|
|
Post by dynamic1964 on Feb 9, 2011 14:15:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 71corvette454 on Feb 10, 2011 10:18:41 GMT -6
Looks good!
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Feb 10, 2011 10:48:37 GMT -6
That's Granite....a 2002 color.
|
|
|
|
Post by dynamic1964 on Feb 10, 2011 13:32:30 GMT -6
That's Granite....a 2002 color. How many Granite was made, Marc? Read that the trans at model year 2001 had major problems. Were those errors corrected in 2002 model? My 3.5 is incredibly good in the trans so thats why i wonder a bit about it. Poor transmission shift: Certain transmissions may suffer harsh engagement in reverse (2001); delayed upshifts (2001); slipping in 4th gear (2001); or poor pickup, slips, delayed shifts, and flares (2001-02).
Poor transmission shift: Late shifts and flares between shifts may be due to a faulty shift solenoid. (2001)
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Feb 10, 2011 15:08:02 GMT -6
That's Granite....a 2002 color. How many Granite was made, Marc? I can't say for sure. But I know that they're out there. I saw a 2002 in that color some time ago. |
|
|
|
Post by tipsymcstager on Feb 10, 2011 20:26:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by tipsymcstager on Feb 10, 2011 20:32:42 GMT -6
I can't say for sure. But I know that they're out there. I saw a 2002 in that color some time ago. marc, input your VIN here. for RPO and production numbers (vehicle specific) ;D www.compnine.com/vid.php*This VIN decoder is extremely detailed. In most cases it will give you the build date and every original option (RPO) on the vehicle. This service is completely free and instant. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Feb 10, 2011 20:58:58 GMT -6
Using that site, I could find out how many 2002s were made in that color, but I'd have to know the RPO code for granite.
|
|
|
|
Post by tipsymcstager on Feb 10, 2011 21:50:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Feb 10, 2011 22:30:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by robaurora01 on Feb 11, 2011 14:50:25 GMT -6
im sure theirs more then 381 of them heck ive seen one or two here so I doubt in all of north america thats all that was made
|
|
|
|
Post by northofyou on Feb 24, 2011 19:17:50 GMT -6
I for one have not seen the granite color in my neck of the woods, sure does look good  . I have seen a lot of white diamond, champagne and black tho. Who the heck would give this car a 53/100!!!!!!! A 3 for fuel economy!? probably the best fuel economy I have seen for an 8 ever! well besides the 8-6-4 system now and the hybrids. Comfort was rated at a 5! Bah Hum Bug Ebeniezer Scrooge! Probably a lexus fan (note no capital on the l!) |
|
|
|
Post by tipsymcstager on Feb 24, 2011 20:43:32 GMT -6
ya know the 8-6-4 system sound so logical for improved gas milage. but it seems the concept was years ahead of the electronic/computer technology when it came out, and then got a bad name, for it's short comings. but don't the new 5.7 or 6.1 dodge Hemi's use a 8-6-4 system? i think i remember reading that somewhere. maybe, i don't know.  oh, nice to see you posting again, north |
|
|
|
Post by roara on Feb 25, 2011 13:36:10 GMT -6
Wow, cool helpwrench site, makes it look easy! |
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Feb 25, 2011 13:44:37 GMT -6
Typsy.....I recall reading that those Hemis run on 4 cylinders at small throttle openings.
|
|
|
|
Post by roara on Feb 25, 2011 14:06:00 GMT -6
^^affirmative, not sure what model year that started, but that is cool for economy.
