larryk Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 How big a factor is this? It did not come in until the '91 models as I read. I believe there would be a bit less hp without it, but how about throttle response, acceleration, etc.TIA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jibby Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Larry, I have no idea, but I don't think that the HP really suffers or in your case, increases, that much. To tell you the truth, it's <span style="font-style: italic">supposed</span> to be a better engine. When Chevy went with the tuned-port fuel injection in the Camaro, it ended up being a better car. For those liking the carbeurator, it was <span style="font-weight: bold">bad</span> , but I never had a problem with mine. In fact, even though the body was sh*t, the engine ran forever! I have no experiance with the 1991 model year, Reatta. But I can tell you that there <span style="font-style: italic">probably</span> is a difference. I wouldn't guess that it's a major difference, but it's still a difference, none-the-less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jibby Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 I stole this off of www.reatta.net, it may be of some use to you. Road and Track statistics and what not. Year: 1990/1991EngineDisp: 3791/3791EngineLoc: F/FEngineType: N/NHP: 165/170HP-RPM: 4800/4800Torque: 210/220TorqueRPM: 2000/3200CompRatio: 8.5/8.5Redline: 5700/6000Gears: 4/4Trans: A/A1st: 2.92/2.922nd: 1.57/1.573rd: 1/14th: 0.7/0.7AxleRatio: 2.97/2.97DrivWhls: F/FWeight: 3730/3655WtDist: 65/65Whlbse: 98.5/98.5TireSectWidt: 215/215WheelDiam: 15/16TireProf: 60/60Cd: 0.41/0.41Height: 51.2/51.2Width: 73/73GrndClr: 5/50-60: 9.81/9.211/4mile: 17.28/16.9EPAmpg: 21.6/22.2LatAcc: 0.821/0.82Slalom: 59.4/59.5LapTime: 208/204Top Speed: 117.6/120After editing that, because this forum didn't keep the parameters from the site, it came out to look like this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryk Posted June 2, 2005 Author Share Posted June 2, 2005 Thanks! Good info there. Guess I missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padgett Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Biggest performance difference in 1991 is 3.33 A.R. (quote above is rong) "L" engine does have bigger intake and exhaust passages and a revised cam to move the torque curve up a bit which accounts for the HP increase.It is a better engine but more of an evolutionary change than a step. Both feel similar while driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest F14CRAZY Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Put it this way...My buddy Mario (has a '95 Regal 4 door) was talking about skipping after lunch. I ain't that way and told him he'd get called at home and in trouble. He replied <span style="font-style: italic">They can't catch me! I've got TPI!</span> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryk Posted June 3, 2005 Author Share Posted June 3, 2005 Does that mean he can skip faster then they can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2seater Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 It seems like it is likely more hype than a help. The basic engine internals are the same (a little longer connecting rod possibly) and for all the improvements, larger intake and exhaust, raised rpm level, a slighlty different operating system for the EGR, I would be disappointed in only a 5hp increase and 5% more torque, especially higher in the rev range. Generally longer intake runners will help the low rpm torque near the rpm they are tuned for, maybe in response to raising the torque peak rpm? The short runners of the older manifold design would tend to favor high rpm power, but the cam is so dead above 4500 rpm it doesn't make much sense? The tuned port style manifolds were available earlier, I have found aluminum versions on '89 Oldsmobiles in the boneyards. I agree with Padgett 100% that the biggest reason they are a little faster is the lower gearing, and it is a fair bit lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manikmekanik Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 AMEN on the lower gearing! I've already noticed the difference in the 3000 rpm highway test. My bride's 1988 Reatta coupe does ___mph in excees of the posted speed limit, (60mph), with over 180,000 miles on the odometer. Whereas the 1991 Reatta convertible, (28,000 miles),I recently acquired performed better at low-end acceleration, it was @18 mph slower, (yet still well over the posted limit), I was dissapointed, but still love to drive it. Time to fill in the blank(s).I am 45 Years of age.I live in a rural area with dairy farms, where roads are clear and the farmers drive at blinding speeds in their Hot Rods.Randy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Is that Right on the torque RpmTorque: 210/220 TorqueRPM: 2000/3200 3200 seems very Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jibby Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I have no idea, as I said, I stole it from the www.reatta.net site. But I'm not too interested in the differences. I have to agree with the quote, that it is more likely an evolutionary change, than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2seater Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Uh, yeah, 3000 rpm should be over the posted limit about anywhere (except maybe the Autobahn). 2500 is about 90mph on my '90. The '91's get generally poorer highway fuel economy, but I would probably sacrifice a couple of mpg to get the better acceleration, although the turbo pretty much took care of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest F14CRAZY Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Today at lunch...We were coming from Burger King and heading back to the HS. I was riding with Mario, again in the '95 Regal. We passed by a late model Bimmer 3 series that was riced out. It was unattractive to say the least, and we uttered from three and four letter explicits about it among ourselves. Mario says "don't worry, we got TPI" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Reatta1 Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Just from my own experience there is a fair difference with the TPI versus the SFI. I have a 93 Regal coupe with TPI and it will waste my Reatta with it's SFI. Both 3.8's but the Regal is quite a bit torquier at all speeds. Not even a contest from a dead stop. And I've also been wasted in the Regal by a 4 dr Regal with super charger. would love to have the SC in the Reatta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EDBSO Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Lets face it GM cheaped out! My 89 SHO had a smaller 3L engine yet stock it put out 220 HP and stock did 0 to 60 in 6.6 seconds STOCK! and there were lots of easy cheap mods that made it a lot faster. App 300 HP was possible.You guys and gals know that I am fond of the Reattas BUT Ford really ran circles around them with the 1989 3L 220 HP SHO. If only I could get it into my Reatta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest F14CRAZY Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 BTW, my Reatta also wasted Mario. Would have been more interesting if he had a Gran Sport 2 door (which is what he really wants).The late 80s and 90s had a lot of affordable, fast cars like the Taurus SHO as mentioned. GM offered most everything in a faster version (I mentioned a 3.1L Beretta GT and it was a lost better against my Reatta than we thought...)Even the imports were faster. I respect the ones that actually are fast; not the ones with drivers that THINK they're fast. Prices on decent RX-7s, 300ZXs, Supras, and 3000GTs are insane (like some Reattas) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ductune Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 The SHO was a Yamaha design. I think it?s a 4 valve per cylinder double overhead cam engine. Very expensive to manufacture. The sticker price of a Reatta with a similar engine would have killed the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padgett Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Have to consider the target audience (people who wanted a Buick 2-seater and could afford $26,000 in 1988) and that intracompany rivaly meant that it could not out accellerate an Allante (which had the pushrod 4.5 (or was it a 4.7, didn't grow to 4.9 until later) at the time).Add to the fact that the 1989 TransAm with turbo 3.8 was the fastest production car at the time and it is evident why no turbo - Cadillac would not allow it and the targetted customers really did not care (though a premium fuel requirement might have made a differnce to them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tc11003 Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 btw , i love my 89 reatta, and the 3800 is bulletproof!! i have 180 k on her and it runs great. the problem was tht for $26,000 u could buy a corvette. the reatta was a noble idea by buick but way too expensive. the car should have featured a higher powered engine and stick shift if it was going to be taken seriously and possibly a successful car for gm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest F14CRAZY Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 It takes a lot to get a 3800 to burn oil and the mechanicals go for about ever but they suffer from sensor related problems (given their age) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now