3.8 Camaro Vs our 3.8 tbird - TCCoA Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 57 (permalink) Old 11-27-2006, 09:49 PM Thread Starter
PostWhore
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Walton, KY
Posts: 1,606
3.8 Camaro Vs our 3.8 tbird

what is easier pulling hp out of? and or what is the better car? in terms of weight? etc.


i found a 97 3.8 V6 5spd camaro.....would it be worth trading in my 93 3.8 V6? any benifits?

just wondering
Dean

most people talk, but few are up for the moment
-where there's money and imagination, there's cool cars
ohhh the Junkyard , one man's trash is another man's treasure

1993 3.8L Tbird----sold
1994 4.6L Tbird----sold
1995 Mark VIII----sold
2004 Mustang GT----sold
2003 Mach 1----current
smitty2919 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 57 (permalink) Old 11-27-2006, 10:10 PM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
The Great Obucina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: palm beach county
Age: 38
Posts: 9,966
Send a message via AIM to The Great Obucina
do you like camaros?




"Booyah". Stu Scott.
1996 Braincoated, all Aluminum PI powered and obscenely loud Pearl White Tbird [email protected] AKA Dyrdek.
2013 Black on black FX2 Supercrew Ecoboost F150. Roll onto the scene with the ceiling missing.
The Great Obucina is offline  
post #3 of 57 (permalink) Old 11-27-2006, 10:43 PM
1st Gear Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Stoughton, MA
Age: 35
Posts: 59
Well, the V6 in those years had about 200 HP, and it's probably got a weight advantage of about 200-300 lbs minimum (I'm guessing), so it'll be faster....

Plus, that 3800 series engine was used in a ton of cars, including the Supercharged GTPs, Impalas, Monte Carlos, etc. So because of that, I'm assuming that there's a decent aftermarket for it, especially if you want to eventually go with forced induction.

Oh, and f bodies can be made to handle like they're on rails with the right upgrades. Basically, you can do anything you want to these cars that you can a V8 equipped car.

The cons would be the lack of a "real" back seat, and the fact that you might feel the urge to grow a mullet

1990 Thunderbird LX: New project car
90MaroonLX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 57 (permalink) Old 11-27-2006, 10:45 PM
PostWhore
 
David_viny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: A cold place
Posts: 1,095
Hmmmm, power wise they both have about the same potential. But stick shift is always fun, puts more power to the ground and the Camaro probably weighs less.

1995 T-bird 4.6l - Eibach lowering springs, Cobra R hood, One 12" sub woofer, Alpine type-R front speakers. 16.249 @85.11mph 1/4 mile
2001 Pontiac Trans Am WS6 - Cam, headers, HPtuned by me.
David_viny is offline  
post #5 of 57 (permalink) Old 11-29-2006, 08:22 PM
Stroked and Blown
 
BlakTbird96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dundalk, MD
Posts: 2,395
Send a message via AIM to BlakTbird96
A 200 hp 3.8 F-Body would stomp a 140 hp 3.8 MN12. Those F-Bodys with the 3.8 are probably capable of high 15's. Your '93 Thunderbird 3.8 is capable of mid-17's.

My other home:
Mid-AtlanticMN12's

'96 Ford Tbird 3.8 SC
'06 Chrysler Sebring "Vert 2.7
BlakTbird96 is offline  
post #6 of 57 (permalink) Old 11-30-2006, 11:10 AM
4th Gear Poster
 
Stevo1111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Connecticut
Age: 32
Posts: 319
Send a message via AIM to Stevo1111
I've been stomped by a 2000 V6 5 speed Camaro in my current car. He has only a CAI and cat back exhaust but the advantage lies in the 5 speed. Of the line I would conisistantly take him but from any sort of roll that I couldn't launch from, forget about it! I have a fairly modified 5.0 bird, capable of high 14's according to my friend's G tech, but it is brutally slow in its downshifts and will not hold a gear long enough or rather, lacks high end power, to race to any sort of speed.

1991 Thunderbird 5.0:
Cobra upper and lower intake, 65mm Ford Racing TB, E303 cam, opened up E7 heads, Mac headers, Magnaflow true Duals, Tragnsgo shift kit, 3.73's in an auburn posi, hardly spins the tires! I NEED MORE SPEED! Anyone have anything quicker they want to trade for? PM ME!

