Another newbie from NY here
#21
02-07-2008, 11:01 AM
RE: Another newbie from NY here
ORIGINAL: FlynhghR
Steve: Oh, the 3.9L is definitely under-appreciated! GM's all focusing on the 3.6 Direct injected that they didn't even design! If you ask me, why would you want the direct injection when standard injection works just fine? It's just another accessory belt driven component to fail. Sure it can get more HP, but it's based on the 90 deg variance, and is naturally harder to work on, and more expensive to make, because of the balance-shaft that has to be included to keep it from shaking itself apart.
It's too bad it wasn't more popular and put in other cars, because this engine has great potential, I mean just look how .4L and the Variable Intake woke it up! I can't wait to see what an exhaust, intake and a good tune will do. Should really get it going, then.
Steve: Oh, the 3.9L is definitely under-appreciated! GM's all focusing on the 3.6 Direct injected that they didn't even design! If you ask me, why would you want the direct injection when standard injection works just fine? It's just another accessory belt driven component to fail. Sure it can get more HP, but it's based on the 90 deg variance, and is naturally harder to work on, and more expensive to make, because of the balance-shaft that has to be included to keep it from shaking itself apart.
It's too bad it wasn't more popular and put in other cars, because this engine has great potential, I mean just look how .4L and the Variable Intake woke it up! I can't wait to see what an exhaust, intake and a good tune will do. Should really get it going, then.
Oh, and as for the Dark Silver color, I have the same and I wanted to repaint it when I first got it. But then it grew on me as I got comments from people at the car wash back home saying how nice of a color it is. Mine came tinted from the dealer with the warranty and everything from the place they had it done. I do like the tint but am thinking about going darker now that I've got the stripes on.
Our cars look pretty similar from the side other than you don't seem to have the silverstone pin striping that I have.
#22
02-07-2008, 11:57 PM
RE: Another newbie from NY here
Thanks for the Information Mark!
I guess I was wrong about the weight thing, but still:
Monte at 14.03 LBS / HP is better than rustang at 15.95 LBS /HP
I thought they based insurance off of this, in combination with the cost of replacement parts, but still, the Monte is cheaper, so I better just shut up right now, lmao!
Garrett: I was thinking it might hurt low end torque, but enhance it in the upper range, because its fallin before we get tothe 6k redline, where if you have it moved back in the RPM range, which is what an open exhaust tends to do, then it would actually help at the higher RPM's. And if it wasn't a significant change the torque first peaks at like 2.8K, so overall you lose a little bit of torque at like 1.5k-2, then lets say with the exhaust on, the torque first peaks at 3.3k instead. And 500 rpm is a pretty significant change in the torque curve. So, you still get a good curve before the intake opens up at 3.5k, and if anything there's less risk of losing traction at the start.
Lmao... I think I just talked myself into a high flow cat and res delete/swap...
Sheesh, darn economic stimulus package needs to be bigger, Imma need like 400$ for that.... lmao.
I guess I was wrong about the weight thing, but still:
Monte at 14.03 LBS / HP is better than rustang at 15.95 LBS /HP
I thought they based insurance off of this, in combination with the cost of replacement parts, but still, the Monte is cheaper, so I better just shut up right now, lmao!
Garrett: I was thinking it might hurt low end torque, but enhance it in the upper range, because its fallin before we get tothe 6k redline, where if you have it moved back in the RPM range, which is what an open exhaust tends to do, then it would actually help at the higher RPM's. And if it wasn't a significant change the torque first peaks at like 2.8K, so overall you lose a little bit of torque at like 1.5k-2, then lets say with the exhaust on, the torque first peaks at 3.3k instead. And 500 rpm is a pretty significant change in the torque curve. So, you still get a good curve before the intake opens up at 3.5k, and if anything there's less risk of losing traction at the start.
Lmao... I think I just talked myself into a high flow cat and res delete/swap...
Sheesh, darn economic stimulus package needs to be bigger, Imma need like 400$ for that.... lmao.
#23
02-09-2008, 08:39 AM
RE: Another newbie from NY here
Welcome Mark from NY to the Monte Carlo Forum, the "other" forum. Yes, we ARE the "***** free zone" here, and we are proud of that fact. I've been a member on ALL the other forum for a while, but THIS is the forum I'm active in, because it is a friendly family here. No bashing, maybe some joking, but that got outa hand, and I think that's a thing of the past, also. Just friendly chat here. AND lot's of helpful advise!
I got a question for the members here: If the 3.9 was only available in '06, what was available in '07?
I got a question for the members here: If the 3.9 was only available in '06, what was available in '07?
#24
02-09-2008, 09:07 AM
RE: Another newbie from NY here
ORIGINAL: RocknSS04
Welcome Mark from NY to the Monte Carlo Forum, the "other" forum. Yes, we ARE the "***** free zone" here, and we are proud of that fact. I've been a member on ALL the other forum for a while, but THIS is the forum I'm active in, because it is a friendly family here. No bashing, maybe some joking, but that got outa hand, and I think that's a thing of the past, also. Just friendly chat here. AND lot's of helpful advise!
