Where's this power coming from??

[BOOSTD]

Alright, I've got to ask this question. Why are these cars so darn fast?? I mean, for around a grand you can get your stocker to run 11's (gnttype.org). what is it about these engines that allows them to make so much power with so little money. I highly doubt that i could get my moms '02 SS into the 11's with only $1000. It just blows my mind that these cars can be so FAST and CONSISTENT when they only have 6 CYLINDERS and they can be nearly 3800#'s!!!! Can you turbo gurus enlighten me?

Thanks
BOOSTD

 

[NicksBuickT]

because buick knew what they were doing...

 

[BM Computer Src]

Turbo = Torque.

Torque moves your car. Our cars enjoy putting down roughly 450 FT-lbs stock and 600+ FT-Lbs with an upgraded turbo (at the wheels) so thats what's moving them so well.

Many people always quote HP but Torque is whats doing it, for me at least

Typically the V8 LS1's will put down about 310 RWHP and 320 RWTQ or so when stock, so you see they just dont have the torque. Thats the difference, and I think is the answer to your question.

Hope that helps,
Bob

 

[TT/Ameasap]

Just what Bob said.

 

[matt87]

for 1k a ls1 can run 11's. basicly add 150 shot of no2, slicks and hope the rear dont blow. the turbo 6 s in the g-body regal is a drag racers dream come true. they hook like mad and boost is free hp.

 

[Buick Beginner]

Yes indeed.

I have a friend who has a new Z06 vette, he's always been impressed with the acceleration of the TR's. (I think we are going to have a little race for fun here next month). Anyway, the word he used to describe the Turbo Buicks was "anomaly". It really dosen't make sense that this G-body car with a V-6 can do what it does, yet it does indeed. - BB

 

[Pronto]

Kind of like a bumble bee flying?

 

[STP]

More like a turkey flyin....

 

[BOOSTD]

WOW 450 ft/lb's of torque STOCK!! I thougt the stats were 245 hp and 350 ft/lb's of torque. Sounds like buick did some underrating!

OK I've got another question. The stock V 6 is 231 cubic incehes. Am i wrong to say that the turbo is pushing in the same ammount of air into 231" as a big block V8 would suck in? If this is true, then we kind of have a high teck 454 under our hoods?

Also, If torque is what moves the car then where does hp factor into the equation? What part does it play?

Thanks
BOOSTD

P.S. I prefer a flying pig!

 

[blackbuick87]

Anything with a factory turbo installation or factory supercharger is going to go fast cheaper than an n/a vehicle of similar weight, to a point at least.

Factory turbo engines usually come with beefed cranks, pistons, tranny, rear, transaxle, whatever, so you dont have to waste time and money on that junk. Plus for the 1st 1 sec gain (2 secs for our cars ) all you have to do is upgrade fuel del and crank the boost

Take a WS6 that runs 13.5 stock, throw some NOS on it and run 12's, but soon after that you will be shopping for a rear end and tranny.

 

[BM Computer Src]

Originally posted by BOOSTD
WOW 450 ft/lb's of torque STOCK!! I thougt the stats were 245 hp and 350 ft/lb's of torque. Sounds like buick did some underrating!

OK I've got another question. The stock V 6 is 231 cubic incehes. Am i wrong to say that the turbo is pushing in the same ammount of air into 231" as a big block V8 would suck in? If this is true, then we kind of have a high teck 454 under our hoods?

Also, If torque is what moves the car then where does hp factor into the equation? What part does it play?

Thanks
BOOSTD

P.S. I prefer a flying pig!

I said 450 FT/LBS because thats what mine did when stock. It put 291RWHP at that time. Buick picked their numbers at different RPM's to keep things looking pretty. For example, my dyno chart shows the GN making 350 FT lbs Torque also - but at 3000 RPM. By 3600, the Torque is up to 450 FT-LBS. So, yes they were right in their ratings, they just got to pick the RPM's they quoted at.

While my understanding of the turbo/atmosphere is somewhat limited, here is my understanding:

231CID under 14 PSI of boost (14 psi is 1 more atmosphere of pressure) would equal 462CID. So essentially when your at 14 psi, your moving the same volume of air as a 462CID engine. I've been told this, never examined it thoroughly for correctness but it the logic behind the math seems good.

As for HP vs Torque:

HP makes MPH and Torque gives excellent ET's. LS1's make lots of horsepower and trap very high but ET for crap. For example, they run 13's @ 107 MPH. We run 12.35-12.50's @ 107-108 MPH. Thats Horsepower vs torque for you.

Bob

 

[turbov6joe]

Torque get's ya moving.
HP keeps ya moving and gaining MPH.