http://s141.photobucket.com/albums/r...1165080039.pbw


Stevo1111 is offline  
post #7 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-01-2006, 11:25 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 32
I look around a lot at Camaro forums (because I just bought one) and they say that the 3.8 Camaros can hang with Mustang GT's. Not the new GTs but the ones from the 90's.
mwood88 is offline  
post #8 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-02-2006, 03:20 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9
Having owned a 97 Camaro myself, I can tell you they can be fun cars. Mine was running high-14' s when I traded it for my Z. There is also a fairly decent aftermarket for them, and as 90Maroon said, short of the engine, anything that could be done to V8 car can be done to a V6 (suspension, brakes, etc.). If you like Camaros, take it for a test ride, see how you like it. If you want to make it fast, it' s fairly easy to get 13' s out of it, with a blower or nitrous. There are several forums where you can find a decent amount of advice on them, if you' d like to do some more research before purchase.
Darth Z is offline  
post #9 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-02-2006, 07:33 AM
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,230
Too bad you can total it with a butter knife. Those cars do use a lot of plastic/fiberglass body panels so be careful, the front half of those don't dent. I like those cars, only V8's, but they are a blast and seem so much nicer than a Stang.
lightevergreenfrost is offline  
post #10 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-02-2006, 11:26 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightevergreenfrost
Too bad you can total it with a butter knife. Those cars do use a lot of plastic/fiberglass body panels so be careful, the front half of those don't dent. I like those cars, only V8's, but they are a blast and seem so much nicer than a Stang.
The body will never rust though. And I believe that they have a very strong frame. They got 5 stars in the frontal crash test.
mwood88 is offline  
post #11 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-03-2006, 12:56 PM
4th Gear Poster
 
Stevo1111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Connecticut
Age: 32
Posts: 319
Send a message via AIM to Stevo1111
It seems like there are perhaps a handful of mn12's that could hang with a v8 camaro. Its a sad world

1991 Thunderbird 5.0:
Cobra upper and lower intake, 65mm Ford Racing TB, E303 cam, opened up E7 heads, Mac headers, Magnaflow true Duals, Tragnsgo shift kit, 3.73's in an auburn posi, hardly spins the tires! I NEED MORE SPEED! Anyone have anything quicker they want to trade for? PM ME!

http://s141.photobucket.com/albums/r...1165080039.pbw


Stevo1111 is offline  
post #12 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-03-2006, 12:58 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightevergreenfrost
Too bad you can total it with a butter knife.
yea MN12's hold their value so much better, it's damned near impossible to total them out.
Southpaw is offline  
post #13 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-03-2006, 04:35 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,921
I'm pretty sure there are more V6 birds in the 11's then there are V6 camaro's...........

isn't too hard to hang with V8 camaro's, I have less than 3500$ into mine and it does so just fine.
rancherlee is offline  
post #14 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-03-2006, 09:30 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 32
Put $3500 into a Camaro and you can easily hang with Vettes...
mwood88 is offline  
post #15 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-04-2006, 09:11 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwood88
Put $3500 into a Camaro and you can easily hang with Vettes...
Go right ahead and put 3500$ into a 3.4L camaro and hang with vetts My Tbird stock had no problems putting down mid 70's vetts (which run mid 17's stock)
rancherlee is offline  
post #16 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-04-2006, 09:48 AM
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,180
For pathetic smogged out 70's cars that's what they called "performance"...
Southpaw is offline  
post #17 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-04-2006, 10:34 AM
4th Gear Poster
 
Stevo1111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Connecticut
Age: 32
Posts: 319
Send a message via AIM to Stevo1111
How about we put the $3500 into a Mark and make it run 12's. Or we can buy $3500 of the giggly gas, and put a 200 shot on my car and see if it can make it a fun 1/4th! 200 more hp, that would put my boat into the 10s!

1991 Thunderbird 5.0:
Cobra upper and lower intake, 65mm Ford Racing TB, E303 cam, opened up E7 heads, Mac headers, Magnaflow true Duals, Tragnsgo shift kit, 3.73's in an auburn posi, hardly spins the tires! I NEED MORE SPEED! Anyone have anything quicker they want to trade for? PM ME!

http://s141.photobucket.com/albums/r...1165080039.pbw


Stevo1111 is offline  
post #18 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-04-2006, 03:47 PM
5th Gear Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NYC
Age: 48
Posts: 395
Send a message via AIM to Slowpoke
I look around a lot at Camaro forums (because I just bought one) and they say that the 3.8 Camaros can hang with Mustang GT's. Not the new GTs but the ones from the 90's.

The 350 TPI and 305 TPI camaroes couldnt hang with the 90's GT's..Unless the GT driver cant drive you dont have a chance

It all comes down to this..What do you want out of your car?..the 3.8 Tbird just isnt fast but its comfortable and will have a nicer ride then any camaro..AND can handle on rails if need be

Going for broke!!!!
Slowpoke is offline  
post #19 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-04-2006, 04:30 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by rancherlee
Go right ahead and put 3500$ into a 3.4L camaro and hang with vetts My Tbird stock had no problems putting down mid 70's vetts (which run mid 17's stock)
I was talking about the Z28 because you had previously mentioned the V8 Camaro.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ylc6mx4GgtU

V6 is riding right along with the GT...

