Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

361 HP, 385 ft lbs. of torque 6.0L motor (364 CI), 6 speed automatic, rear wheel drive positraction (limited slip), defeatable traction control. As is from factory 0-60 in 5.3 seconds, approx 105 in the quarter, electronically limited to 137 Mph. Shuts down to 4 cylinders at cruising speed (AFM). I'm having an ECM TCM tune done soon along with a different intake system soon which gives it 40 more HP, more torque and defeats the speed control, it also gives it about 3 more MPG and gets the 0-60 times below 5 seconds and 1/4 mile speed close to 110 and in the 12's, it's in the 13's now. I got 26 MPG driving to Brooklyn a fee weeks ago following someone going 65-70 MPH. It's about 200 miles from here. For anyone who wants a real modern motorhead car, this is the real deal and It handles like a sports car. At 33K (with options) it's a deal.
Who else here is a motorhead and what do you have?

Nice! I like those G8's...

I have a 2005 Dodge Magnum R/T with the 5.7 liter HEMI.

Fuel economy (mpg): 25/hwy and 17/city (Rather generous estimates...)

340 HP @ 5,000 rpm; 390 ft lbs of torque and traction & braking control. You can kill the traction control if you want to....er, um..."have fun" on the road.

Has the MDS where it cuts to 4 cylinders at highway cruising speeds. Large car, but handling is nice & tight. All the mod cons & is a great gear hauler.

I got it for a steal back in '05 & love it.

What string gauges work best with that?

Big petrolhead (as we say downunder) here! Having kids kind of put a cap on owning anything too exciting since the '90s though...

That Pontiac looks suspiciously like it is made in good old Oz - the twin sibling of the Holden Commodore SS. The specs are pretty much identical. There are several nastier versions built by HSV (Holden Special Vehicles) with a mere 425hp and tuned suspension , plus a limited run model, the W427, with an eye-watering 500hp. They know how to make power-sliding muscle cars down in Melbourne... and I always thought it was a city of sophistication and decorum...

Now over to our main story concerning peak oil.....

antipodean wrote:...That Pontiac looks suspiciously like it is made in good old Oz - the twin sibling of the Holden Commodore SS. ....

You are correct it is on the same platform. I did alot of work with that 6.0 liter prior to its release over the last few years.

Nice score.......probably about the best all around performance sedan bang for the buck going in the USA from what I've read. Congrats!

A few years ago I picked up an '87 Buick GN with 17K miles (all original, well cared for by the original owner). Equipped with a intercooled/turbocharged 3.8 liter (231ci) V6 factory rated at 235HP (widely accepted to be underrated so as not make the Corvette division cry.....much). I've done a little work since getting it. It now has a more efficient intercooler, slightly larger than stock ball bearing/water cooled turbo, beefed up transmission, free flowing exhaust and methanol injection which allows me to run 25-ish pounds of boost (stock is 15). There is also a slew of supporting modifications (chip, injectors, air intake, tuning, stc.). Horsepower calculated based on weight and 1/4 mile speed should be roughly 425.....I'll dyno it sometime when I get settled on the tune. One of the best upgrades was adding Baer disc brakes (13" front/12" rear) and a hydroboost master cylinder (runs off the power steering). It can now stop as good as it accelerates which is a bonus. Of course now the stock 15" wheels don't fit over the brakes so I found a set of 17" sort of "retro" wheels that I like to finish things off. Drag radials in the rear help launches but not enough to get a good time at the track. My best is a 12.4 1/4 mile but at a 117MPH (lousy 2.1 60ft.). I have to install a line lock so I can heat my tires up enough to not smoke 'em off the line. With a good 60ft., considering my trap speed an 11.5 1/4 should be at hand. Good times, good times......

After owning numerous '60's era muscle cars what I enjoy most now is having a reliable, fume-free, smooth idling/quiet car with ice-cold air conditioning and a great stereo (aftermarket) that gets about 22 MPG on the highway and is more eager to run hard than anything I have owned. The only downside is that it doesn't corner as well as I'd like so that will be remedied somewhat when i tackle the suspension over the winter.

Anyway, I could continue to ramble on but I'll shut up for now.

