how fast are jetfire??
July 24th, 2010, 10:24 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 555
how fast are jetfire??
hi every1 ive been googlin jetfires for around a hour, i think the turbo on a classic is neat!!! how fast are they tho?? ive owned 4 nationals so i know a v6 turbo can be very fast im just curious how fast a jet fire was than and now???? was it just for freeway passn when the turbo spooled up or did it have major exceleration top and bottom like a national??
July 25th, 2010, 07:31 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Charleston, West Virginia
Posts: 1,190
I doubt the early '60's vintage turbo will perform like the turbo on a GN.
Also, we're only talking 215 cubic inches.
The novelty would be great and I'd love to own one, but performance wise,
I'd say no comparison to a GN.
In '87, GN was fastest U.S. production car, faster than a 'vette.
Also, we're only talking 215 cubic inches.
The novelty would be great and I'd love to own one, but performance wise,
I'd say no comparison to a GN.
In '87, GN was fastest U.S. production car, faster than a 'vette.
Last edited by 67442nut; July 25th, 2010 at 07:35 PM.
July 26th, 2010, 02:10 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Brazil Indiana
Posts: 11,535
I doubt the early '60's vintage turbo will perform like the turbo on a GN.
Also, we're only talking 215 cubic inches.
The novelty would be great and I'd love to own one, but performance wise,
I'd say no comparison to a GN.
In '87, GN was fastest U.S. production car, faster than a 'vette.
Also, we're only talking 215 cubic inches.
The novelty would be great and I'd love to own one, but performance wise,
I'd say no comparison to a GN.
In '87, GN was fastest U.S. production car, faster than a 'vette.
July 26th, 2010, 02:29 AM
#5
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 555
the GNX wasnt a production car it was special order they only made around 550 or so, the regular grand national was a production car and up untill like 95-99 it was said 2 be the fastest production car made, viper or vette passed it than, a stock grand national with just a walbro 340 fuel pump, up graded injectors, and 3 inch down pipe will run mid-high11's, ive owned 4 grand nationals 3 pretty much stock 1 that was kinda built it ran 10s on stock tires 342 rear gears and it still had major top end!!! i still love grand nationals but there 2 hard 2 keep up!!! im stickn with 68-72 olds!!
July 26th, 2010, 04:13 AM
#7
Trying to remember member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,112
The Jetfire turbo was about "state of the art" engineering, not hot-rodding an engine. It was never intended to make a fast car out out of the Jetfire. It was intended to further new technology. And it did show how forward thinking Olds engineering was.
July 26th, 2010, 05:03 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sebago, Maine
Posts: 875
the GNX wasnt a production car it was special order they only made around 550 or so, the regular grand national was a production car and up untill like 95-99 it was said 2 be the fastest production car made, viper or vette passed it than, a stock grand national with just a walbro 340 fuel pump, up graded injectors, and 3 inch down pipe will run mid-high11's, ive owned 4 grand nationals 3 pretty much stock 1 that was kinda built it ran 10s on stock tires 342 rear gears and it still had major top end!!! i still love grand nationals but there 2 hard 2 keep up!!! im stickn with 68-72 olds!!
July 26th, 2010, 12:10 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Brazil Indiana
Posts: 11,535
the GNX wasnt a production car it was special order they only made around 550 or so, the regular grand national was a production car and up untill like 95-99 it was said 2 be the fastest production car made, viper or vette passed it than, a stock grand national with just a walbro 340 fuel pump, up graded injectors, and 3 inch down pipe will run mid-high11's, ive owned 4 grand nationals 3 pretty much stock 1 that was kinda built it ran 10s on stock tires 342 rear gears and it still had major top end!!! i still love grand nationals but there 2 hard 2 keep up!!! im stickn with 68-72 olds!!
July 26th, 2010, 04:34 PM
#11
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 555
jensenracing77 i dont know why but GN's fall out of tune slowly threw the month!! if your air, fuel, timing are not adjusted they stop running hard and you chance detonating!!! you cant ever run them low on gas or you chance detonating, ive blew a head gasket out the block tring 2 get 2 the gas station on the free way!! they are very fun 2 drive when tuned but very hard 2 keep up!!!!!! you have 2 know all the tricks 2 own 1!!! cold plugs, cold thermstat, high octane gas, regular computer adjust, tcb adjusted smooth, and many many more WAY 2 MUCH WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i dont remember the last time i gave my sx a une up and it still runs hard!!!!
July 26th, 2010, 11:35 PM
#12
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 2,212
Mickey Thompson didn't think so.
How muich boost would you use with a 10.25:1 compression ratio? At 3-4 PSI, it needed a water/alcohol mix to run reliably on the pump gas of the day.
The technology showcase and its "one HP per cubic inch" advertising, was intended to lure buyers away from the "entry level" brands.
Norm
How muich boost would you use with a 10.25:1 compression ratio? At 3-4 PSI, it needed a water/alcohol mix to run reliably on the pump gas of the day.
The technology showcase and its "one HP per cubic inch" advertising, was intended to lure buyers away from the "entry level" brands.
Norm
July 27th, 2010, 09:26 AM
#13
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 48,218
The fundamental problem with the Jetfire is Oldsmobile's misguided attempt to overcome boost lag by running 10.25:1 compression on a turbo motor. 
Even with the fluid injection, the turbo was limited to 5 psi of boost. Modern turbo cars run lower compression and much more boost, which has been proven to be a much more effective solution. As for strength of the 215, as Norm points out, that's not an issue. Even better, the late Rover versions of that block have cross-bolted mains. I have one of those blocks (in 4.6 liter displacement) winging it's way to me right now.
Even with the fluid injection, the turbo was limited to 5 psi of boost. Modern turbo cars run lower compression and much more boost, which has been proven to be a much more effective solution. As for strength of the 215, as Norm points out, that's not an issue. Even better, the late Rover versions of that block have cross-bolted mains. I have one of those blocks (in 4.6 liter displacement) winging it's way to me right now.
July 27th, 2010, 01:09 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: new zealand
Posts: 537
The fundamental problem with the Jetfire is Oldsmobile's misguided attempt to overcome boost lag by running 10.25:1 compression on a turbo motor.
Even with the fluid injection, the turbo was limited to 5 psi of boost. Modern turbo cars run lower compression and much more boost, which has been proven to be a much more effective solution. As for strength of the 215, as Norm points out, that's not an issue. Even better, the late Rover versions of that block have cross-bolted mains. I have one of those blocks (in 4.6 liter displacement) winging it's way to me right now.
Even with the fluid injection, the turbo was limited to 5 psi of boost. Modern turbo cars run lower compression and much more boost, which has been proven to be a much more effective solution. As for strength of the 215, as Norm points out, that's not an issue. Even better, the late Rover versions of that block have cross-bolted mains. I have one of those blocks (in 4.6 liter displacement) winging it's way to me right now.
mike
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
nomoolds4me
Cars For Sale
7
November 9th, 2007 06:44 AM
