96 3.8 running 17's

[ItalianStallion1]

I am a little confused fellas. I ran my friends 96 3.8 Saturday for the SLP Customer Appreciation day at Las Vegas and it sucked fat, hairy, sweaty, monkey balls. For one thing the 3.4's were running 17.1's to 17.8's and the best that I managed was 17.08. It's an auto. I don't know what the gears are and maybe that's the problem but still. I was running like 2.7 60's which is just horrific. I have a 97 and I run 2.1's just to let you know that it's not my fault that the car is running horrible or whatever. His car has a 3 chamber flowmaster and SLP CAI. Being that Las Vegas is a bit elevated I can believe that has a decent part of giving slower times but what else? I think the elevation is around 4000 ft. or higher even though the guy said it's 2000, that's really hard to believe because I saw a sign that said 4 grand about 40 minutes back and I believe we went higher after that. I know the gears and the elevation play a part and also tires. I believe he has 16's. I checked the tire pressure while I was in line and it was 35 PSI. I hardly lit the tires up, just a little. I'm stumped, I figured his car would be running at least mid 16's which would probably translate into like mid 15's. But he's running hardly better then 3.4's, it just doesn't make sence to me. I was stalling at 1800, no spin that I noticed anyway. But then again some other people were having that problem too. The only thing is that they had like 400 RWHP. I'm really banging my head into a wall on this. I think I'm going to have to get him to a track here on the coast and see what it can do.

Any helpful thoughts would be much appreciated.

[trinitron]

man i dont now what was wrong but i can run 16.2 on my stock 3.4 all day long

[Only4U]

i raced a 97 camaro 3.8 once. i have a 97 as well. i had 62k miles, he had 91k miles. beat him by a good 10 car lengths.

you tell me?

[ItalianStallion1]

I don't know, I guess it's a lemon or something.

[2000fbodyV6]

I think the altitude has a lot to do with it. Its about a second slower in colorado anyway. The best ive done is 16.9 with K@N Whisper lid,FRA and Borla catback. But i also have a Manuel 5 and K@N, whisper lid,FRA, and Borla catback. But I ran like i do on the street so I had my 2 12in subs in back and 18in Lenso rims on. But i think on my best run i could do 16.7.But that time sounds pretty normal up here for a V6

[JML97-3.8]

Best ive ever done was a 15.8 at 89 mph. in my 97 3.8. Something is wrong, does elevation really hurt it that much?

[ItalianStallion1]

Well, the big mystery is that 3.4's were running almost as fast as this 3.8. The 3.8 was running 17.1's with a best of 17.08 and the 3.4's were running from about 17.2 to 17.8's. The car did have some weight in it. I had a couple of tool boxes and what not but still, that's not enough for it to be running with 3.4's. The faster 3.4 was an auto by the way.

[pgriffith]

How does it run? Maybe you have some issues?

[AZ3.8Camaro]

Dude it is altitude and HEAT!!!

[ItalianStallion1]

It wasn't real hot. I guess it was about 80-85 and over cast. He did have some extra weight. I think there was about 50 lbs. of extra weight. He has stock 16" rims and tires. Whatever they are I forgot. I'm gonna have to get him down to the 1/8th track by my house and see what he runs. I don't know, I'm kind of affraid to though. I'm just glad it's not my car. I'm kind of thinking air wasn't getting the SLP CAI or something. He hasn't cut any opening or anything so perhaps that's part of the equation. It was my understand that air can't get there without a hole but it's where the old one was so... He's a older guy so I don't know, I think maybe I'm wasting my time.

[nikkev]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ItalianStallion1:
Well, the big mystery is that 3.4's were running almost as fast as this 3.8. The 3.8 was running 17.1's with a best of 17.08 and the 3.4's were running from about 17.2 to 17.8's. The car did have some weight in it. I had a couple of tool boxes and what not but still, that's not enough for it to be running with 3.4's. The faster 3.4 was an auto by the way.<hr></blockquote>

The 3.4 isn't that much slower than the 3.8 (only about 25hp to the wheels).Some 3.8's run low 16's high 15's when stock and some 3.4's run low 16's to high 15's stock.That's pretty close.Also,I bet those 3.4's weren't stock either.Plus altitude will hurt times really bad,40* is nice running weather and 80* is hot running weather.Good luck.
Kevin

[hawgs]

http://www.manifestation.org/~ill/im...ow=notfast.jpg :D

[ItalianStallion1]

lol :D That's pretty funny. And think, the car wasn't even doing 16.9. 16.9 would have been an accomplishment for that car. Every day I thank the car gods that that car is not my own.

[calvo]

my car ran a 17.4 stock at morrison colorado whitch is about half an hour from denver the mile high city so altatude is a mother... My car is a 99 camaro 3.8 A4. now it runs 16.6 with CAI Flowmaster and 3.73 gears [img]tongue.gif[/img] Also my cusin had a 96 3.8 and his ran a 17.7 stock up here. "I dont like hights" [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img]

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: calvo ]</p>

[MustangEater8251]

I think a 17 sec 1/4 is a little slow for even a 3.4L.

I think your car is running fine jsut altitude and heat were getting you, its very common for stock 3.8Ls running mid 16s I see it alot, hell even pulled some low 16s in my dads stock 2k. And a modded or stock 3.4L in the mid 16s is very common too.

seems about right to me.