|
|
|
|
Post by tipsymcstager on Feb 25, 2011 19:45:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by northofyou on Feb 25, 2011 20:09:49 GMT -6
The 8-6-4 is logical but don't you use more fuel with less cylinders because the you need more bang to keep the "locomotive" going. O and the 8-6-4 technology was actually introduced in the 70's by Cadillac. Just because you have more horsepower does not mean you get less fuel economy. Case and point- I owned a 15th anniversary 84 T/A came stock 305 and the 5 speed stick (unknown to me at the time only 736 ever made). So I throw in a 400 sb with a 6 speed stick (dyno tested at 420hp and 486 ft/lbs torque ran the 1/4 @12.34 @ 113.44mph power shifting all the way, chirped the tires going into 4th!). Anyways fuel economy, the 305 i could only muster 20 mpg with wind, lol. The 400 with an 830 Holley double pumper with a fairly lumpy cam (a .522 lift on the intake and I think .540 on the exhaust) Edelbrock performer Rpm Aluminum heads. At 65 mph in 2ble O.D. 26 mpg! Now how I got so far off topic well who cares. More power is most cases with the right gearing equals better fuel economy. Now what were we talking about again!? LOL. Thanks Tipsy, feels good to be back again. Hopefully back on the job in a months time, where regretfully I will some what fade back to the shadows  But be sure I will make the most out of these next 4 weeks or so |
|
|
|
Post by tipsymcstager on Feb 26, 2011 0:15:52 GMT -6
The 8-6-4 is logical but don't you use more fuel with less cylinders because the you need more bang to keep the "locomotive" going. O and the 8-6-4 technology was actually introduced in the 70's by Cadillac. Just because you have more horsepower does not mean you get less fuel economy. Case and point- I owned a 15th anniversary 84 T/A came stock 305 and the 5 speed stick (unknown to me at the time only 736 ever made). So I throw in a 400 sb with a 6 speed stick (dyno tested at 420hp and 486 ft/lbs torque ran the 1/4 @12.34 @ 113.44mph power shifting all the way, chirped the tires going into 4th!). Anyways fuel economy, the 305 i could only muster 20 mpg with wind, lol. The 400 with an 830 Holley double pumper with a fairly lumpy cam (a .522 lift on the intake and I think .540 on the exhaust) Edelbrock performer Rpm Aluminum heads. At 65 mph in 2ble O.D. 26 mpg! Now how I got so far off topic well who cares. More power is most cases with the right gearing equals better fuel economy. Now what were we talking about again!? LOL. Thanks Tipsy, feels good to be back again. Hopefully back on the job in a months time, where regretfully I will some what fade back to the shadows But be sure I will make the most out of these next 4 weeks or so i get what you saying, but the stock motor, making less HP and working less efficiently (rpm) to move a mass, where as the higher HP motor was working at a lower rpm (more efficient)to move the same mass? (Newton's Second Law of Motion and Galileo's concept of inertia) and we all know "torque gets you moving, HP keeps you going" so once you get to say 65mph, equals less HP needed to maintain velocity? in effect a threshold of economy. not even sure if what i just said is right..........LOL smarter people then me, on these boards may know better |
|
|
|
Post by roara on Feb 26, 2011 0:23:09 GMT -6
That sounds great, tipsyMcEinstein!  Seriously, I'm impressed.  |
|
|
|
Post by northofyou on Feb 26, 2011 3:20:08 GMT -6
What!? Am I still a whinny beotch Raora!? Geez you Americans sure stick together or should I say "stay the course" a la bush jr. and you are totally right tipsy! O s hit ( i mean s-hit not combined to mean merde en francais, lol) Newtons law- when a force meets an opposing force an opposite reaction equals an opposing reaction. Sounds like circling around the subject! So what keeps you going Tipsy? Oooooo Nooo I feel the Brain teezer thread about to re-born! Stop kicking your blower motor! and let me give you mine. My vibration of the fan turned out to be tin foil on one of the blades! Monkey see, monkey do. The speed of the vehicle in accordance to gear ratio is really relative to the vehicles ability to sustain itself. Which turns out to be HP! Hey (I'm about to turn crude, beware) So do you know the real meaning of torque is? (Roara is so gonna threaten a ban on this) when you wake up in the middle of the night with a umm a torque stick full fledged and you aim your stick towards the water your heals raise! LMAO! I so love being back! Just laugh |
|
|
|
Post by roara on Feb 26, 2011 14:56:37 GMT -6
Alright...ya ya yours was good too. You're not a whiny lil beotch anymore We are getting a bit off topic though!  |
|
|
|
Post by northofyou on Mar 1, 2011 19:15:47 GMT -6
Off topic! Tipsy did you notice anything? LOL |
|
But be sure I will make the most out of these next 4 weeks or so
Seriously, I'm impressed. 