301 4V how did it compare ?

[lilbowtie]

1978 Malibu 305 2V, 3sp auto, 2.73 gears runs 18.5 sec @ 74.5 mph
1978 Malibu 305 2V, 4sp with 2.73 gears runs 18.4 sec @ 76.2 mph
1978 Grand Am 301 4V, 3sp auto, 2.73 gears runs 18.7 sec @ 76.3 mph

Boy that's slow - stock 231 in a G body would run 19 flat 18.9 on a good day

 

[motorheadmike]

A boosted 301 won't make too much of a smile lol

I am almost willing to take that bet. Almost.

 

[L67ss]

Gm tried boost on them

 

[lilbowtie]

I am almost willing to take that bet. Almost.

Don't do it - the wife ran the GP a couple of times and that's what it ran.

 

[motorheadmike]

Gm tried boost on them

WIth a carb, in the stone age. I would use something like FI Tech and that alone should make it more viable and reliable.

Look, if GM can put a turbo on a POS Buick 3.8 and make "276hp" anything is possible.

Don't do it - the wife ran the GP a couple of times and that's what it ran.

You mean you put a turbo 301 in a GP? Cool.

 

[MrSony]

WIth a carb, in the stone age. I would use something like FI Tech and that alone should make it more viable and reliable.

Look, if GM can put a turbo on a POS Buick 3.8 and make "276hp" anything is possible.



You mean you put a turbo 301 in a GP? Cool.

POS? Hardly. THe NA versions are fine enough for a DD, but they can't even get out of their own way. If it just had 50 more hp from the factory it would've been better.

 

[motorheadmike]

POS? Hardly. THe NA versions are fine enough for a DD, but they can't even get out of their own way. If it just had 50 more hp from the factory it would've been better.

Are you trying to make my point for me or just horribly confused? This next comment applies to the 301/305/307 discussion as well as the Buick 3.8: How do you propose you get 30+% more power out of a mass produced N/A engine without completely re-engineering/retooling the platform? You cannot.

You cannot squeeze blood from a stone.

But, boost can hide the ugly.

 

[UNGN]

I've had multiple Turbo Regals and currently have a T-type and '89 TTA and the 3.8L motor is a POS.

The whole package works great, but the V6 itself is just a couple steps above the V6 GM bought back from Jeep in 1971.

If It had the refinements of a 1990's Buick V6 in 1986, they would have been factory rated at 350HP and if they were built today with modern GM V6 technology, they would have been factory rated at 450-500HP (and not 235).

 

[motorheadmike]

I've had multiple Turbo Regals and currently have a T-type and '89 TTA and the 3.8L motor is a POS.

The whole package works great, but the V6 itself is just a couple steps above the V6 GM bought back from Jeep in 1971.

If It had the refinements of a 1990's Buick V6 in 1986, they would have been factory rated at 350HP and if they were built today with modern GM V6 technology, they would have been factory rated at 450-500HP (and not 235).

Right.

If you look at the development of the Buick V6 (1961 to 2008) it went from junk to less junk over time with refinements: Odd fire, Even fire, 3.8 carb to SFI, Series I, Series II, Series III. Which then basically turned into the DOHC engines we have today (as a clean sheet 60* design), but at just 3.6L is now coming up on 100hp/L in N/A form; adding turbos to this architecture gives us the 450+hp powerplant in the ATS-V from the factory.

The same applies to the production small block which has gone through 5 generations worth of refinement to produce an amazing return - but, it started out as a lump before technology brought it into the light. Lost in the wake of this advancement were the BOP engines that just didn't make the cut due to lower-production or potential. Thus, we have a bunch of great corporate engines doing amazing things.

I am being very general here; but, the details are out there to satisfy the desire for facts and figures.

 

[MrSony]

It was a good, solid A-B motor is all I'm saying. It is a DOG, but it will get you where you need to go. Slowly.