MOUSE Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 When GM switched to the "Electronically controlled" transmission in the 91 models, Did they beef up this tranny? I know they increased the 3800's hp by Five, up to a whooping 170. Wow!, my 06 MX-5 had that much. This trans seems to work just great, shifts smoothly, never seems to hunt for gears. Just curious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2seater Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Not sure about any beefing up, but there were incremental improvements made each year so as far as legend has it, a '90 trans. is better than the '88? I would think the '91 likely has additional improvements, but the big difference is the '91 has a substantially lower gear ratio, 3.33 vs 2.97. I suspect the change was made for a couple reasons, the engine power band is shifted to a higher rpm and the stock wheel/tire package is a bit taller. I know what you mean about the lazy hp. but it has a bunch more torque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOUSE Posted January 26, 2017 Topic Author Share Posted January 26, 2017 GM should have offered these cars with a Supercharger, it would have been so much more fun to drive. GM did make a prototype SC model, and one Rear wheel drive prototype. But never did produce them for sale to the public. Buick really was just not sure what they wanted to do with these cars, or who their market was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2seater Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 I don't believe they made a S/C prototype but they did make lo and high boost fwd turbo conversions and a rwd with the Grand National type drivetrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOUSE Posted January 28, 2017 Topic Author Share Posted January 28, 2017 2-seater!, you are correct, the prototype fwd Reatta was "Turbocharged", not "Supercharged", my bad. also they built two "Turbocharged 88 Gran Sport Regals. One had 8-psi boost, while the hotter one had 16-psi boost. Too bad they didn't offer them to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2seater Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 10-4 on that. My lo-boost is 4psi on a 9.5:1 engine and hi-boost is 8-10psi on a stock 8.5:1. Not the same as the factory stuff but was my inspiration. I always felt around 200hp. would be a better match to the weight of the car with about 250hp for a GS model. Sadly, it wasn't to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOUSE Posted January 30, 2017 Topic Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 I guess it was never really meant to be a "sports Car", but instead a "sporty/luxury, two seater", leaning more to the Luxury side. It had some pretty leading edge components at the time it was built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2seater Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 It is a cruiser for sure. A couple of decades ago when mine was essentially stock, my wife and I road tripped out to Yellowstone Park. We took the northern route across North Dakota and then Montana. At that time Montana had no official speed limit, although I found later from locals that they do take a dim view of out-of-staters exceeding about 85mph. In any case we ran 216 miles across Montana in less than two and a half hours. During that run, I was passed by one vehicle, a guy on a touring style BMW motorcycle. He didn't roar by, just calmly passed me, pulled away and disappeared in the distance. I also averaged just over 22mpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts