I've been reading a lot on the forums lately, to the detriment of actually doing anything...
I want to start a discussion of the the torque that the 3.8L turbo'd engines produce.
I'm not a performance car guy; I'm a little bit of a wrencher, who has rebuilt 2 engines when I had to. 1 car, and 1 motorcycle. I know a little about the ins and outs of things mechanical, but I'm not an expert.
I had a long-running debate with a former co-worker who considered himself a motor-head. He's got a '71 Chevelle. The debate was about what sets you into the seat, what gets you down the 1/4 faster: torque or horsepower.
For me, on paper, and according to basic physics, acceleration is a function of torque. Horsepower is a function of how much work you can do.
I read a lot on these forums about making horsepower. But my view is, that acceleration is a function of purely torque. Torque isn't talked about very much.
Here's a for instance: even the HA cars were making 300 lb ft of torque. Granted, they were only making 200 HP. But 300 lb ft of torque is definitely nothing to sneeze at.
I'm looking at some specs for other V6 current production cars. They are making more horsepower, but less torque. I believe the '10 Camaro is making 304 HP at 6400 RPM, and 273 lb ft at 5200. More HP, but less torque. I read they will do 0-60 in 6, 1/4 in 14.2. The GN HA cars will do 0-60 in 7.5, and 1/4 in 15.7. For 104 less HP stock, the HA GN is a contender to take a current production V6 car, albeit with a few mods.
Not sure what my point is really, I've had a few too many while I'm writing this... I guess my point is that the Buick 3.8L turbo was a very high-torque engine, and it's not all about HP.
Jeff
P.S
I've looked at my notes, and comparing the I/C '86 GN with the '10 Camaro, the '86 GN is making 235 Hp at 4k RPM, and 330 lb ft at 2400, and performs at 0-60 at 4.9, and 1/4 at 13.9..... I know that there are many variables, drivetrain gearing, losses, suspension, tires, etc, but.... It's mostly about torque
I want to start a discussion of the the torque that the 3.8L turbo'd engines produce.
I'm not a performance car guy; I'm a little bit of a wrencher, who has rebuilt 2 engines when I had to. 1 car, and 1 motorcycle. I know a little about the ins and outs of things mechanical, but I'm not an expert.
I had a long-running debate with a former co-worker who considered himself a motor-head. He's got a '71 Chevelle. The debate was about what sets you into the seat, what gets you down the 1/4 faster: torque or horsepower.
For me, on paper, and according to basic physics, acceleration is a function of torque. Horsepower is a function of how much work you can do.
I read a lot on these forums about making horsepower. But my view is, that acceleration is a function of purely torque. Torque isn't talked about very much.
Here's a for instance: even the HA cars were making 300 lb ft of torque. Granted, they were only making 200 HP. But 300 lb ft of torque is definitely nothing to sneeze at.
I'm looking at some specs for other V6 current production cars. They are making more horsepower, but less torque. I believe the '10 Camaro is making 304 HP at 6400 RPM, and 273 lb ft at 5200. More HP, but less torque. I read they will do 0-60 in 6, 1/4 in 14.2. The GN HA cars will do 0-60 in 7.5, and 1/4 in 15.7. For 104 less HP stock, the HA GN is a contender to take a current production V6 car, albeit with a few mods.
Not sure what my point is really, I've had a few too many while I'm writing this... I guess my point is that the Buick 3.8L turbo was a very high-torque engine, and it's not all about HP.
Jeff
P.S
I've looked at my notes, and comparing the I/C '86 GN with the '10 Camaro, the '86 GN is making 235 Hp at 4k RPM, and 330 lb ft at 2400, and performs at 0-60 at 4.9, and 1/4 at 13.9..... I know that there are many variables, drivetrain gearing, losses, suspension, tires, etc, but.... It's mostly about torque
