1st gen 3.5 vs 2nd gen 3.2 - DodgeIntrepid.Net Forums - Dodge Intrepid, Concorde, 300m and Eagle Vision chat
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 11 (permalink) Old 01-15-2009, 10:58 AM Thread Starter
Intrepid Pro
 
jfsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,177
Feedback: 0 / 0%
                     
1st gen 3.5 vs 2nd gen 3.2

Quote:
Originally Posted by FollowingNFront View Post
Sorry, but I just dont see a 1st gen 3.5 beating a second gen 3.2 without the 1st gen having been modded. And the 1st gen 3.3 will think it was going backwards against a 3.2. My 3.2 is quick and I cant see a 1st gen beating it! I do 0-60 in 8 seconds flat and I have an intermittent cyl 4 mis!!!!! Imagine a 3.2 in tip top shape!


Normally I don't get into these. Which is faster debates but FollowingNFront says he "just can't see it".

I just can see anything either but I've raced my buds 3.2L ES about 10 times and they were so close you can't tell which one is faster. In the car my 3.5 is torquier but spins the tires the first few feet. The 3.2 feels like it has more top end but when the cars are side by side it's a whole different storey. Dead even.

At the track I'm pretty confident the hook up is what let me beat him by 2 tenths of a second. I'd pull out about a fender length and hold it all the way down the track. His time ticket shown him as 1 mph faster but looking out the side window during a drag race this is something you will not see. Visually it's the same storey. Side by side and timers by the hundredth and mph's by the decimal place separate the 2 cars.

I started this thread to keep from cluttering the Street stories kill list thread.

69 Super Bee (under construction)
65 Belvedere 225
87 Ram D150 5.9L, 5 spd
94 LHS 3.5L
93 Mustang LX 5.0L, 5 spd
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/754650/1
jfsram is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 11 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 12:40 PM
Intrepid Pro
 
Xpid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Springfield,Missorui
Posts: 1,806
Feedback: 1 / 100%
                     
I dunno what i do 0-60 but i know i ran a 16.1 at the track with a pretty much stock car...

Clayton
Xpid is offline  
post #3 of 11 (permalink) Old 01-21-2009, 06:21 PM
Intrepid Newbie
 
Rigormortor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vine Grove, Kentucky
Posts: 63
Feedback: 0 / 0%
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xpid View Post
I dunno what i do 0-60 but i know i ran a 16.1 at the track with a pretty much stock car...

Clayton
Shoot my Intrepid ES has way too many miles to go racing, I just turned past 278,000.... if someone wants to race I have my Big Block Mopar for that....
but I like to cruise, not race......
Rigormortor is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 11 (permalink) Old 01-23-2009, 08:37 PM
Intrepid Fan
 
93'TrepFTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 232
Feedback: 0 / 0%
                     
The first gen 3.5 has a much stronger and wider TQ band than the second gen motors, which helps it out alot.
93'TrepFTW is offline  
post #5 of 11 (permalink) Old 01-23-2009, 10:13 PM
Intrepid Newbie
 
Rigormortor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vine Grove, Kentucky
Posts: 63
Feedback: 0 / 0%
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 93'TrepFTW View Post
The first gen 3.5 has a much stronger and wider TQ band than the second gen motors, which helps it out alot.
Thats weird when the first gen 3.5 had 20 foot pounds of torque less than the second gen 3.5..... so the second gen is stronger than the first gen 3.5

19941997 214 hp (160 kW) 221 ftlbf (300 Nm)
2002-2004 (Standard Output) 234 hp (174 kW) 241 ftlbf (327 Nm)
1999 (High Output) 255 hp (190 kW) 250 ftlbf
Rigormortor is offline  
post #6 of 11 (permalink) Old 01-24-2009, 12:38 AM
Intrepid Modder
 
FollowingNFront's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 786
Feedback: 1 / 100%
                     
Hey JS... Inform me next time man, I just now noticed this thread


Quote:
Originally Posted by 93'TrepFTW View Post
The first gen 3.5 has a much stronger and wider TQ band than the second gen motors, which helps it out alot.

1st gen 3.5 liter= 214hp @ 5850rpm, 221 lbs ft. @ 3100
3.2 liter= 225hp @ 6300rpm, 225 lbs ft. @ 3800rpm


Less horsepower and less torque... Only kicks at 450 and 700rpm sooner than a 3.2...

According to NewCarTestDrive.com, "Impressively, the 1998 Intrepid is no heavier than the previous model, a benefit of its increased use of strong, lightweight aluminum."

And according to TheAutoChannel.com, the 97' ES weighed 3507lbs... 98' ES 3479lbs, also according to TheAutoChannel.com...

So a car with less horsepower, less torque, and equal (benefit of the doubt here because according to the autochannel, the 98 is about 28lbs lighter) weight, than another is neck and neck with it to the point that you cant tell who is winning?

They may be close in a race (and I even said that in the last thread) but I still think even if it is by a fender, the stronger engine will win.

I mean in PERFECT conditions: Warm day out, sticky pavement, sticky tires, fresh tune-ups and oil changes, both cars with the same amount of miles (low), same gas, and equal drivers, based on specs, the 3.2 will win!

I am not calling JS a liar, I am saying that maybe whenever he raced his buddy, the odds were tipped in his favor by some small factor. Or I could be wrong... As I have never raced both cars against each other... But I am just stating what the specs tell me!

Last edited by FollowingNFront; 01-24-2009 at 12:49 AM.
FollowingNFront is offline  
post #7 of 11 (permalink) Old 01-25-2009, 06:38 PM
Intrepid Fan
 
93'TrepFTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 232
Feedback: 0 / 0%
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigormortor View Post
Thats weird when the first gen 3.5 had 20 foot pounds of torque less than the second gen 3.5..... so the second gen is stronger than the first gen 3.5

19941997 214 hp (160 kW) 221 ftlbf (300 Nm)
2002-2004 (Standard Output) 234 hp (174 kW) 241 ftlbf (327 Nm)
1999 (High Output) 255 hp (190 kW) 250 ftlbf

O I said it wrong, I meant how the power band looks. I read that there is more TQ there bottom end on the first gen than the second gen.

Just like how the 3.3 TQ band is just a smooth broad curve, not a stair case towards the high end like alot of motors.
93'TrepFTW is offline  
post #8 of 11 (permalink) Old 01-25-2009, 10:38 PM
Intrepid Newbie
 
Rigormortor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vine Grove, Kentucky
Posts: 63
Feedback: 0 / 0%
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 93'TrepFTW View Post
O I said it wrong, I meant how the power band looks. I read that there is more TQ there bottom end on the first gen than the second gen.

Just like how the 3.3 TQ band is just a smooth broad curve, not a stair case towards the high end like alot of motors.
Oh I see, the torque range is wider.... thats cool.... well IMO the 2 engines are too close to say which one is more powerul, cant argue .3 of a litre....
Rigormortor is offline  
post #9 of 11 (permalink) Old 01-25-2009, 10:45 PM
Intrepid Modder
 
FollowingNFront's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 786
Feedback: 1 / 100%
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigormortor View Post
Oh I see, the torque range is wider.... thats cool.... well IMO the 2 engines are too close to say which one is more powerul, cant argue .3 of a litre....
.3 of a liter doesnt have anything whatsoever to do with power... Just like you said, the first gen 3.5 put out 214hp, the 2nd gen 3.5 put out 250hp... Same exact engine size, 2 different engines!

I still stand by what the specs say, that is that the 3.2 comes out on top, albeit even if it may be by a hair.
FollowingNFront is offline  
post #10 of 11 (permalink) Old 01-25-2009, 11:57 PM
Intrepid Fan
 
93'TrepFTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 232
Feedback: 0 / 0%
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by FollowingNFront View Post
.3 of a liter doesnt have anything whatsoever to do with power... Just like you said, the first gen 3.5 put out 214hp, the 2nd gen 3.5 put out 250hp... Same exact engine size, 2 different engines!

I still stand by what the specs say, that is that the 3.2 comes out on top, albeit even if it may be by a hair.
Hey, it's true.


But having dual Thottle bodies is cooler!!!
93'TrepFTW is offline  
post #11 of 11 (permalink) Old 01-26-2009, 12:01 AM
Intrepid Modder
 
FollowingNFront's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 786
Feedback: 1 / 100%
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by 93'TrepFTW View Post
Hey, it's true.


But having dual Thottle bodies is cooler!!!
First gens have dual throttle bodies?
FollowingNFront is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DodgeIntrepid.Net Forums - Dodge Intrepid, Concorde, 300m and Eagle Vision chat forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Member names may only be composed of alpha-numeric characters. (A-Z and 0-9)

!!ATTENTION ADVERTISERS!! If you intend on advertising anything on this forum, whatsoever, you are required to first contact us here . Additionaly, we do NOT allow BUSINESS NAMES unless you are an Authorized Vendor. If you own a business, and want to do sales on this site via posting or private message, you will need to follow the rules. Shops, Stores, Distributors, Group Buys without being authorized will see your account terminated.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome