Any guys prefer stick and buy a Gen III?

[AutoSHO]

I am kinda curious: I am definately a 5-Speed person, I like driving them. I am, however, considering the purchase of a 96 SHO and am curious as to how well the transmission behaves? Does it seem busy and shift often? Or is it relatively benign? Thanks for any info... also, as I understand it, with UDP's, Mufflers, 3rd Cat bypass, and a "Porterized" intake w/ K&N I should be at about 265 horsepower right? Sounds like cheaper mods than the Gen II I had!

 

[wuzzzer]

I've never noticed any annoying upshifting/downshifting by my tranny. I do wish it wouldn't shift into 4th gear so soon, though (35mph when engine is warmed up) Although the 96-98s and some of the 99s have an O/D lockout button so you can cruise in 3rd gear to your heart's content
1st gear is good for 40mph, 2nd gear for 75-80, 3rd gear for about 135, 4th gear limited to 144mph.
It's been said by some that the 96s are the quickest, but that's obviously open to debate. Any year 96-99 SHO that's driven aggressively will perform better than one that's driven at a more leisurely pace. I think that's something that any Gen III owner can attest to.
I think 265hp with the mods you've listed is a little high. They'll probably add more like 10-15hp.

<small>[ March 18, 2002, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: wuzzzer ]</small>

 

[Super D]

the transmission in my sho is smooth I would like to get a transgo shift though to firm up the shifts. those mods you should get you to around 265hp. thumbs_u

 

[AutoSHO]

Super D:
the transmission in my sho is smooth I would like to get a transgo shift though to firm up the shifts. those mods you should get you to around 265hp. thumbs_u

Thats what I read on V8 SHOtimes So I hope thats what will happen! Thanks for both your inputs!

 

[SCOTTDW]

I push my SHO pretty hard and I really like the automatic transmission. It is very responsive for the most part. I like a manual transmission also when it comes to performance cars but this automatic is well suited to the V8 SHO..

Scott
98SF
K&N Panel
Magnaflows 3"tips
BFGoodrich KDWS

 

[LASTSHO]

Remember too that the mods you listed...unfortunately are about the only ones you can do.

This engine can't be modded like the V6 SHO's.

 

[Osiris]

LASTSHO:
Remember too that the mods you listed...unfortunately are about the only ones you can do.

This engine can't be modded like the V6 SHO's.

Yet...

 

[AutoSHO]

LASTSHO:

This engine can't be modded like the V6 SHO's.

Oh trust me, if I get my hands on one that will change. Lower Compression and 9 Psi Here I come!

 

[stephen newberg]

This is the first auto I have owned as a daily driver, as manual drive sport coupes have normally been my area. The automatic is remarkable, and a comment on how far they have come in design. Most of the time it shifts at very close to when I would on a fast trip down a windy back road, both upshifts and downshifts. While in stop and go around town traffic it is calm and collected. I am very impressed with this transmission, and did not expect to be when I bought the car.

pax, smn

PS: after similar mods (but no UDP) mine dynoed out to about 261 HP a year or so ago when I was in Ontario and got it on a tester.

<small>[ March 19, 2002, 05:24 AM: Message edited by: stephen newberg ]</small>

 

[SHODWN]

OH come on 261? maybe with NOS.... either that or your tranny hits so hard you jammed the dyno.

Post the Dyno results please

 

[mholhut]

stephen newberg:

PS: after similar mods (but no UDP) mine dynoed out to about 261 HP a year or so ago when I was in Ontario and got it on a tester.

I hope you're talking about Crank HP and not at the wheels. With the 100 HP shot of NOS (on a cold tank with TPS switch connection working intermittently), my car dyno'd at about 245. Without NOS it dyno'd at 175 HP. That's a 65 HP loss through the tranny, below the advertised OEM spec of 235 HP. I've never seen a Gen III SHO (stock or modded) dyno above 210 WHP without NOS.

That would mean a SHO that dyno'd at 261 would run the quarter in 13.9@100 apx. No one's done that besides Scott Watters and Randy Mercante.

 

[stephen newberg]

Yes, that was computed crank HP, not rear wheels. Did not sound unreasonable to me. I forget the number they computed for at the rear wheels, but it was a good deal less. I have only taken it to the track once and got just a touch over 15 seconds. From what I have read here and on V8SHO.com, that is pretty normal too.

pax, smn

<small>[ March 20, 2002, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: stephen newberg ]</small>

 

[AutoSHO]

stephen newberg:
Yes, that was computed crank HP, not rear wheels. I forget the number they computed for at the rear wheels, but it was a good deal less.

So, where did you get the rear-wheel drive conversion done? We're all dying to know?!?!

 

[SHODWN]

Mike, what so you mean never over 210? I got 214/213 right in front of me

the day we I was with you I did 200hp 229tq to the ground to your little 175 give me the juice! lalalalala

 

[mholhut]

SHODWN:
Mike, what so you mean never over 210? I got 214/213 right in front of me

the day we I was with you I did 200hp 229tq to the ground to your little 175 give me the juice! lalalalala

Ay, Chico . . . what's the matter? That Hooked on Phonics not workin' for ya? LOL

Yeah, that 175 was with the old/tired motor. Like I told you before, the new '97 motor pulls much much stronger so I'm dying to see what kinda numbers she posts with/without NOS.

BTW, is the ink dry from where you doctored up your dyno chart? thumbs_u

 

[stephen newberg]

"So, where did you get the rear-wheel drive conversion done? We're all dying to know?!?!:

Opps! That was one of those slips that shows you how old I am. These front wheel drive things still seem like new fangled inventions on occasion. But yes, that was HP at the -front- wheels, and they calculated it somehow at the shop. It is my understanding that the actual derived number is a torque at the wheels value and everything else is computed from that.

pax, smn

 

[SHODWN]

Chico? wow thats low!

Someone call the manager my tickets got stuck in the SKI-ball game...

Mike, everytime I see that Version comercial I think back to Tulsa - Is that what Mark was doing?

Can you hear me now? Good thumbs_u

 

[SHODWN]

correction... Verizon

 

[jedhead]

I bought a '98 about a month ago. I think it is a great cruiser, but it is not as much fun to drive as my '91. The '91 feels so much stronger and handles better. I will admit that the '91 is not stock and the '98 is stock.

Bob

 

[scared rabbit]

I would much prefer a 5 speed but the crank shaft on this car is particularly heavy and would not accomodate effective heal and tow shifting on a downshift and would make it a bit harder for a smooth transition. You'd have to do a lot of heavy footed dancing to get it right all the time