DodgeIntrepid.Net Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
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.... :drool:
but I like to cruise, not race......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
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

1994–1997 214 hp (160 kW) 221 ft·lbf (300 N·m)
2002-2004 (Standard Output) 234 hp (174 kW) 241 ft·lbf (327 N·m)
1999– (High Output) 255 hp (190 kW) 250 ft·lbf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
786 Posts
Hey JS... Inform me next time man, I just now noticed this thread


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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
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

1994–1997 214 hp (160 kW) 221 ft·lbf (300 N·m)
2002-2004 (Standard Output) 234 hp (174 kW) 241 ft·lbf (327 N·m)
1999– (High Output) 255 hp (190 kW) 250 ft·lbf

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
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....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
786 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
.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!!!:biggrin:
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top