Here's my car (pics)

[HAULN-SS]

Well, regardless, any kind of full time boost is at least 6 months or more away. I really just wanted nitrous to play around with, not for any major gains. I hear a lot of stories about fires and blown engines, etc..maybe that's because they were novices...but, then again, so am I =)


As for the track, I havent been yet since this engine was put in. I took the plain stock car to the track when I first got it to run a 1/8th. Averaged about 10s on 7 cylinders..nothing to write home about coming from a low potential 305 smogged out. I think the new numbers will be significantly better....hopefully

[Mike]

is the 305 the stock motor the ss came with? if so, yeah that thing is a pile i think it was rated at 180hp stock? good for mid 15s i think, i guess that is pretty quick for back in the day.

[HAULN-SS]

yah, I dunno if i'd go so far as to say a pile..it was very reliable (for a domestic v8)..and it had lots of torque, just no potential. Anyone who's modded one to get decent power out of it just gave it the same bore as a SBC 350, which in my opinion is a little dangerous because of the sidewalls getting thin. Occaisionally a 327 is made out of one, which is a good route for lots of power, but also very expensive. Small block 350's are basically the best bang for the buck. Of course a 406 or 572 will blow them out of the water, but you're looking at at least double the cost, maybe more.

[KPWSerpiente]

I hear 122 cid can bd dangerous.
And the fuel injected 305 and 350 of the late 80's was nothing to write home about.

-T

[ScottyB]

I hear 122 cid can bd dangerous.-T

i'm lost, are you talking about one of SS's engines?

[HAULN-SS]

The 83 - 88 SS's only had one option, the 4BBL 305

As far as I am aware, the smallest engine ever offered in a Monte Carlo up until 94 was the 4.3 V6

Some of the new LS crap models had 3.4 v6's, but the 3.8 v6's that came on the z34 (also in my driveway at home) put out a respectable 200HP, not sure on torque. The rest of the z34's drivetrain was the problem. THe new SS's out have the supercharge version of that engine, which is putting out about 240 HP (lame). Look out next year though, rear wheel drive and small block V8's return to the MC line with a 5.3 litre 300hp/330ft.lb of torque, and it has displacement on demand, so the fuel economy should be pretty good. Not too bad for a $25grand car

[KPWSerpiente]

i'm lost, are you talking about one of SS's engines?

I realize not everyone can do cid to liter conversions in their head....but you've got to be kidding Scotty. 122 cid = 2 liters....have you ever heard of a 2 liter SS? No, no you havn't....but you have heard of a 2 liter 4g63 which is what I was talking about.

Variable displacement, the ability to cruise around on less firing cylinders, is going to be money and done everywhere soon. Mitsu did that with some of their mivec engines back in the mid 90's.

-T

[CaptainHenreh]

Look out next year though, rear wheel drive and small block V8's return to the MC line with a 5.3 litre 300hp/330ft.lb of torque, and it has displacement on demand, so the fuel economy should be pretty good. Not too bad for a $25grand car

I've heard it's going to remain front-drive while getting a 5.3. I admit, it sounds completely retarded, but it won't be the dumbest thing that's ever happened.

And Travis, for once, quit being an elitist. While mitsu may have had cylinder de-activation (or on demand displacement, or variable displacement, or whatever the hell you want to call it) in their MIVEC engines in the 90's, we A: Never got them and B:Were about 10 years too late. Anyone remember the variable displacement cadillac? I doubt many of you do, it sucked. But cylinder deactivation is not a new trick, by any means. Hell, even the '30's hit-and-miss engines could have been considered variable displacement.

It would, however, be nice to see the Monte back to rear-drive, like God intended. Hell, maybe then NASCAR could have at least have a marginal basis in reality.

[Maengelito]

NASCAR

ban!

[ScottyB]

I realize not everyone can do cid to liter conversions in their head....but you've got to be kidding Scotty. 122 cid = 2 liters....have you ever heard of a 2 liter SS? No, no you havn't....but you have heard of a 2 liter 4g63 which is what I was talking about.

i may have struggled to get a C in math 103 here, but i can manage the conversion. that's not what lost me though.

here we are, talking about a monte SS, and you state "I hear 122 cid can bd dangerous." now i figured you were talking about your car, but...

122 cid can be dangerous? where, what, when? maybe i should have read more into it, but at the time, i was in a word, discombobulated. my bad.