The Oldsmobile Connection

[88 Coupe]

Hi ahndadriversnightmare, hello all
Quote: So then i guess all the late 60's muscle cars HP and TORQUE ratings were complete BS..... HP ratings were inflated by using a "specially tuned" engine for dyno tests to get the highest possible numbers, but the published numbers were often under rated depending on the needs of the PR and Sales departments at the time. Quote: ......this is like the one time i was trying to find out if the 3.8 would bolt up to a 3.1 5 spd and most tranny shops said that it would and they were 100% sure that they were rite.being the brainless,dickless,trying to compensate for something that isnt there type of retards and that they are too egotisical for their own good crackjack box technicians. so i called up the dealership and they said that it will not mate to the 3.1 5 spd...point is that im sick of people trying come off like they are the ones that designed every freakin engine,car,mod,...blah,blah,blah.... No different than the internet.
Dealerships, car magazines, and "hangers on" at the local street races are also notorious for giving bad information.
Always verify that your adviser actually knows the subject.
Your local "Pick Ur Part" is an excllent place to check whether the part actually fits.
Quote: P.S ive seen my buddys '66 take out alot of modern late 90's v6's and alot of them have 200 or more hp....... I drove '66 mustangs when they were new and remember how they ran.
I don't see any numbers that show how fast or slow, or what kind of a day any of the above cars was having.
What numbers are on his timeslips?
Regards, Norm

[strokercutlass]

Quote: being the brainless,dickless,trying to compensate for something that isnt there type of retards and that they are too egotisical for their own good crackjack box technicians

Sorry to say, Honda...but you just made yourself look like one of these people with this ignorant comment towards Norm. :roll:

I've seen a co workers mid 90's quad 4 Z26 Beretta take out alot of 90's + V6 cars as well....your point being?

Norm hit the nail on the head with his comments in regards to horsepower/torque ratings pre-1972...its a well known fact that most automakers used "precision tuned" cars for magazine articles, to show the best performance possible...were these the same cars you could buy off the showroom floor? No, at least not in the same state of tune. Mopar, Chrysler, and GM would regularily truck or fly in independent tuners (in many cases NASCAR or drag racing gurus who would pull late nite thrashes in an attempt to pull the utmost performance out of any particular car prior to testing, especially when it was heads up against another manufacturers automobile. It wasn't uncommon to see them perform full carburetor rebuilds on brand new engines, as well as fine tune timing and other variables, sometimes even going as far as gear changes and such, just to get the upper edge. The horsepower and torque ratings for pre 1972 engines were generally taken at the rear of the engine, whereas anything post 1972 was generally pulled from the rear wheels....a BIG difference in HP and torque ratings between one point and the other. At the crank readings will always be higher than at the rear wheels, due to the simple fact of HP loss through the drivetrain.

In regards to your buddies '66 beating up newer V6's, yes its highly possible, but not only are the driver, gearing, and maintenance history of the engine important, but several other possibly more important factors such as traction, state of tune and performance modifications, reaction time, vehicle weight, as well as other factors.

I notice you didn't make any mention of your buddies car beating up on any other V8's.....

Damn, Norm..you're always so NICE! :D

[OldsGuy]

ahondadriversnightmare:

Man, that was low. I don't like that kind of flaming, I don't think many others do either. There isn't any on this site, that's one reason I like it here. You owe the man an apology dude.....

[88 Coupe]

Hi Stroker, hello All Quote: Damn, Norm..you're always so NICE!
Thanks :lol:
Facts are facts, and I have always had problems with people who make them up as they go along.
As I've said before, the end result is not only the initial BSers, but the people who unknowingly pass on the misinformation as fact. In some cases, it even becomes generally accepted as fact.
This is no more apparent than in the creation of the "Ricer" mentality.
Anytime I make a mistake, I expect to be called on it (with or without happy faces, IOHO, Just my two cents, etc.), and, would expect anyone else to want to be made aware of their mistakes also.
Any time one is questioned about facts he has presented, a rational debate should follow.
Regards, Norm

[speedy266]

Base Number of Cylinders: 6 Base Engine Size: 3.3 liters
Base Engine Type: V6 Horsepower: 160 hp
Max Horsepower: 5200 rpm Torque: 185 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 2000 rpm Drive Type: FWD

