why we are slow

[venom blk]

ok everbody knows Im new, but i know my suvs the tq management thing do not come on trailblazers and it would not slow us down or make us a dog off the line. honda pilots has it and it is call VTM variable tq management. one wheel slip and the power is sent to that wheel. i have four wheel drive a4wd just send power to the front wheels, not more power to the wheel that slip or where it is need to stay in control. now for months i've looked at all types of suvs, import cars, and this is what i came up with. just about all import cars are reving engines, which means power is made upstairs but they have a high gear and when i say high, i'm talking about a 4.10 up to 5. something, making them quick off the line but those are cars not suvs. the 4.2 inline 6 is a format of a torque motor all inlines makes more torque than horsepower downstairs. the 4.2 is made the same way but it is just like an import you have to rev it to get it moving in short i raced a 4.7 durango and a 5.9 rt with my gmc jimmy, it totally destroyed the 4.7 and beat the rt 1 out of 3 times. the problem is the location for the torque power band and the stall converter or what is also called a torque converter. the blazers and jimmy's have a 2100 stall converter. the trailblazer has the same stall converter. the closer the stall converter to the torque power band the shorter the flash point, which is a delay in movement. tq power band in the jimmy was @ 2800 rpm's and the trailblazer we all know is @3600 rpm's, that is a long way to go before you start feeling some power. changing gears help but putting in a new totque converter or a stall converter is easier, a 3200 torque converter would probably do the job. sorry so long but i thought it would help.

[ylab]

Actually, the Vortec 4200 does have torque management and lots of it! What you're referring to on the Acura is the AWD system's torque management to send power to the wheels that slip. (These are two totally different setups, although the 2006 models will have Stabilitrac which is similar in concept to the Acura). The torque output of the 4200 is 90% at a fairly low 1900rpm...in fact they tout the flat/wide torque band of this engine.

GM does incorporates engine and to some extend transmission torque management in many of its vehicles, which gradually reduces with speed. On our vehicles, with the throttle by wire setup, punching the throttle to the floor from a start actually only opens the throttle body about 30% and it gradually opens more as engine speed builds. At about 3500 rpm, the TQ management allows the throttle to finally begin to open nearly 100%....which is why you feel the sudden rush of power as the tach heads towards 3500rpm. (This is also the point at which the cam timing kicks in).

What you really looking for is a PCM reprogram to reduce the torque managment built into the stock firmware. Currently Wester's garage has an update for 2002 vehicles with 2003-2005 coming soon. (Not cheap at $595, but from what Lyndon indicates its very noticeable).

[tblazed]

Here's what the 4200 technical overview published by GM says about it ...

In the Vortec 4200 engine, there is no mechanical link between the accelerator pedal and the throttle. The throttle is controlled through an integrated controller within the Powertrain Control Module (PCM). The PCM directs an electric motor to open the throttle at the appropriate rate. Two independent throttle position sensors are utilized in the PCM in addition to other data such as transmission gear and traction at the wheels.

In addition to excellent throttle response and control, the Electronic Throttle Control (ETC) provides other functions including idle air control, traction control and transmission shift torque management.The PCM manages the electronic throttle, considering data such as drive-wheel slip and transmission gear. It controls throttle progression for maximum driveability and ease of operation.

[dh4645]

oh yes, now it all makes sense. :duh:

haha :rolleyes:

[Dave]

Good old drive by wire!

[tb_ky]

I hate drive by wire...There is a "lag" when you floor the accelerator on our 2005 Mustang. I am looking for a good tuner or custom tune for the mustang right now.

[venom blk]

so what do you think will clear that up i mean damn to much computer. I told my cousin it not 60's on to the early 2000. Torque converter makes since for his time. he had me with the tq converters but the whole time I was saying it has to be the computer. he feel that the computer can't control that much of a car. the 90% tq he does not feel in his wife tb at 1600 to 5750 rpm. I dont know' im lost :worried: maybe the answer is the TRAILBLAZER SS

[04TBEXT]

I think a 6-speed manual would solve all of this.......sorry, I just woke up! I feel torque management on today's vehicles is here to stay. What was done in the '60s & '70 with a variety of hand tools will have to be done today by a tuner with a laptop.
The amount of warranty monies saved by the factory for internal transmission, differential and other assorted failures is enormous. I still remember the young LS-1 Camaro owners whos' vehicle would arrive "on the hook"...a 6-speed, of course. All 6 forward gears worked, unfortunately they were all "neutral" gears. The vehicle was still under factory warranty and the owner did not know why they would have to pay. They didn't think that subframe connectors, hi-po aftermarket clutches or other assorted goodies would affect warranty coverage. The inside of the transmission looked like a car-bombing, the inside lips of the rear quarter panel wheel openings were littered with chunks of rubber, but they were just of their way to work when the transmission "exploded". GM wants their customers satisfied, but not at the cost of missed shifts.
I think this could be one of the reasons, from a repair cost standpoint, that systems of this type (torque management) exist. With a right-sized engine and an automatic transmission, just as much damage can be done..
I think GM, in all of their "corporativeness" looked at the cost of developing and installing "torque management" systems, marketing benefits, etc. vs. the cost of warranty claim payment, customer satisfaction etc and saw the feasibility.
Has anybody ever seen GM spend money on something that didn't make or save them money???

[rtay2000]

Has anybody ever seen GM spend money on something that didn't make or save them money???

Yes, they call it Fiat. :laugh:

[04TBEXT]

:rotfl: Is that one of those Italian Vegas???

[jnicklo]

No offense but if you're looking for speed, sell your Envoy/Trailblazer and buy a GTO or Mustang GT.

This is an SUV and not a race car...

:m2:

[04TBEXT]

:m2: :m2: No offense jnicklo, the last GTOs were made between 1964 & 1974 and if the name Shelby ain't apart of the word Mustang, it ain't worth talkin' about. Performance trucks and SUVs??? Do you remember the Typhoon or Syclone?...I think these trucks/SUVs had enough "stones" to embarass today's GTO or Mustang...or try a current manufacturers website...does Dodge SRT/10 or an AMG M500 ring a bell? Big ticket items, I agree, but if the customers didn't want high performance in an SUV, I don't think the manufacturers would be makin' em. Unfortunate to say, I've driven in alot of alleged high performance cars that really performed like trucks.

[jnicklo]

Thats cool man, I take no offense by your comments.

You cant compare a low 13 second 400hp (GTO 6.0L) to an Envoy or Trailblazer. And I know about the Typhoon/Cyclone platforms. High 14's in the 1/4 mile at best stock.

The market for performance SUV's is VERY VERY VERY small. (I mean, I only work for one of the biggest performance programming manufacturer's around). People understand that if you're going for a fast car you don't buy an Envoy, Explorer or what have you.

Let me ask you this...how long did the Cyclone and Typhoon last? What were their sales numbers for the extremely short lifespan they had? Hopefully that proves a point. :yes:

[04TBEXT]

:m2: :m2: :m2: Sorry jnicklo, I've scrolled up & down the threads in this post and no where (until post #11) did I find anyone comparing a high performance car to an Envoy/Trailblazer.
GTOs and high performance Mustangs (Mustangs...yes/high performance ..no) were not around during the Typhoon/Syclone era....kinda' like a caveman meeting a dinosaur. I'll tell ya though, if I was takin' out my sweetie in my new, shiny 400 hp GTO and I got in a street race (yes its dangerous and against the law) and had to fight for my life because, "I can't seem to shake that 'friggin SUV!"...I'd be embarassed!
I also like to know what the 60 foot times of an AWD Typhoon is in comparison to a tail waggin' 400hp GTO???
I wouldn't expect the truck market to be big into high performace truck parts, but they still do exist.. An SUV has more operational facets to it than any car..hands down. (I've seen some high performance parts for my SUV...ever see off-road parts for a new GTO)???
Yes, I agree if you want flat-out high performance, buy a high performance car. I don't disagree with and truck/SUV owner wanting to improve the looks, performance or handling, etc...It can be done without high performance car comparisons.
As far as...how long did the Typhoon/Syclone last?...I expect about the same time today's dismal-looking GTO will last.
P.S. GTO and Mustangs (in their street trim ) are not race cars.
P.S.S. Did own a real, low 13 second GTO in stock trim, bias-ply tires...today's technology and still 13 second street vehicles don't really impress me much.

