CRX was a small car in its day. It probably seems microscopic now. A 2022 Civic is 5 inches longer than an Accord from the '80s.

Seems almost like a smart car, lol, but has surprising leg room, and actually makes for a pretty good road car if you just have two people. You REALLY have to pay attention driving one on the interstate though, not a lot of car to protect you.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(05-18-2022, 11:36 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Turbo's today are so much more efficient than back in the '80's.   It costs a ton of money to take an engine apart and add power with different heads, cams etc. But a turbo swap can be pretty simple and a more modern turbo can add tons of power.

With my Integra I added a supercharger to a normally aspirated engine that was already tuned for high performance.  The problem with doing this is that normally aspirated performance engines have a high compression ratio and engines designed for boost have lower compression ratios.

So it is much more efficient to upgrade a turbo on an engine that was originally designed for boost.

I am not familiar with the 4.9L V8, but I have seen some crazy stuff done to that V6 that was in the Grand National.

The Buick 3.8L

[*SHRacerX*]

(05-18-2022, 11:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: CRX was a small car in its day. It probably seems microscopic now. A 2022 Civic is 5 inches longer than an Accord from the '80s.

And incredibly light.  I think they might have been under 2000 lbs (the early ones), which is a large part of their fun factor.  

I had a 2018 Civic Si (lease) that was a 6-speed and it was pretty fun, but felt like a mid-size car.  

[*SHRacerX*]

(05-18-2022, 04:39 PM)Wyche Wrote: I kinda mentioned it....I got a turbo Jetta for my wife a few years ago. It was the four banger turbo with 5 valves per cylinder. Absolute blast to drive. Slapshift automatic, 17" wheels with 40 series rubber stock, had the winter package with leather, Monsoon stereo, really nice little car. With an upgraded turbo, downpipe, and intercooler, you could get some serious HP out of that little jewel. In those days, all you had to do was buy a VAGCOM patch chord for your laptop and get full access to the ECM to tune it for free. I've seen those tiny cars with excess of 700HP on the web. They were around 200 HP stock, I was gonna try for 300-350 HP, and beef up the suspension a bit , but the wife had other ideas when she smashed it into the barrier wall on I-75 a few years back. 

Oh geez...hate hearing car stories end like that.  I am sure she was ok, but feel bad anyways.

Yeah, the VW turbo 2.0L had nothing in common with the motor in my Sunbird other than they were both originally 1.8L and then grew to 2.0L.  Still, I have driven both and their throttle response is similar.  The Bird has more lag...and a shit-ton more torque steer due to unequal length drive shafts....

[*SHRacerX*]

(05-18-2022, 11:36 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Turbo's today are so much more efficient than back in the '80's.   It costs a ton of money to take an engine apart and add power with different heads, cams etc. But a turbo swap can be pretty simple and a more modern turbo can add tons of power.

With my Integra I added a supercharger to a normally aspirated engine that was already tuned for high performance.  The problem with doing this is that normally aspirated performance engines have a high compression ratio and engines designed for boost have lower compression ratios.

So it is much more efficient to upgrade a turbo on an engine that was originally designed for boost.

I am not familiar with the 4.9L V8, but I have seen some crazy stuff done to that V6 that was in the Grand National.

Yeah, the turbo 4.9 is the engine that "could have been" for Pontiac.  The early 3.8L turbo V6 wasn't the world beater it later became at first.  The engine got more and more refined with newer technology over time.  The 4.9 could have been the same, but we will never know.  It died in 1982.

The Buick 3.8L was amazing.  My dad had a Grand National and the power was insane.  There was an article called "sideways at any speed" and that was pretty accurate.  What perhaps amazed me most was how smooth the engine was in that car.  

One of my other dream cars is the 1989 20th Anniversary Trans Am because it was powered with the Buick Turbo V6.  

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(05-19-2022, 07:41 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Oh geez...hate hearing car stories end like that.  I am sure she was ok, but feel bad anyways.

Yeah, the VW turbo 2.0L had nothing in common with the motor in my Sunbird other than they were both originally 1.8L and then grew to 2.0L.  Still, I have driven both and their throttle response is similar.  The Bird has more lag...and a shit-ton more torque steer due to unequal length drive shafts....

Yep, this one was the 1.8T. It was the MKIV, drive by wire... almost instant throttle response. Turn off the traction control and it would light up the front tires. My friend had a sharp Sunbird back in high school, but it wasn't turbo. He had it all decked out, lowered a few inches, with a big stereo instead of a hot rod, lol.