Last edited by mwood88; 12-04-2006 at 04:38 PM.
mwood88 is offline  
post #20 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-04-2006, 05:06 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by rancherlee
Go right ahead and put 3500$ into a 3.4L camaro and hang with vetts My Tbird stock had no problems putting down mid 70's vetts (which run mid 17's stock)
Quote:
Year Make & Model (0-60) (1/4 Mile)

1965 Chevrolet Corvette 6.2 14.9
1967 Chevrolet Corvette L71 5.6 13.8
1968 Chevrolet Corvette 327 7.7 15.6
1968 Chevrolet Corvette 427 6.3 14.1
1970 Chevrolet Corvette 427 6.1 14.3
1975 Chevrolet Corvette 350 9.6 16.4
1976 Chevrolet Corvette 350 8.1 16.5
1977 Chevrolet Corvette 8.8 16.6

1979 Chevrolet Corvette L82 7.3 15.7
1980 Chevrolet Corvette L82 7.4 15.4
1982 Chevrolet Corvette 9.2 16.6
1984 Chevrolet Corvette 6.7 15.1
1985 Chevrolet Corvette 5.7 14.1
1986 Chevrolet Corvette 5.8 14.4
1986 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible 6.0 14.5
1988 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible 6.0 14.6
1988 Chevrolet Corvette Z51 6.0 14.6
1990 Chevrolet Corvette 5.7 14.3

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercou...0-60times.html
I don't see any mid 17's in there?

Quote:
1989 Ford Thunderbird SC (5 Speed) 6.9 14.9
1990 Ford Thunderbird SC (Auto) 7.4 15.8
1991 Ford Thunderbird LX 9.0 16.7
1993 Ford Thunderbird SC 7.2 15.7
1994 Ford Thunderbird LX V6 8.8 16.4
1995 Ford Thunderbird SC 7.0 15.2
1996 Ford Thunderbird LX V8 7.9 15.8

1989 Mercury Cougar XR7 SC 7.4 15.7
1990 Mercury Cougar XR7 SC 7.4 15.7
1991 Mercury Cougar LS 9.4 17.1
1994 Mercury Cougar LS 8.5 16.4
Stock V6 MN12's and mid 70's 350 vettes seem to be running about the same #'s... given the choice of owning one money pit over the other I might just take the mid 70's vette to toy around with.

oh btw, you want mid 17's? That's what the mid 70's 460ci Tbird ran.

Quote:
1973 Ford Thunderbird 460ci 9.0 17.4

Last edited by Southpaw; 12-04-2006 at 05:33 PM.
Southpaw is offline  
post #21 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-04-2006, 05:59 PM
Stroked and Blown
 
BlakTbird96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dundalk, MD
Posts: 2,395
Send a message via AIM to BlakTbird96
Those Thunderbird LX times are for V-8 cars probably. 3.8 n/a Tbirds are probably anywhere from 16.9-17.5. Trust me, I have one.

My other home:
Mid-AtlanticMN12's

'96 Ford Tbird 3.8 SC
'06 Chrysler Sebring "Vert 2.7
BlakTbird96 is offline  
post #22 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-04-2006, 06:41 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,180
I wouldn't be surprised if the early v6's were that slow. I had an '89 LS and that sounds about right...
Southpaw is offline  
post #23 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-04-2006, 06:55 PM
Stroked and Blown
 
BlakTbird96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dundalk, MD
Posts: 2,395
Send a message via AIM to BlakTbird96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southpaw
I wouldn't be surprised if the early v6's were that slow. I had an '89 LS and that sounds about right...

Those car statistic websites are flawed up, and the people who create them should read up on things a bit more. According to many of those websites, a stock 94 3.8 n/a is a 16.4 second car. Unless it's a real factory freak, that car is definantly a V-8, not a 6. If my car could pull off a 16.4, I'd probably shlt myself! I don't see it happening though and mine's a '96, so it has the stronger internals. I also have a shift kit, CAI, dual exhaust, underdrive pulleys, 2800 stall torque converter and my BEST is 16.9 (That was in cold weather)

My brother used to have a 2000 V-6 Camaro and trust me, that car was by far, way quicker than my 3.8 Tbird. I drove it a few times. I never raced it, but did punch it a few times and I think it could have easily pulled off high 15's. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the 80's-early 90's Mustang 5.0's only a high 15 second car in stock form? Those 3.8 GM motors aren't anything to diss, thats for sure. Perhaps Ford needs some advice from GM.

