Onboard video of the 3.8 GT
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
From: The 253
Vehicle: 1997 Elantra(Dead project) 1986 Golf(Track whore) 2000 Ranger(Daily)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(187sks @ Oct 29 2008, 09:49 AM) </div><div class='quotemain'>My only problem is that it seems slower than my Firebird, noticeably. And I didn't hear any wheelspin...punch it below 30 and the rears on my Firebird go up in smoke.</div>
Thats becuase the Firebird is raw and brutal. While the Coupe is supposed to be a comfortable sporty GT car, not something to punish you when you drive it. Its not supposed to be the end all sports car. Its like a G35, NOT a 350z.
And I dont think traction control existed in the GM dictionary back then...
Thats becuase the Firebird is raw and brutal. While the Coupe is supposed to be a comfortable sporty GT car, not something to punish you when you drive it. Its not supposed to be the end all sports car. Its like a G35, NOT a 350z.
And I dont think traction control existed in the GM dictionary back then...
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,816
Likes: 0
From: Las Vegas, NV
Vehicle: 03 Hyundai Accent
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Whiplash @ Oct 30 2008, 07:28 AM) </div><div class='quotemain'>It looks very impressive. I wonder how long its going to take me to be able to afford one.</div>
I could sell my house. LOL!
I could sell my house. LOL!
Administrator
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,515
Likes: 2
From: Lacey, WA
Vehicle: Two Accents, Mini, Miata, Van, Outback, and a ZX-6
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wilburisthecoolest @ Oct 30 2008, 07:03 AM) </div><div class='quotemain'>Thats becuase the Firebird is raw and brutal. While the Coupe is supposed to be a comfortable sporty GT car, not something to punish you when you drive it. Its not supposed to be the end all sports car. Its like a G35, NOT a 350z.
And I dont think traction control existed in the GM dictionary back then...</div>
Yeah traction control was available on the F-bodys. Mine has been overridden.
Traction control sucks. Lol.
Just disappointing for a car with more rated horsepower at the same weight. Sounds great though.
I'll still get one if life allows me to. I just hate electronic nannies and I'm disappointed that it's not quicker. We'll see how easy it is to mod.
And I dont think traction control existed in the GM dictionary back then...</div>
Yeah traction control was available on the F-bodys. Mine has been overridden.
Traction control sucks. Lol.
Just disappointing for a car with more rated horsepower at the same weight. Sounds great though.
I'll still get one if life allows me to. I just hate electronic nannies and I'm disappointed that it's not quicker. We'll see how easy it is to mod.
Thread Starter
Administrator
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 23,226
Likes: 9
From: Upstate NY
Vehicle: 2010 Genesis 2.0T
If you think about it....every single N/A mod that you could possibly do on a GK will get you over 200 horses.
If you were to do every single N/A mod for the 3.8 GT, you could probably be somewhere between 350 and 360 horses. Add a small shot of nitrous to that, and you're easily at 400.
Ad a supercharger or twin turbo kit (like one thats available for the G35 or 350Z) and you're hitting 420-450 horses easily.
I have a feeling the aftermarket is going to be all over this car, like they are with the G35 and 350, and you're going to see some very interesting numbers coming out. I also forsee a SH*T LOAD of suspension mods available for it, due to the new found drifting possibilities.
If you were to do every single N/A mod for the 3.8 GT, you could probably be somewhere between 350 and 360 horses. Add a small shot of nitrous to that, and you're easily at 400.
Ad a supercharger or twin turbo kit (like one thats available for the G35 or 350Z) and you're hitting 420-450 horses easily.
I have a feeling the aftermarket is going to be all over this car, like they are with the G35 and 350, and you're going to see some very interesting numbers coming out. I also forsee a SH*T LOAD of suspension mods available for it, due to the new found drifting possibilities.
Administrator
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,515
Likes: 2
From: Lacey, WA
Vehicle: Two Accents, Mini, Miata, Van, Outback, and a ZX-6
As long as someone figures out how to completely defeat the ESC and traction control I'm still down for it.
I still want the 2.0t, but I think at 450hp you'll be at about the same investment with either engine probably. I'm pretty sure that the 2.0t will be the better engine choice above 450hp though.
I still want the 2.0t, but I think at 450hp you'll be at about the same investment with either engine probably. I'm pretty sure that the 2.0t will be the better engine choice above 450hp though.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
From: The 253
Vehicle: 1997 Elantra(Dead project) 1986 Golf(Track whore) 2000 Ranger(Daily)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Visionz @ Oct 30 2008, 10:45 AM) </div><div class='quotemain'>I agree....but for a daily driver...do you really want something more than 400+ horses?</div>
Hmmm....
Hmmm....
Administrator
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,515
Likes: 2
From: Lacey, WA
Vehicle: Two Accents, Mini, Miata, Van, Outback, and a ZX-6
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Visionz @ Oct 30 2008, 10:45 AM) </div><div class='quotemain'>I agree....but for a daily driver...do you really want something more than 400+ horses?</div>
Yeah, I do. Lol. It's probably dumb but for my daily driver I'm thinking 450-600hp is a good power level for my next car.
Practicality minus. Fun plus. lol.
The Firebird isn't much under that, (375-400hp probably) and it was a good daily driver except that it's tough to get in and out of and the visibility isn't great.
Yeah, I do. Lol. It's probably dumb but for my daily driver I'm thinking 450-600hp is a good power level for my next car.
Practicality minus. Fun plus. lol.
The Firebird isn't much under that, (375-400hp probably) and it was a good daily driver except that it's tough to get in and out of and the visibility isn't great.