Congrats on the new purchase Bob!
I am sorry to be a party pooper.
I am a big petrolhead myself, reading cars magazines, participating in cars forums, taking professional driving lessons, watching every top-gear episode , etc...
I think American car manufacterers are either blind or stupid for continueing to build large cars with large and relatively weak engines.
I do understand the need to support the collapsing economy and if that is the reason - I am backing off now.
If not -
361HP for 6L is 60HP per liter, that's simply not enough.
Even a modest European Engine would produce a far better ratio for a naturally aspirated engine in stock configuration.
Take VAG for example:
(I'll skip the non-us-friendly engines below 3L although some of them are simply great)

3.0L, V6 - 265HP, 244lb/ft of torque
4.2L, V8 - 350HP, 302lb/ft of torque
4.2L, V8 - 420HP, 300lb/ft of torque (the one currently installed in the RS4 and the R8)

Not to mention the simply outstanding TDI engines from VAG which will give you LOTS of fun, power and enough torque to tow a small house and will still do lots of miles per gallon...
For example:
3.0L V6 TDI - 237HP, 370lb/ft of torque, 30 mpg (combined)
4.2L V8 TDI - 322HP, 561lb/ft of torque, 26 mpg (combined)
6.0L V12 TDI - 500HP, 738lb/ft of torque, 23 mpg (combined)

The American car industry is collapsing and if the American car makers won't stop selling cars in the "price per HP" ratio (most Americans I talk to buy cars according to the number of cylinders and/or HP) they will simply not survive the first quarter of our decade, which is a real shame as I just love old American cars.

And b.t.w - the G8 GT does look amazing, I'd give her that...!

Checkout the older 4.0L TDI engine from the 2003 A8, 800 miles in 1 tank! -


2nd part:

Congrats Bob,
As Evan said earlier, it looks suspiciously like Australias own Holden Commodore SS. It is!! The coupe version is our 'Monaro". I spent a fair bit of the last 12 years working in liason with the experimental garage at GM-H here in Melbourne. A good part of that time was working on these new beasts. Enjoy.
Yes , having kids certainly stops the cash flow on those magnificent cars of our youth , but every now and then i get the chance to purchase and restore a 60's classic. The number of 64-5-6 mustangs i've rebuilt over the years is getting to a level where i cant recall how many.

Bravo, Gil!!!

Then we have the Honda S2000 with 237HP out of a 2.2 L engine!

http://automobiles.honda.com/s2000/

jps wrote:Bravo, Gil!!!

Then we have the Honda S2000 with 237HP out of a 2.2 L engine!

http://automobiles.honda.com/s2000/

Unfortunately that dosen't tell the whole story. Here is what the rating is from the web site you linked; "237 hp at 7800 rpm and 162 lb-ft of torque at 6800 rpm". This does not produce its horsepower and torque until it is at or near redline. This engine probably performs well once revved up but is obviously not tuned for low speeds (off the line). Of cource there is always weight vs. horsepower that is a big factor. If you look at GM's 2.0 liter engine that comes in the Solstice and Sky it boasts 260 hp @ 5300 rpm and 260 lb-ft of torque @ 5300 rpm.

Jeffery, I am glad that someone in the states understand me
The G8 is a Grand Turismo car, the S2000 is a roadster. However, your example is indeed very good as it shows how small engines can be monsters when designed correctly.
Just a few notes:
1. 2.2L is the AMERICAN version, the European version has "only 2.0L" engine with a little bit less torque, but a bit more HP! (240)
2. the S2000 is 10(!) years old, yes, Honda managed to produce a naturally aspirated 2.0L engine that produces 240HP (that's 120HP per liter!) on a serial car that can have 10,000 miles between services!
3. The S2000 is getting old, Honda did add some electronics into it in 2006 (like ESP...) but the car is virtually unchanged ever since it was introduced in 1998, a revamped version is out soon, 260HP from the same 2.0L engine and 100Kg less in weight, this will bring the S2000 to the realm of Supercars with 188 to 225HP per ton! - http://automotive.speedtv.com/article/h ... d-up_s2000

ken_j wrote:

jps wrote:Bravo, Gil!!!

Then we have the Honda S2000 with 237HP out of a 2.2 L engine!

http://automobiles.honda.com/s2000/

Unfortunately that dosen't tell the whole story. Here is what the rating is from the web site you linked; "237 hp at 7800 rpm and 162 lb-ft of torque at 6800 rpm". This does not produce its horsepower and torque until it is at or near redline. This engine probably performs well once revved up but is obviously not tuned for low speeds (off the line). Of cource there is always weight vs. horsepower that is a big factor. If you look at GM's 2.0 liter engine that comes in the Solstice and Sky it boasts 260 hp @ 5300 rpm and 260 lb-ft of torque @ 5300 rpm.

How can you compare a naturally aspirated 2.0 engine with a 2.0L twin turbo engine?

Are we in the fun zone of twin turbo engines???
VAG, 2.0L single turbo 4 cylinder engine - 272HP @ 6000RPM, 258lb/ft from 2500 to 6000RPM (the one that comes with the Audi TTS).
Mitsubishi, 2.0L single turbo 4 cylinder engine - 291HP @ 6500RPM, 300lb/ft of torque @ 4400RPM, (Lancer Evo X), UK version will go up to 360HP with 363lb/ft from the same 2.0L engine!

