Taurus Car Club of America : Ford Taurus Forum banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I just want to know if anyone has raced a Grand Am GT V-6. Is that I got one last Friday, and I wanted to know if they were fast. If you have raced one, tell me about it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,359 Posts
They're quick, what year? The torquey engine + low gearing = fun off the line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Yeah what year? Because the pre-'99 models with the 3.1 V6 are decent but nothing to brag about while the '99 and newer with the 3.4 V6 are definitely quick. My friend had a '99 GT and we used to have lots of fun with it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,282 Posts
i had a 99 w/ the 3.4 litre engine... its quick.. probably does 0-60 in like 7.7 seconds
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
663 Posts
v6 Grand AMs aren't that fast, but they are really peppy and fun to drive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I sold my 99 Grand Am GT1 Coupe about a year ago to the day. My best time at the track was 15.46 @ 89 mph in the quarter. Basically stock, other than K&N and normal race-day weight reduction.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,493 Posts
I could help on this
The 3100 and 3400 are quick off the line. When they get over 50 the gearing is not the best. I know on our 97 3100 you can hit about 80 (maybe more) in second. The best Grand Am is the 92-93 (I belive) They had the 2.3 Quad 4 HO 180hp. Get that with a 5-speed and that is a fast car.

3100 155hp 185tq
3400 170hp 200tq
3400 GT 175 2005tq
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Originally posted by RocketFast321@Jan 23 2004, 11:06 PM
3400 GT 175 2005tq
LOL damn, what is it a diesel or something?!
J/K
205tq is more like it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
I had a 3.1 Buick Century, and that thing was a dog past 2nd gear. GM's front drive cars have way too short of a final drive to be a good car for me. It had a nice first gear, but I got passed by a DX Civic on the highway.


As well, I don't think any Grand AM is faster than a Duratec. My Vulcan would probably lose, but the only Grand vehicle I fear is the supercharged 3.8 GTP, which isn't even a Grand AM.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,959 Posts
When I was looking to buy my Taurus, the dealer was trying to push me into a 2002 Grand Am GT1. We took it out on the freeway and I got it up to 120mph then jumped off the highway onto a side street and slammed the brakes. The dealer didn't say anything until we got back to the lot. "So you like the car, I take it, " he said to me. "No, the interior looks like [email protected]#t and the vents are already falling out. Why don't you show me that blue Taurus over in the used cars."

I bought the Taurus. The next day I went back to pick up the car after it was detailed and the dealer took me to a strip club for lunch. He was a sleaze bag, but he paid for the beer and lap dances!!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,168 Posts
I've raced a couple 99+ 3.4L Grand Am's and am 2-1. They will definitely get a Duratec off the line and hold the lead until the taurus shifts into 3rd (~70mph). After that the Duratec will pull, but not by a ton. I would give the edge to the Grand Am due to lower weight and more low end tq in a street race that only goes to the typical 60 ish mph. The best bet is to go from about 20mph where the Dura will be downshift into 1st at about 4500 rpm and you should get a jump over the Grand Am because the fwd GM tranny's are known to not like to downshift.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
Originally posted by jtkz13@Jan 24 2004, 10:56 AM
I've raced a couple 99+ 3.4L Grand Am's and am 2-1. They will definitely get a Duratec off the line and hold the lead until the taurus shifts into 3rd (~70mph). After that the Duratec will pull, but not by a ton. I would give the edge to the Grand Am due to lower weight and more low end tq in a street race that only goes to the typical 60 ish mph. The best bet is to go from about 20mph where the Dura will be downshift into 1st at about 4500 rpm and you should get a jump over the Grand Am because the fwd GM tranny's are known to not like to downshift.
Mine didn't like to do much of anything...it was broken.


When it was running, I do seem to remember having problems with it not shifting when I told it to. Felt like a TV cable out of adjustment, but this was a '97 model with an electronically shifted trans-axle. I always hated that Hydra-Matic. It was smoother, but a lot stupider, and horrible gearing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
Originally posted by RocketFast321@Jan 24 2004, 12:06 AM
I could help on this
The 3100 and 3400 are quick off the line. When they get over 50 the gearing is not the best. I know on our 97 3100 you can hit about 80 (maybe more) in second. The best Grand Am is the 92-93 (I belive) They had the 2.3 Quad 4 HO 180hp. Get that with a 5-speed and that is a fast car.

3100 155hp 185tq
3400 170hp 200tq
3400 GT 175 2005tq
is that 2.3 the same one they put in the beretta gtz? DAMN, those sucked! they were nowhere near the power that you would expect, and they blew head gaskets like the essex! a friend of mine a z26 beretta, but he wanted the gtz. after getting his z26, and doing sime research, he doesnt regret what he got at all.

chev can build ohv engines, but leave the dohc's to someone else.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,359 Posts
Werd, the Quad 4 set records in unreliability. It was bad. Powerful, but bad.


Just out of curiosity why not take the car for a spin and find out how quick it is?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,168 Posts
The older style 2.3 Quad 4's were known to have HG problems, but the newer 2.4's did not suffer the same fate. Did anyone else know that the Olds Cutlass W41 package in 1990 made 190hp and came with a 5 speed? It ran mid/high 14's.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,168 Posts


Spec sheet for them. Look at that gearing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,493 Posts
W41 was great. The 2.4 does have one bad thing about it and that is the OEM water pump and it is it does not last and is a pain to change. My water pump is OEM and i hope it last knock on wood. The 2.3 DOHC is not that bad at head gaskets. The the first few years where bad, but in 95 (last year) they were fine. The quad 4 2.3 came out in 87. Now the Quad SOHC is the to stay away from.

About GM's no down shifting tranny, that is true and false. My 2.4 will down shift like a champ. But my mother's 3100 malibu sometimes will and sometimes don't shift. Let say you going 30-35 and the car is in overdrive. That malibu will pin you to the seat when you floor it. Go about 45 and and floor it well that sucks. But going 65 and floor it, well you just hit sweet spot


Only GM's v6s have the poor gearing tranny. The I4s are fine.

As reliability goes the 3100 and 3400 have lower intake manifolds problems. Almost like the essex, except the coolant mixes with the oil.

FYI
The newer 3100 in the Buick Century has 175hp and 195tq. Do you see something wrong with that <_<
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Originally posted by RocketFast321@Jan 24 2004, 10:11 PM
As reliability goes the 3100 and 3400 have lower intake manifolds problems. Almost like the essex, except the coolant mixes with the oil.
Amen to that...my 99 GAGT did that exact thing at about 55,000 miles. Lucky I caught it while it was just starting to happen or else it would've been a nasty and expensive repair bill.

The one thing I did like about my Grand Am was the 3.29:1 final-drive ratio. It was a beast off the line and in the lower ranges. Up top was a different story, but I didn't do alot of accelerating past 60 mph (where it's weakness was) to really need that power.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top