[WeezyBengal]

Inherited this C7 from my Dad after he passed. I don't get to drive it as much as I'd like...but when I do I have a blast.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(05-19-2022, 07:47 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Yeah, the turbo 4.9 is the engine that "could have been" for Pontiac.  The early 3.8L turbo V6 wasn't the world beater it later became at first.  The engine got more and more refined with newer technology over time.  The 4.9 could have been the same, but we will never know.  It died in 1982.

The Buick 3.8L was amazing.  My dad had a Grand National and the power was insane.  There was an article called "sideways at any speed" and that was pretty accurate.  What perhaps amazed me most was how smooth the engine was in that car.  

One of my other dream cars is the 1989 20th Anniversary Trans Am because it was powered with the Buick Turbo V6.  

Hell, my grandparents' Park Avenue with the 3.8 n/a was no slouch.

[fredtoast]

(05-19-2022, 07:47 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: The Buick 3.8L was amazing.  My dad had a Grand National and the power was insane.  There was an article called "sideways at any speed" and that was pretty accurate.  What perhaps amazed me most was how smooth the engine was in that car.  

One of my other dream cars is the 1989 20th Anniversary Trans Am because it was powered with the Buick Turbo V6.  

It has always been possible to "upgrade" a turbo by replacing it with a larger one.  They would produce more peak HP but they would also have more "turbo lag".

But new turbo's are so much more efficient than the ones from the 80's that replacing a turbo with a newer on of the same size will give really big HP gains without more lag.  I don't really understand all the details of the new technology but they have "ceramic ball bearings" and shit like that. 

[*SHRacerX*]

(05-19-2022, 10:36 AM)Wyche Wrote: Hell, my grandparents' Park Avenue with the 3.8 n/a was no slouch.

No, it wasn't!  The 3.8L, even though it was "old tech" in terms of being pushrod and not OHC, was one of the most powerful and efficient engines of all time.  I remember it made Ward's Top Ten Engines list.  

I also remember having a LeSabre with one of the last iterations of the 3.8L and it would get 30 MPG with a 4 speed auto on the highway.  Flat out amazing for a car of that size, aerodynamics, and weight.  

[*SHRacerX*]

(05-19-2022, 09:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It has always been possible to "upgrade" a turbo by replacing it with a larger one.  They would produce more peak HP but they would also have more "turbo lag".

But new turbo's are so much more efficient than the ones from the 80's that replacing a turbo with a newer on of the same size will give really big HP gains without more lag.  I don't really understand all the details of the new technology but they have "ceramic ball bearings" and shit like that. 

Yep, combined with better fuel delivery, cold air intakes, freer exhausts, etc.  it doesn't take much to really get a big jump in HP.  There is a guy that makes a living building up people's 4.9L turbos (for that Pontiac Motor) with different intake and fuel injection systems and he gets well over 350 HP and a strong 450 lb-ft of torque.  

That is quite a jump from the stock 200 Hp and 345 lb-ft of torque.  

I think his page is TTAperformance.com.  Really nice guy.  

[masonbengals fan]

(05-17-2022, 03:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I’d like to have a classic truck from the 1960s or older.

 I had a 1972 Super Cheyenne truck back in the day. Somehow I don't even have a pic of it. Sure wish I still had it. Blue & white.

[grampahol]

(05-19-2022, 09:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It has always been possible to "upgrade" a turbo by replacing it with a larger one.  They would produce more peak HP but they would also have more "turbo lag".

But new turbo's are so much more efficient than the ones from the 80's that replacing a turbo with a newer on of the same size will give really big HP gains without more lag.  I don't really understand all the details of the new technology but they have "ceramic ball bearings" and shit like that. 

People often underestimate just how hard ceramic can be. When I was a kid I lived right behind an old landfill used by the old Frigidaire plant in Moraine.. That landfill was located real close to the top of Pinnacle hill or road.. Anyway...back then the Frigidaire plant dumped ceramic waste balls that had been leftovers from the process they once used to coat stoves and refrigerators back when they were build like tanks.. We had a big collection of those ceramic balls and tried like hell to smash them with sledge hammers on an old anvil with no hope of even leaving a scratch on them much less crushing them.. I could probably find a use for them today, but back then they were just cool novelties..  There's still a bunch of them out there is anyone feels like walking back behind the housing development to where the landfill was.. Those things were a lot harder than steel ball bearings because we crushed a bunch of the steel versions..never a ceramic one..