I had a N/A 2004 VW .:R32 (6spd 250 HP 3.2 V6 AWD with huge brakes). The car was a blast and was great around town or on the open road.....handled like it was on rails. I'd still have it except that on our fine roads I was bending rims frequently (low profile tires) and was starting to get sick of high maintenance costs. I do most mechanical work myself and either the labor was too time consuming, special tools needed for everything or parts were heinously expensive. Domestics aren't always cheap either but even some relatively basic VW/Audi parts were wacky expensive (front brake rotors were just shy of $500 each) so that got old quick. Certainly a fantastic car but it grew impractical for my changing needs.



I'm generally not a huge fan of the high revving small displacement import engines. Road manners aren't always great and when pushed hard some are prone to hand grenade (check the Evo forums and read about the issues and lack of warranty support from Mitsubishi.....no thanks). For N/A engines there are certainly trade-offs, IMO, when you go with small displacement and relatively high power. I test drove an Mazda RX8 and Honda S2000 prior to buying my VW and both were anemic feeling until the revs were approaching redline......that's fine, I suppose, for some but I felt it was a bit tiring. Being force-fed levels the playing field quite a bit. The Subaru STi and Mitsu Evo certainly have decent power along with reasonable mileage and are easy to live with on a daily basis.

I certainly appreciate any performance type car but just because the G8 gets it's power from a larger displacement engine doesn't make it inferior in any way to European styled rides that get more power per liter......just a different way of doing things.

There's no replacement for displacement........except for boost!

incubus2432 wrote:I had a N/A 2004 VW .:R32 (6spd 250 HP 3.2 V6 AWD with huge brakes). The car was a blast and was great around town or on the open road.....handled like it was on rails. I'd still have it except that on our file roads I was bending rims frequently (low profile tires) and was starting to get sick of high maintenance costs. I do most mechanical work myself and either the labor was too time consuming, special tools needed for everything or parts were heinously expensive. Domestics aren't always cheap either but even some relatively basic VW/Audi parts were wacky expensive (front brake rotors were just shy of $500 each) so that got old quick. Certainly a fantastic car but it grew impractical for my changing needs.



I'm generally not a huge fan of the high revving small displacement import engines. Road manners aren't always great and when pushed hard some are prone to hand grenade impersonations (check the Evo forums and hear read about the issues and lack of warranty support from Mitsubishi.....no thanks). For N/A engines there are certainly trade-offs, IMO, when you go with small displacement and relatively high power. I test drove an Mazda RX8 and Honda S2000 prior to buying my VW and both were anemic feeling until the revs were approaching redline......that's fine, I suppose, for some but I felt it was a bit tiring. Being force-fed levels the playing field quite a bit. The Subaru STi and Mitsu Evo certainly have decent power along with reasonable mileage and are easy to live with on a daily basis.

I certainly appreciate any performance type car but just because the G8 gets it's power from a larger displacement engine doesn't make it inferior in any way to European styled rides that get more power per liter......just a different way of doing things.

There's no replacement for displacement........except for boost!

They used tosay: there's no substitute for cubic inches, I'll take my large engine any day. I likes em big, just like my amps . Bigger the better, get that nice low end torque at low revs that just isn't there on those little engines, very even power band all the way up. If someone were to give me an A8 which are very nice cars, although not my style at all, I'd sell it and buy a G8 GT and a Pontiac GT GXP which is basically the same car with a 6.2L 425 HP motor (Corvette), haha!
I'm having my tuned in a few weeks for an even 400HP along with a new intake. The thing with these big engines is they're powerful to begin with and you just go up from there. There is an under hood supercharger for these that brings them up to 550HP, kind of expensive though. I think 400 HP is enough for me (at least now ) .
Brian I thought the Buicks were 300HP stock, that car is phenomenally fast.

You need to compare oranges to oranges not oranges to apples.

You can't compare a naturally aspirated 2.0L engine with a turbocharged one or with a 6.0L engine...
The nice thing about the high revving V8 VAG or BMW engines is that at the same RPM they still produce more power than their American counterparts, checkout the RS4/R8 power curve for example:

Mind you - this is a dyno test, add ~20% for the power coming out of the crank.
The great thing about this is the the power curve is pretty much straight as this is a naturally aspirated engine.

Checkout the power curve again please, you'll see that at around 5300 RPM (the RPM in which the G8 gets maximum power) the RS4 4.2L engine still produces roughly the same HP as the G8's 6.0L.
What you get is a wider power curve, basically a similar power curve as the G8, but instead of having the power dropping after 5,300RPM until the redline (somewhere around 6000RPM) you continue to build more and more power until you reach 7,500 RPM and there it goes down a little bit until it redlines at 8,000 RPM.

True, the RS4 is a bit extreme car, but if you checkout more modest cars, you'll see it is pretty much the same.

Edit: Bob, if your plan is to modify your car, you got the best thing