Seems like a decent Torque figure, the only thing is alot of torque ratings coming from Oldsmobile and Buick all have there torque numbers @2000rpms. There has to be something wrong with that. My 85 3.8L is rated at 195lb-ft@2000rpms, im pretty certain it produces torque a bit further than that. Id make sure ur fuel pressure is right and ur getting good spark, sparks gapped properly actually makes a difference. For my engine the plug gap from factory is .080 but the rapidfire plugs i put in reccommend .045, my mechanic teacher said .080 was to big and said i put it to .060. Wat i noticed was with a larger gap u get more bottom end power but u get almost no gains in the higher rpm ranges. With a small gap u get a move even power curve all the way to redline. This is probably not true for many cars, i dunno 3.8's seem to make noticeable differences with minor tweaks. Also putting in a lower temp thermostat i noticed it was holding its own, before it would seem to have less power if it went over 105C

Bore your throttle body, punch out ur cat, or get a high flow one,

[Erroneous Restrictionism!]

:oops: i stand down and corrected :oops:
i now know that my facts were wrong and deficient and i apologize for my behavior. the comments that i have made were not entirely made towards you but to some people in general(ego comment). i do not want an on going debate about something that was (i can admit) complete swill to begin with(66' stang/horsepower comment)as for the whole "ricer" comment...not in the slightest. im just an inquisitive automotive enthusiast
like everyone else and makes really bad comments on occasion like everyone else. and a message to stroker:...the comment on the brainless................tech. was a form of extreme sarcastic quality with a twist of ironical hypocrisy....people float that word ignorance around like its the new fan-dangled way to get the person on the receiving ends attention...i guess it worked....your so clever! :o and yes im saying that i am a hypocrate....live a little. its an internet forum full of people that have nothing better to do but type out some of their great brainchilds for everyone to enjoy. but i guess im just a hypocritical lacking the knowledge and the brain capacity to even comprehend what is going on in my own surroundings kinda "ricer". :D JUST MY TWO CENTS :D

Post Script: let bygones be bygones.

[88 Coupe]

Hi ahondadriversnightmare, hello All

Apology accepted.
Quote: ..........as for the whole "ricer" comment.........
I checked back thru this thread and the only one reference to "ricer" is as follows. Quote: As I've said before, the end result is not only the initial BSers, but the people who unknowingly pass on the misinformation as fact. In some cases, it even becomes generally accepted as fact.
This is no more apparent than in the creation of the "Ricer" mentality.
I didn't find any names in it.
I prefer to deal in facts, not personalities.

Stroker: did I ever mention I'm not a diplomat? :lol:

Regards, Norm

[OldsGuy]

Norm, regarding the "Ricer" mentality opinion you have, I would agree with that. But, I must also admit that there are some very smart young guys out there racing some VERY fast japanese cars, they know what they are doing. I wouldn't call them "ricers" and I suspect you wouldn't either. They and "ricers" are two different breeds.

[88 Coupe]

Hi OldsGuy, hello All
Quote: Norm, regarding the "Ricer" mentality opinion you have, I would agree with that. But, I must also admit that there are some very smart young guys out there racing some VERY fast japanese cars, they know what they are doing. I wouldn't call them "ricers" and I suspect you wouldn't either. They and "ricers" are two different breeds. I agree. After reading your post I think I could have worded mine better. Or maybe used a different example. Quote: As I've said before, the end result is not only the initial BSers, but the people who unknowingly pass on the misinformation as fact. In some cases, it even becomes generally accepted as fact.
This is no more apparent than in the creation of the "Ricer" mentality.
My reference was to a case of misinformation being accepted as fact because no one was there to initially challenge it and expose it as BS before it got accepted as fact.
Maybe I would have been less confusing if I had preceded the statement with "For instance", and put "stereotypical" in front of "ricer" :lol:
In my area there are some serious 12 sec and quicker Toyotas and these guys (and their cars) represent a totally different culture than the stereotypical "ricers".
I have no animosity towards any group. In conversation, I use the terms "ricer", rice rocket, and "riceburner" as discriptive phrases to describe which group I am refering to.

