i am suppose to race my buddies 92 2.2L prelude this weekend? they are both stick and both stock except for the exhaust i was wondering who would most likely win?

 

Race him and find out.

And you didn't say who has the exhaust.

 

stock for stockthe prelude will win if he can drive early gen preludes from anywhere from low 15's to low 16's. l32 camaro's run mid 16- low 17's stock preludes back then had 195 hp stock at the crank as the camaro is pushin 160 crank hp.

 

Indeed, the 3.4 is a dog, simple as that.
It's a shame GM ever used that sorry engine in the 4th gen and apart from it's decent low end torque with a manual box in the low gears it's nothing special in any department.

I'll be relieved this summer and i won't miss it.

 

I was told that they put the 3.4 in with so little hp becuase of insurance companys raising H*LL. it makes since i guess. Since the 80s were big with the whole smog issue and everything.

 

There were falf a dozen alternatives in the V6 engine section from GM, yet they choose an old retarded engine probably for $$$$ issues.
It's simply a bored and stroked 2.8 V6 found in older cars. A stroked version of that 2.8 was found in the fiero or 3rd gen Fbody V6 and they simply bored it a bit for those extra 30 (or so) ponies.
Due to it's bored and stroked nature the engine is pretty maxed out and therefore NOT ideal for any kind of tuning.
Sure, forced induction has been done by enthousiasts but it requires serious internal work and this comes at a serious price.

In it's defense i CAN say that it has been a very reliable engine with decent fuel economy.
I however HAVE learned from my mistake and I now will ALWAYS buy the premium engine in any car and save up to save $$$$ in the end.
This LT1 swap is costing me tons more than the extra $3000 it would have cost me back in 1995 if i had bought the Z28 instead of the 3.4 .......

Live and learn ...

 

but you will save it in insurance. its still a v6 to them !!

 

Nah, the difference in insurance is never gonna make up for the extra costs i made wanting to do it right.
Granted that i am 34 and years of damage accident free driving so that makes up for it.

 

I will say no more...

 

wrong about 195HP. the 1992 2.2 prelude pushed out 135HP at the fly it was a Inline 4 engine. the 1992 2.4 prelude pushed out 160HP at the fly. close race even with 160HP vs 135HP becuz of the prelude being so light. i would take the camaro tho.

read about it here ...

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/ov...d=1312&src=vip

 

If you knew the 3.4 was that slow and ****ty,why did you get it in the forst place

 

Well, first of all i couldn't afford the Z at that time, besides when you test drive it it does impress as the downlow grunt isn't that bad.
After some months it starts to get old really quick and i knew the 3.4 wasn't gonna keep me happy for long.

Don't see it as bashing on the 3.4 itself, it's a nice engine but not for a 4th gen Fbody with it's weight and appearances.
I have yet to find somebody who is actually happy with it in his/her Fbody.

 

Said to say but the prelude will smoke you if he has the V-TEC which came stock with most. Nothing like an extra set of valves to open up at a pre-set RPM to kick it in the rear. I used to work on a Honda car lot...man i miss abusing those cars!

 

im happy with my 3.4

 

Maybe true that the 3.4L camaro is slow but in my opinion it is better than any rice grinder out there! rather tow a chevy than drive a honda!