My other home:
Mid-AtlanticMN12's

'96 Ford Tbird 3.8 SC
'06 Chrysler Sebring "Vert 2.7
BlakTbird96 is offline  
post #24 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-04-2006, 06:56 PM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
Nativedetroiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my own world.
Age: 44
Posts: 6,195
Garage
Send a message via AIM to Nativedetroiter Send a message via MSN to Nativedetroiter Send a message via Yahoo to Nativedetroiter
I guess I may have done something wrong then, my V6 ran 18's Saturday

Ya, its funny, Funny like a Clown.
Nativedetroiter is offline  
post #25 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-04-2006, 06:58 PM
Stroked and Blown
 
BlakTbird96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dundalk, MD
Posts: 2,395
Send a message via AIM to BlakTbird96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nativedetroiter
I guess I may have done something wrong then, my V6 ran 18's Saturday

Yeah, your's is a 96? It should have at least been in mid-17's

My other home:
Mid-AtlanticMN12's

'96 Ford Tbird 3.8 SC
'06 Chrysler Sebring "Vert 2.7
BlakTbird96 is offline  
post #26 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-04-2006, 07:19 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 32
Not sure how accurate this is because it's from another poster, but I found this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/tacoma/5196-new-video-tacoma-4x4-vs-camaro
What year Camaro was it? Which engine did it have? A stock automatic 3800 v6 Camaro goes 0-60 in 7.7 seconds and runs the quarter mile in 16.1 seconds @ 87 mph. That’s faster than a stock 2WD V6 Tundra to 60 mph but slightly slower in the ¼-mile. Mine ran a 16.066 @ 87 mph on a 91-degree humid day. It could have been a 3.4-liter equipped V6 Camaro, which depending on transmission and driver skills goes 0-60 in 9 to 9.7 seconds and runs the quarter mile in 16.6 to 16.8 seconds. The 3800 engine has anywhere from 190-205 horsepower and the 3.4-liter engine has 160 horsepower.
My Camaro runs 16.8 probably because it's an automatic. What does a stock 3.8L T-Bird run the quarter mile in?

I need to take it to a track once I get some mods on it. Looking at the American Thunder exhaust from Flowmaster, a Summit CAI, and some Pacesetter headers. That's a lot of money though, so it may be a while.

Last edited by mwood88; 12-04-2006 at 07:28 PM.
mwood88 is offline  
post #27 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-04-2006, 09:04 PM
Stroked and Blown
 
BlakTbird96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dundalk, MD
Posts: 2,395
Send a message via AIM to BlakTbird96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwood88
Not sure how accurate this is because it's from another poster, but I found this:



My Camaro runs 16.8 probably because it's an automatic. What does a stock 3.8L T-Bird run the quarter mile in?
.
probably anywhere from 16.9-17.5 (1989-1991 3.8 n/a models are probably high 17's)

My other home:
Mid-AtlanticMN12's

'96 Ford Tbird 3.8 SC
'06 Chrysler Sebring "Vert 2.7
BlakTbird96 is offline  
post #28 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-04-2006, 10:47 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 105
Well, if you are looking for an earlier Camaro V6, I put the F*CKING smack donw on one my friend had for a while. Beat in about a 1/4 by at least 4-5 car lengths. And i let him leave just before me. they sound like crap too, the GM 3800's.
roger is offline  
post #29 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-04-2006, 11:56 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 35
If you get an f-body you might as well do it right and get an LT1 or an LS1 powered car. No sense in owning a V6 powered F-Body to me, whether it be the 3.4 in the earlier cars or the 3800 motor. Go to CamaroZ28.com if you're interested in F-Bodies, there is a TON of information about them on there, I love that website.
Mystic Thunder is offline  
post #30 of 57 (permalink) Old 12-05-2006, 05:01 PM
Stroked and Blown
 
BlakTbird96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dundalk, MD
Posts: 2,395
Send a message via AIM to BlakTbird96
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger
Well, if you are looking for an earlier Camaro V6, I put the F*CKING smack donw on one my friend had for a while. Beat in about a 1/4 by at least 4-5 car lengths. And i let him leave just before me. they sound like crap too, the GM 3800's.
Was the V-6 Camaro you smacked down, a 1980's-early 90's model? No offense but I doubt your stock '89 Thunderbird 3.8 n/a put down a 3800 F-Body V6 Camaro. From personal experience driving a 3.8 n/a Tbird and a 3.8 4th Gen. F-body 3800 series, I find it hard to believe you beat one. I'd have to see time slips to believe it. Even beating one of the earlier 3.4's is hard to believe, but it is more likely you could have taken out one of those, but certainly not a GM 3.8 3800 series

I did see an 3.4 Camaro at the track that ran 18.1 and some 17.*** runs, but I thought the driver was doing something wrong, or the car had something wrong with it.

My other home:
Mid-AtlanticMN12's

'96 Ford Tbird 3.8 SC
'06 Chrysler Sebring "Vert 2.7
BlakTbird96 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TCCoA Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome