<VV> Towing with 95s

[Tony Underwood]

At 03:48 hours 03/04/2005, BobHelt at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 3/4/05 4:03:37 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
>vairologist at juno.com writes:
>
> > I
> > know I said at one time I wouldn't trade a 95 for all the 110s in the
> > country.  But we evolve.
> >
>
>Gosh, I sure hope so (ggg), because the 110 is so superior to the 95 that
>there was hardly any reason for the 95, except as a low cost leader for
>Chevrolet. Sure the 110 takes premium gas, but it also delivers premium 
>performance
>too.


Now, folks can preach the virtues of the 110 for as long as they like.

But in the real world, the 95 still pulls better in the lower rpm range 
than the 110 and that's a seat of the pants fact.   Gentlemen, I've done 
this sort of thing for a few years and I know about GM's hp plots and I 
also know that they're not quite what they're cracked up to 
be.    Aftermarket dyno pulls do NOT show the same data as GM's postings.


And, there's my hill to consider.

That 95 hp engine in the '67 coupe will *still* pull the hill harder than 
either the 110s or the 140s in the fleet.   The 95 PG that was in the black 
'65 also pulled it harder.   So did the 95 in Mr Frye's '66 4-door that I 
gave the same test to, as has just about every other 95 that I've run up 
that hill.

Then there's my buddy Bill's coupe with the 95 that would beat my 140 out 
of the hole every time and I'd have to flog the Corsa to catch him in 2nd 
gear (eventually).   Both cars had 4-speeds and 3.55 axles so that variable 
was moot.

The cars get driven all the time... and I do have a fairly educated ass 
here and I CAN feel the difference in seat of the pants driving.



>Just look at the two torque curves: Only under 1600 rpm ( about 32 mph in
>high gear) does the 95 have more torque than the 110, and then it's only 
>about 4
>lb-ft at 1200 rpm (an idle speed for a race car). Who drives under 32 mph
>anyhow except thru a school zone?



...you don't drive in downtown traffic in rush hour?  Hell, HALF my workday 
commute is in 25 mph speed zones.  Sometimes it's pretty slow... that broad 
torque curve eliminates the need to go rowing through the gears without 
shuddering in slow traffic.    The 95 is smooth and responsive at low rpm 
while the 110 feels twitchy and jerky particularly when lugging it in 3rd 
gear in traffic.   No need to downshift the 95; it just pulls out.

I've towed with both a 95 Vair and a 140 Vair.   Put an extra 800-1000 lbs 
worth of trailer behind the car and *see* which engine feels better in 
traffic.




>Above 1600 rpm, the 110 really takes off and peaks at 2800 rpm (now we're
>talking a decent driving speed!) at about 3 lb-ft higher than the old 
>95.  After
>that it's all down hill. The 95 runs out of breath while the 110 is strong to
>4800 revs. This data comes courtesy of Chevrolet, BTW.
>Regards,
>Bob Helt



...so did the 140 hp engine plottings, which are not correct according to 
aftermarket dyno pulls on various engines.   Likewise GM's 18 lbs of tire 
pressure and rubber tube seals...  GM didn't do everything right, and some 
of their HP/torque figures reflect this.    There was even something in a 
Communique article (IIRC) about how a 140 engine only managed ~120 dyno'ed 
hp in real world figures...  which means GM fudged 20 hp out of it.   This 
was some years ago (anybody recall?).

And SOMETHING isn't right here because the 95 hp engine behaves too 
differently from the 110 to be "such a weakling" according to all those 
"official" specs.

Now:  If the 95 is such an "inferior" engine, why the Hell was it built in 
the first place?   And why do so many people I know like it for pulling 
stuff?


You guys do as you will...  but if I stuff another engine in that Lakewood 
it's gonna be a 95 hp variant because of what I know.   Combined with a PG 
and 3.55 gears it *will* pull better from a standing start than a 
110.    Mild cam timing does this, which is why you usually saw those low 
hp engines in most FCs and Lakewoods.


By the way...  that ~1600 "half-throttle" rpm stall speed of a Vair PG is 
right where the 95 has its torque advantage and that lower rpm torque 
continues up through 3000 rpm, just right for accelerating in and out of 
traffic on the main throughfares... and for pulling a load behind it... and 
it does it while burning regular gas.

I'm not downing the 110 for its extra 15 hp (if indeed it actually makes 
that much more) but I *will* mention that not everybody is interested in 
high rpm horsepower for a daily driver.    And a 95 hp engine with 3.55 
gears will easily maintain 80 mph for an hour at a time without any 
argument at all and still  feel like it has passing power.

Works for me.



tony..