<VV> 95s Vs. 110s

[BobHelt at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/8/05 7:13:23 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
tonyu at roava.net writes:

> I know about GM's hp plots and I 
> also know that they're not quite what they're cracked up to 
> be.   Aftermarket dyno pulls do NOT show the same data as GM's postings.


****Oh, really? Aftermarket dyno tests are more accurate than GM data?  If 
so, then show me the data. Let's see some proof.

> 
> The cars get driven all the time... and I do have a fairly educated ass 
> here and I CAN feel the difference in seat of the pants driving.


*****My, how scientific!  All yours are strictly subjective comments. Show me 
the data.

> 
>   The 95 is smooth and responsive at low rpm 
> while the 110 feels twitchy and jerky particularly when lugging it in 3rd 
> gear in traffic.   No need to downshift the 95; it just pulls out.


*****Maybe your 110 needs a tuneup.

> 
> I've towed with both a 95 Vair and a 140 Vair.   Put an extra 800-1000 lbs 
> worth of trailer behind the car and *see* which engine feels better in 
> traffic.
> 
> 

     ****traffic, Huh?  Sure, I'll give you that at speeds below about 30 
mph. But how about highway speeds where the 110 pulls better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   There was even something in a 
> Communique article (IIRC) about how a 140 engine only managed ~120 dyno'ed 
> hp in real world figures...  which means GM fudged 20 hp out of it.   This 
> was some years ago (anybody recall?).


*****Shows how the memory can confuse things. The 140 hp engine only 
developed 109-112 SAE net horsepower, not 120. The difference between 140 and 112 
represents the difference between gross and net horsepower, SAE corrected. See the 
GM 140 Engine Test Report available from Clarks for the data.

****Let's see your 140 engine dyno data.
> 
> 
> Now:  If the 95 is such an "inferior" engine, why the Hell was it built in 
> the first place?   And why do so many people I know like it for pulling 
> stuff?


****Well, the 95 was the low cost entry engine. It was the standard engine. 
The 110 and 140 engines were extra cost premium performance engines. Nobody 
said that the 95 was an "inferior" engine. Just the the 110 engine was superior 
in most respects. The only major disadvantage of the 110 was that it required 
premium gas.

> 
> By the way...  that ~1600 "half-throttle" rpm stall speed of a Vair PG is 
> right where the 95 has its torque advantage and that lower rpm torque 
> continues up through 3000 rpm, just right for accelerating in and out of 
> traffic on the main throughfares... and for pulling a load behind it... and 
> it does it while burning regular gas.
> 
> *****Not according to GM. Their data shoes 110 hp engine produces more 
> torque than the 95 at speeds OVER 1600 rpm.
> 
> Regards,
   Bob Helt

> 
> 
> 
>