 

[The Radius Kid]

One thing I haven't seen metioned here is the fact that the Buick V6 has two less pistons in it.
Two less con rods.
Shorter,lighter crank.
That helps the "transient response" of the engine and takes less H/P to spin up.
Less H/P wasted.More for the wheels compared to a V-8.

 

[Rob B]

That old saying of, "No replacement for displacement" goes straight into the crapper when they brought out the Turbo Regals.

 

[jastrckl]

I think Darth Vader and the 'dark side of the force' are on our side. Seriously though, if you can cram twice as much air in, you can make twice as much power by burning twice as much fuel (which is why we are always upgrading fuel pumps, injectors, etc). The 462 is probably a bit off, because we drop compression to 8.0:1 to lower detonation on the boost. A comparable NA motor would be a 10:1 compression, so it would be sucking in 1 atmosphere, compressing it 10:1 and making it go kerblooey. Ours sucks in roughly 2atm at 15psi boost (I think 14.7 is atmospheric pressure on a standard temperature and pressure day), but you have to temper the HP/torque down by 20% of what a 10:1 motor would do because of our lower compression.
If you take the extra atmosphere of boost and compare it to compression ratios, it's like a 2:1 CR. Mutliply this by our existing CR, you get 16:1 effective CR once all is said and done. Compare a 350 at 10:1, multiply it out you get 3500. Multiply our 231 by our effective CR 16:1 at max boost, and you get 3696, to give you an idea of comparative cylinder pressure (more pressure==more power) Of course, we aren't ALWAYS at max boost, just -most- of the time, heh.
Also there are other considerations because ours are more detonation prone, so we can't necessarily run as much timing as an NA motor. On the whole though, a very good design!

 

[BOOSTD]

Man you've got to love these cars !!!

V6 economy (at least for those light foots ), and big block power and torque on tap at any time.

Why do you think Buick rated the GN's that way? Insurance companies? I always thought that cars were rated by their max hp and max torque? What gives??

Ok I might be getting too technical but what the heck ill ask it. Lets say you have a 370 (3696) big block on a dino and one of our V6's @ 15psi right next to it on another dino. Would their HP and Torque be about the same?

Still Learning,
BOOSTD

 

[BUICKTR]

Turbo Regals

I just love it when the needle in the speedometer shoots across from zero to 85 in a few seconds.

 

[kenmosher]

Peak TQ and HP ... maybe.

However, the key difference is the "area under the curve".

The motor that "ETs" better will usually have a broad and flat torque curve ... the Buicks fit that to a "T". The peak numbers aren't as impressive as some, but if you look at the curve for most of the Buicks, it's rises quickly and is flat across a wide range of RPM.

This makes the car more tolerant of gearing and less "Peaky". A motor with a more "peaky" curve needs to have enough converter or gear to keep the motor in the narrow RPM band to make best use of the power.

Basically TQ and HP are intimately related. Torque is basically twisting force and HP is how that force is applied over time.

SO... two motors might have identical torque and HP numbers and behave very differently in a car.

Let's say you have a mild Buick V6 turbo that makes 275HP and 350 ft/lbs of torque and a hopped up Acura motor that makes the same numbers.

The Buick will most likely be making around 250 ft/lbs of torque low down in the RPM band (let's just say 2000 RPM for this example). It continues to rise to 350 ft/lbs at 3500 RPM and stays relatively constant until it starts falling off at 5000 RPM.

The Honda on the other hand doesn't even get into triple digit torque until 4000 RPM (let's say for this example) and quickly peaks in a sharp curve at 5800 RPM (again for discussion sake) and drops off at 6500 RPM.

So the Buick can grunt along at (relatively low) RPMs pulling hard in each gear (3 are enough for the 1/4) and shifting at 5100 RPM. The Honda is going to need a 6 (or 7 or 8) speed transmission and very high numerical rear gears to get the motor into the power curve and keep it there to average the same amount of power the Buick is making over time.

 

[Tow Man]

Originally posted by BOOSTD
Man you've got to love these cars !!!
Why do you think Buick rated the GN's that way? Insurance companies? I always thought that cars were rated by their max hp and max torque? What gives??

GM would not allow any other GM marqius to show higher HP and TQ than their precious Corvette! If I remember correctly, the 87 Vette was rated at 250Hp and 345tq. The TR's were mopping the streets and tracks with them for the next several years! LOL

 

[BOOSTD]

So what makes the tourque and hp curve so leval in these cars? Is it the turbo? Does the consistancy of the turbo's boost (after it spools up) throughout the rpm range keep the rest of the engine consistant and less "peaky?"

Now I know why GM stopped making GN's. Buick was getting too good at the high performance buisness. Kind of makes you wonder what Buick could have made if they were left alone. Instead they will be forever known as the granniemobile makers. At least there are we, the select fiew, who can cary on the legasy of Buick's glory days.

Thanks for all the info
BOOSTD