Taurus Car Club of America : Ford Taurus Forum banner

Horsepower

5K views 48 replies 26 participants last post by  bingolou 
#1 ·
Question peoples. Just curious, but how much typical horsepower does a standard Vulcan motor have?
 
#4 ·
Damn, for such low horse these cars really can move when they need to. Is that horsepower rating about the same for the essex?
 
G
#5 ·
Originally posted by slider5634@Jan 21 2004, 08:39 AM
Damn, for such low horse these cars really can move when they need to. Is that horsepower rating about the same for the essex?
Yeah they do move pretty well, the vulcan is pretty torquey, I think that's why it moves the cars well. The 3.8 has around the same HP IIRC, but considerably more torque
 
#6 ·
So if the gen I and II has "140 hp" what does a 3.1 Z24 have? Just curious cause my car has no problem put those away and Zeds are a hell of a lot lighter! i can honestly say that i have seen "3.1 MULTIPORT" engines listed at 165-170 hp. unless im just dyslexic or something
 
#7 ·
3.1 GM engine should have 160-170HP. Essex has (beside faulty headgaskets) 215-225 lb-ft tq, and on 2700rpm. Our vulacan needs 4000rpm for 185lb/ft ( older had only 165lb/ft)

Remember that 155HP is on 5000rpm, it is useless unless you drive at that high rpm, I never do. So torque is what counts. my old sable '92 with essex was really fast from stop.
 
G
#9 ·
Originally posted by shifty@Jan 21 2004, 10:09 AM
So if the gen I and II has "140 hp" what does a 3.1 Z24 have? Just curious cause my car has no problem put those away and Zeds are a hell of a lot lighter! i can honestly say that i have seen "3.1 MULTIPORT" engines listed at 165-170 hp. unless im just dyslexic or something
what year/car do you have?
 
#10 ·
Originally posted by Postmortem@Jan 21 2004, 01:40 PM
3.1 GM engine should have 160-170HP. Essex has (beside faulty headgaskets) 215-225 lb-ft tq, and on 2700rpm. Our vulacan needs 4000rpm for 185lb/ft ( older had only 165lb/ft)

Remember that 155HP is on 5000rpm, it is useless unless you drive at that high rpm, I never do. So torque is what counts. my old sable '92 with essex was really fast from stop.
Torque = Good

Fault Headgastkets = Bad


Is there anything you can do about it before it happens - assuming theres no way to avoid the problem - and how much will it cost?
 
G
#11 ·
Both the GM 3.8 and the Ford 3.8 have headgasket issues, not sure why though. But of everything I've seen, there's not really any good way of preventing it that I've heard of. Although I must say, I personally probably would have looked into it a lot more if I had a 3.8
Plus I'm not, by any means, an expert.
 
G
#13 ·
Originally posted by dIESEL600+Jan 21 2004, 02:38 PM-->QUOTE (dIESEL600 @ Jan 21 2004, 02:38 PM)
<!--QuoteBegin-jason8225
@Jan 21 2004, 02:12 PM
Both the GM 3.8 and the Ford 3.8 have headgasket issues,
I have never heard of GM 3.8 head gasket issues. I've always heard it's one of GM's best engines. [/b]
That was just what my friend said who's big into Chevy's. He's pretty knowledgeable about GM products for the most part. Could be wrong though.
 
#18 ·
Originally posted by shifty@Jan 21 2004, 10:09 AM
So if the gen I and II has "140 hp" what does a 3.1 Z24 have? Just curious cause my car has no problem put those away and Zeds are a hell of a lot lighter! i can honestly say that i have seen "3.1 MULTIPORT" engines listed at 165-170 hp. unless im just dyslexic or something
The old 3.1 MPFI GM V6 has 140hp like in the older Z24. The newer 3.1 SFI has upwards of 160hp. I think that when the base Grand Prix still offered it, it was putting out 175hp.
 
#20 ·
The gm 3.1 multi ports have 140 hp and 185 torque. The New (2003) Grand Prix base models (GP se) have the 3.1 liter sfi enine and have 175 hp and 195 ft/lb of torque. The 2004 models only come with the 3.8 200 hp engine or the series III 260 hp supercharged engine.

Seeing how the 3.1 engines have matured from their multi port 140 hp design to their new 175 hp sfi design makes me kinda sad. I wish ford would have done more to refine the vulcans and get more hp outta these engines. Oh well, I guess they are having good luck with the vulcan engines.
 
#23 ·
I could never understand why the Vulcan never made much power. I read somewhere that Ford went to great lengths to design the heads using some computer program and stuff. All that work to end up with 140hp/160ft-lb on the first gen. I know the main problem with the essex is that it cannot breathe at high rpm. GM's 3.8 has always had a considerabe hp advantage (both are pretty even on torque) compared to Ford's until '99 when Ford reworked the heads/intake giving it the hp it deserved. But unfortunately, by '99 it was too late for the Taurus as the 3.8 had been dropped long ago. Probably a good thing though since the 3.8 is just not a very good engine overall.
 
#24 ·
Originally posted by dIESEL600+Jan 21 2004, 02:38 PM-->QUOTE (dIESEL600 @ Jan 21 2004, 02:38 PM)
<!--QuoteBegin-jason8225
@Jan 21 2004, 02:12 PM
Both the GM 3.8 and the Ford 3.8 have headgasket issues,
I have never heard of GM 3.8 head gasket issues. I've always heard it's one of GM's best engines. [/b]
:with stupid: Yeah, I believe the GM 3.8 is a pretty bulletproof engine. Sure it sounds funky but it'll keep on running.
 
#25 ·
The GM 3.8L is a renowned bullit-proof engine, which is the exact opposite of the Essex 3.8L.

Oh, and the 97-03 Gran Prix base V6 was the 3.1L that made 175hp/195tq.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top