I got a question for the members here: If the 3.9 was only available in '06, what was available in '07?
Welcome Mark from NY to the Monte Carlo Forum, the "other" forum. Yes, we ARE the "***** free zone" here, and we are proud of that fact. I've been a member on ALL the other forum for a while, but THIS is the forum I'm active in, because it is a friendly family here. No bashing, maybe some joking, but that got outa hand, and I think that's a thing of the past, also. Just friendly chat here. AND lot's of helpful advise!
I got a question for the members here: If the 3.9 was only available in '06, what was available in '07?
IMO, I don't get why Chevy is pushing FlexFuel vehicles so much. I know we need to try to reduce our oil/gas consumption, but if you look on Chevy's website, the gas mileage on the FlexFuel vehicles is WORSE than standard gasoline engines! Plus, the increased use of corn to produce the ethanol is just going to raise the prices of other products at the supermarket.
#25
02-09-2008, 02:32 PM
RE: Another newbie from NY here
Thanks for the answer.
The nearest E85 dealer around here is about 30 miles south of where I work. None around home. I see no advantage in the flexfuel, at least right now. Maybe someday.
The nearest E85 dealer around here is about 30 miles south of where I work. None around home. I see no advantage in the flexfuel, at least right now. Maybe someday.
#26
02-09-2008, 10:47 PM
RE: Another newbie from NY here
Mark and Wayne, they also dropped the (model I have) 3LT model in 2006. I'm sorry, but this car should have been base, with an OPTION to get the 3.5. Then again I could be a bit biased.... 
Of course, that would also mean there would be a LOT more LZ9's around, and a much bigger chance at getting SOME aftermarket support... *day dreams at the thought* mmm, cams....
*shakes it off*
ok, now, back to the topic.
Yes, the 3.9 L WAS discontinued in the Chevrolet Monte Carlo, but it continued in the Chevy Impala, with the addition of DOD. I looked at the numbers. In the city the fuel mileage was exactly the same (these are 2007 numbers mind you, the EPA changed regs for 08 to combat the hybrids posting greatly inflated numbers)
For highway travel the mileage went up by ONE stinkin' mile per gallon.... can you say LAME? Oh, and I forgot to mention: I can ONLY image that the ONE mile per gallon gained on the highway had more to do with the 12(yes, TWELVE!) horsepower lost in the change!!! I forget the change in torque, but I presume it was equally depressing. It's quite possible that this engine also lost the Variable Intake, allthough I have not been able to confirm that.
On another note, I believe the reason mileage went down on the FlexFuel vehicles because Ethanol, while a ( WARNING:buzz word eminent! ) "renewable resource", does happen to contain less energy than petrolium fuels. It also has a tendancy to put out more heat at the compression level of today's consumer engines, losingmore of that energy to heat, compared to that of petrol engines. The racing engines than can run on 100 % ethanol (think IRL)have a much higher compression, which reduces the amount of energy lost to heat. I have been to one of the IRL races, and it was an amazing experience. Instead of the somewhat 'harsh' fumes of a petrol engine, the exhaust actually had a rather 'sweet' smell to them as well, which I consider a nice bonus. Plus, it was the first open wheel race I had attended in person, so that made it very enjoyable.
Of course, that would also mean there would be a LOT more LZ9's around, and a much bigger chance at getting SOME aftermarket support... *day dreams at the thought* mmm, cams....
*shakes it off*
ok, now, back to the topic.
Yes, the 3.9 L WAS discontinued in the Chevrolet Monte Carlo, but it continued in the Chevy Impala, with the addition of DOD. I looked at the numbers. In the city the fuel mileage was exactly the same (these are 2007 numbers mind you, the EPA changed regs for 08 to combat the hybrids posting greatly inflated numbers)
For highway travel the mileage went up by ONE stinkin' mile per gallon.... can you say LAME? Oh, and I forgot to mention: I can ONLY image that the ONE mile per gallon gained on the highway had more to do with the 12(yes, TWELVE!) horsepower lost in the change!!! I forget the change in torque, but I presume it was equally depressing. It's quite possible that this engine also lost the Variable Intake, allthough I have not been able to confirm that.
On another note, I believe the reason mileage went down on the FlexFuel vehicles because Ethanol, while a ( WARNING:buzz word eminent! ) "renewable resource", does happen to contain less energy than petrolium fuels. It also has a tendancy to put out more heat at the compression level of today's consumer engines, losingmore of that energy to heat, compared to that of petrol engines. The racing engines than can run on 100 % ethanol (think IRL)have a much higher compression, which reduces the amount of energy lost to heat. I have been to one of the IRL races, and it was an amazing experience. Instead of the somewhat 'harsh' fumes of a petrol engine, the exhaust actually had a rather 'sweet' smell to them as well, which I consider a nice bonus. Plus, it was the first open wheel race I had attended in person, so that made it very enjoyable.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
