Back To The Future

ThunderDave

Registered User
Well, one of the first things I noticed while driving the (new :rolleyes: 89) I got, was that it seems to move like it is lighter than the 91 was. I used the mods from the 91 on it and as far as I can tell from the rpms/speed/gear, it has the stock 3.27s like the 91 did.

It just seems much more responsive and feels like it just wants to go more than the 91. I did add header wrap to the lower ic tube, but I doubt that made that much of a difference. It has aproximately 120,000 miles less on it than the 91 did, so I don't know if less miles and engine wear would make that much difference either.

Anyone got any ideas or suggestions why this 89 performs better than the 91 did?:confused:
 
Last edited:
Well, my guess would be on possibly having better upkeep and may have been driven easier. As well as the fact that any mass production cars have very wide tolerances on what rolls off the assembely line. One big thing could be that the cam may have been installed closer to the low end power range than the other, who knows their tolerances may have been +-3* and if one was advanced 3* and the other retarded 3 degrees you are looking at a diffrence of 6 degrees from one to another.
This goes for all tolerances comming off a mass production line, just a thought. That's why there are "factory freaks" that somehow get the best tolerance in each place to make it noticeably more powerful from the rest of the litter.
 
I wasn't sure if it was just the 89 5 speeds that had a better cam or the AODs too. I can really tell a big difference in how it gets off from a light. From the looks of the car, it was well taken care of. It's not perfect by any means, but it appears to be in better shape than the 91 was.

Thanks for the info. :) :cool:
 
In the midst of using the search feature in researching my timing chain cover gasket leak I found a thread where an original owner had replaced his timing chain with I think 300,000+ kilometers.(whatever that is?) Anyhow, he said there was a noticeable "snap" back in the acceleration that made the car feel like it was when it was new. Things just might wear out. Hopefully not the supercharger I just bought.:p Although it's going on a car that might be worn out itself.

Kurt
 
Kurt, I've replaced a timing belt on a Chevy Spectrum :eek: before and seen the same results. Car had a lot better pick up with new belt and ran like it probably had years before that. I've only had it running a week and already I'm having more fun driving it than I did the red 91, that I had almost 3 years.
Having the sunroof and killer stereo doesn't hurt either. :D

As for the supercharger, I'm sure it has more life left in it. :D ;)
 
Its all in your mind......;)

New car + lots of work = more fun.....

Maybe it wasn't built on a Monday or a Friday.......:p
 
RadiumSC said:
Kurt, I've replaced a timing belt on a Chevy Spectrum :eek: before and seen the same results. Car had a lot better pick up with new belt and ran like it probably had years before that. I've only had it running a week and already I'm having more fun driving it than I did the red 91, that I had almost 3 years.
Having the sunroof and killer stereo doesn't hurt either. :D

As for the supercharger, I'm sure it has more life left in it. :D ;)

So is it good advise to change it at so many miles or just leave it until it breaks.
 
Dahoopd said:
So is it good advise to change it at so many miles or just leave it until it breaks.

Replacing things like your timing chain is always a good thing to do before it breaks. If it were to break while racing you can pretty much kiss all your valves and some pistons good bye.

Shane
 
In enjoying all this fun, I decided I'd wind her up up to 5K and see what my max boost was (by the stock gauge :rolleyes: ). Only around 11-12 psi. I was making about 14 psi on the 91 and I'm using the same exhaust, ported blower, inlet plenum and 10% od pulley.

The guy that sold me the car said the owner before him had some head work done, but he didn't say they had been ported. If they had, could that explain the lower boost and increased power over the 91, as well as the cam too?

I think to loose 2 lbs of boost, I'd have to have a really big vacuum leak and it runs to good to be leaking like that. So if it's not leaking and the heads have been ported and I'm only getting 12 lbs of boost, do you all realize what this means???? I need a 5% od jackshaft pulley. :eek: :D :cool:
 
I thought this post had something to do with the Movie Back to the Future. :cool:

Id say that your car with 120,000 miles less than the other one has ALOT to do with the way it performs. My 94 4.6 Bird with 150k miles runs terrible compared to my 95 4.6 with only 50k miles .. not nearly as smooth and responsive. Not to mention the transmission has just as much wear and is really starting to lag between shifts .. even with a shift kit :eek: Im sure every component along the driveline contributes to the way the car drives overall, lots of miles usually leads to alot of wear, excessive heat buildup and friction.

- Dan
 
Daniel, I figured since I had a 91 and went back to an 89 and now it's 06, I'm back to the future. Oh well, it sounded good in thought any way. :rolleyes:

Also, I've noticed it has some wheel hop sometimes? Is that normal for an auto? I'm sure the rear bushings are worn, but wheel hop with an auto? :confused:
 
I just replaced the IRS Diff bushings on my 94 Auto .. the passanger side upper bushing was completely destroyed, there was nothing left - but it didnt have any wheel hop issue becuase of that. When I get wheel hop on my Auto its because of the ride height ( air suspension ) and crappy tires, when it rides too low the rear end bounces all over and wont get any traction.

- Dan
 
I don't have a wheel hop problem on my SC.......;)

But my 5 speed will beat itself to death, if I let it......

Could it be tired springs / shocks?
 
Back
Top