Respectfully...04TBEXT

[venom blk]

True. In 1/4 mile tests done by Car and Driver and other mags, the Syclone would beat a Ferrari 348ts. The Syclone would also win the 0-60 battle too. The computer in the Sy limits it to 126 MPH, whereas the 348 would go 166. One such test occurred in Colorado at the Bandimere Speedway near Emich GMC. The dealership pitted the Syclone vs. the Ferrari Testarossa, with a 385-horsepower boxer 12-cylinder engine, and in two 1/4 mile test, the GMC Syclone won hands down both times. The ET was 14 seconds flat but it has to be noted that Bandimere is located at an elevationof 5,800 feet.

IReally quick. To be more specific, stock Syclones will run from 13.4 to 14.3 in the 1/4 mile, and Typhoons will run from 13.8 to 14.7, depending on the day's weather and the tuning of the vehicle. 0-60 Times for the Syclone and Typhoon vary from 5.0 to 5.5 seconds. These kind of times made the Syclone and Typhoon the fastest production trucks in the world. They handle pretty good too, pulling about .8 g on the skidpad.

is that fast for ya :eek:

[Windy City]

Not to add fuel to the fire but I traded in a mid 11 second Camaro for my Envoy Denali with every intention of eventually making the Envoy a low 12 sec ride. Why? Because I can, and because it hauls the family comfortably, can handle snow and because 11 second Camaros, TAs, Vettes and GTOs are all too common. The new Mustangs aren't far behind.

Every fall I would have to park the Camaro in the garage until spring. Then it was a solo affair since there was no way to fit my two kids and my wife comfortably. I've been there, done that and I want something different.

My Envoy Denali came with the Gen IV 5.3, a perfect setup to be swapped with a LS2 short-block, a set of AFR heads, some bolt-ons and hopefully someday a pair of turbos. The LSx motors are wonderful HP makers and can easily coax 650+ HP out of them with a little boost and the right setup, and still remain very docile and durable.

For the time being I'm banking on the TB SS to get the aftermarket's attention for our vehicles and anything that fits the TB SS should fit my Envoy. It shouldn't be hard to get 13's with a few bolt-ons and some tuning.

One last thing, I remember seeing a video a couple years back of a stock appearing Explorer that ran 10's. You had to see the video to believe it and it was amazing but also proved it can be done.

[TBOnDubs]

Not to butt in either but, if you want a fast SUV there's no logical reason to trade it in for a car, then you'd never have a fast SUV. However, I like when people disagree because it's educational.

P.S. "P.S." stands for Post Script so I think your P.S.S. should really be a P.P.S
P.P.S. that was meant to be funny and not smart-a$$ish :x

[kickasstahoe]

the Typhoon was the fastest production suv ever made even to this day. they stoped making them cause they were too fast for the road. mf friend is big into these. he could tell you everything about them.

[SATBLS]

I think the Porsche Cayenne may have recently taken the Typhoon''s title. According to manufacturer data the Typhoon has a 0-60 time of 5.2 seconds and a quarter mile time of 14.1 seconds @ 100. The Cayenne has advertised numbers of 5.4 and 13.7 @ 103 respectively. Granted, the Typhoon was easy to modify and could almost effortlessly be transformed into a 12 second monster, but comparing stock to stock the Cayenne holds a slight edge. Of course, you have to pay almost $100K to edge out the Typhoon that sold for a quarter of the money over a decade ago.

[Trailblazin]

I guess it's up to what the driver of these SUVs here want. I mean there are ppl here with Lift Kits, there are ppl here with drop kits and there are even ppl here who like to keep their TB/Envoy stone cold stock.

In my :m2: opinion, I know ppl always want more then what they have. I mean when I first got my TB I was pleased to bits, acceleration was good for an SUV (Motor Trend - 0-60mph = 7.7). But after a while I got bored with the same rev limiting, same acceleration and same everything. As humans we are never pleased, we always want something better and better. So why not upgrade what we have already???

Im sure if we keep improving on our rides, in speed or practicality, we will be pleased with them for the entire ownership...until I feel its time to sell my TB (which may be soon after my dumb ass accident) I will definately be impoving performance and looks. :)