OldsGuy: Thanks for your input. Constructive criticism and the resultant dialog/discussion are some of our best learning tools.
Regards, Norm


PS: Now thats done, I remember a school teacher that was a bit abrasive and had a hard to understand accent.
The consensus was, we should listen to what he said, not how he he said it.
That philosophy has been serving me well for a lot of years.

[OldsGuy]

88 Coupe,

That ricer mentality has been around even before we had "ricers". I can remember when I was a kid and the guys at school thought having the rear of the car jacked up high was to increase traction to the rear wheels, so everyone was driving around with "clown cars", another mis-information was that if you bought "glasspacks" they would improve your car's performance, I think that one is circulating around today only now people like us call them "fart pipes". Another one was that if you put a "double pumper" on the car it improved performance, redardless of the application. I think some of these things are encouraged by the aftermarket industry, after all, they are in the business to sell products regardless if the product actually does anything useful.

Our disdain for the "ricer mentality" is well founded because it represents a lack of knowledge and as you said if it isn't challenged initially as BS then it becomes accepted as fact. This is bad for our hobby. We need to expose it as often as possible in a constructive way to encourage up-and-coming enthusiasts to continue to enjoy their cars, gain true value from whatever they try to do when making modifications or purchases and hopefully exceed the knowledge level that exists presently so ultimately our hobby is the better for it.

Hey, keep those engines running.

[88 Coupe]

Hi OldsGuy, hello All
You've pretty much said what I was trying to.
Quote: .............That another mis-information was that if you bought "glasspacks" they would improve your car's performance, I think that one is circulating around today............ Prior to the early '60s, the 3 muffler choices available were stock, glasspack/steelpack, or none at all.
Glasspacks were the best available until Chevrolet released the, far superior, low restriction mufflers on the turbocharged Corvair (not sure of the year).
The Corvair muffler design became known as "turbo"and even today, in some circles, the glasspack is believed to be the best performance muffler.
Regards, Norm

[strokercutlass]

Quote: and a message to stroker:...the comment on the brainless................tech. was a form of extreme sarcastic quality with a twist of ironical hypocrisy....people float that word ignorance around like its the new fan-dangled way to get the person on the receiving ends attention...i guess it worked....your so clever!

Well DAMN...I'm glad I brought a ray of sunshine to your otherwise cloudy day :roll:

Norm, I never said you were a diplomat... :lol: Just good at putting choice words in a nice sounding way. :wink: I'll be the first person to admit I'm about as blunt and to the point as they come, and call it like I see it, good, bad, or otherwise. Some people like it, others hate it, but I'm not out looking for a fan club :wink: I have the utmost amount of respect for you...you bring alot of knowledge to the board, and are always good at putting your point into words which are easily understood by everyone, and normally don't offend anyone. Me, if I haven't offended at least one person on here a week by something I've said, intentional or not, I'm surprised... :lol:

I'd have to agree that "ricer" is an awful general term, as much as I hate to. I'll be the first person to admit that there is no love lost for me in regards to the new generation of cars...I'm not a FWD lover for the most part, although I can respect the power that they are capable of making, in the right hands. I'd have to say I use the "ricer" term more in regards to the vehicles which are all "bling blinged" out, with the neon, wings, wheels, and etc, but have nothing under the hood to back up their stance, sound, and etc. I much prefer a clean lined, subtle looking lowered FWD over one with an obnoxious graphics package, loud exhaust, and wheels large enough for an SUV.

I guess they'd be best classified as either "ricers" one one side, and either "FWD or import racers" on the other......

[88 Coupe]

:lol:

[Erroneous Restrictionism!]

so anyways! does anyone think that my car stats are incorrect. i got them from a performance machine shop..i think the horsepower/RPM figures
are wrong..does the 3.8 produce that much HP at 5700 RPM?...and also, does the HP numbers drop with higher RPM or go up ...i dont want to claim this as fact cause surely it will pss someone off. :D

[88 Coupe]

Hi ahondadriversnightmare, All

There is no way to answer your questions without refering to the original dyno sheets.

For all practical purposes, the numbers you posted are valid.

Regards, Norm