So my friend and I were next to each other at a light the other day, and of course we had to do it for fun, and when the light turned green, we both took off. I was amazed at how far ahead he got, simply because I was in the 'bird. It had really quick acceleration, but it was a short race, so if it were longer do you think I would have won?

so if it were longer do you think I would have won?

Probably not.

I think so...well...

FWD cars naturally have short gears, thats why he kept up with you in the short run.

In the long run, I think the bigger engine/more powerful Firebird would win.

I see, it was just a surprise, because the acceleration on my car was faster than just about every other car I had driven, but it seemed like he shot ahead, then I started to keep up but then I had to turn off somewhere else.

Those malibu's are no joke! j/k but still I am surprised the 3.1L would give you any trouble.

yeah you should be able to get him in the long run...race him from a rool next time....tell us what happens...and if you lose...i will flame you....lol...just a warning... :icon16: :p

well just so happens i also have a 2000 malibu... my mustang is definatly quicker. so id imagine ur bird would be too.

Could be a power to weight thing. I'd guess that the malibu weighs a couple hundred pounds less than the firebird, yet makes almost the same hp.

Could be a power to weight thing. I'd guess that the malibu weighs a couple hundred pounds less than the firebird, yet makes almost the same hp.

I have a 2003 malibu and they all had the 3100 engine. The same engine I had in my 95 Lumina way back.

The malibu weighs in at ~3000lbs and the 3100 has 175whp 190lbstq
Doesnt the firebird have 200whp 230tq?

im pretty sure both engines make 200bhp... idk about wheel hp. my guess is though that since its a pushrod motor the the 3800 would have a little better low end.

I think so...well...

FWD cars naturally have short gears, thats why he kept up with you in the short run.

In the long run, I think the bigger engine/more powerful Firebird would win.



Hmm... lets take a looksie from Edmunds.com

Firebird 3.8L V6 200hp @ 5200, 225tq @ 4000 and 3323 lbs.
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 7.7 sec More info here (http://www.edmunds.com/used/2000/pontiac/firebird/2464/specs.html?tid=edmunds.u.prices.leftsidenav..6.Pon tiac*)

Malibu 3.1L V6 150hp @ 4800, 180tq @ 3200 and 3100 lbs.
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 9 sec More info here (http://www.edmunds.com/used/1998/chevrolet/malibu/17374/specs.html?tid=edmunds.u.prices.leftsidenav..6.Che vrolet*)

I'd say the Malibu can get it's peak power and torque down quicker, with it's steep first gear in the autobox. It'd be semi quick outta the whole.

But, I think the Firebird would pulled it fairly decently. I suspect you didn't mash out as fast as you could of thinking the 'Bu wouldn't of been so quick outta the hole.

^^ hes right, i looked on msn autos too.

Hmm... lets take a looksie from Edmunds.com

Firebird 3.8L V6 200hp @ 5200, 225tq @ 4000 and 3323 lbs.
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 7.7 sec More info here (http://www.edmunds.com/used/2000/pontiac/firebird/2464/specs.html?tid=edmunds.u.prices.leftsidenav..6.Pon tiac*)

Malibu 3.1L V6 150hp @ 4800, 180tq @ 3200 and 3100 lbs.
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 9 sec More info here (http://www.edmunds.com/used/1998/chevrolet/malibu/17374/specs.html?tid=edmunds.u.prices.leftsidenav..6.Che vrolet*)

I'd say the Malibu can get it's peak power and torque down quicker, with it's steep first gear in the autobox. It'd be semi quick outta the whole.

But, I think the Firebird would pulled it fairly decently. I suspect you didn't mash out as fast as you could of thinking the 'Bu wouldn't of been so quick outta the hole.


I was close! Wait... 150hp isnt right atleast not for the 2003
2003 Chevrolet Malibu Performance & Efficiency Standard Features
- Power: 170 HP @ 5,200 rpm; 190 ft lb , 258 Nm @ 4,000 rpm


Pretty sure Edmunds is wrong about the power output. They did offer an inline 4 with 150hp 155tq back in 98 but they still had the 170hp 3.1L as an option. Over the years they added a little torque but kept it 170hp.

Those numbers are SAE Net horsepower (Crank) figures. Not Wheel horspower.

No manufacturer rates their cars in Wheel Horsepower.


You knew that... ;)

Those numbers are SAE Net horsepower (Crank) figures. Not Wheel horspower.

No manufacturer rates their cars in Wheel Horsepower.


You knew that... ;)


yeah what was I typing that for whoops, lol

I was close! Wait... 150hp isnt right atleast not for the 2003


Pretty sure Edmunds is wrong about the power output. They did offer an inline 4 with 150hp 155tq back in 98 but they still had the 170hp 3.1L as an option. Over the years they added a little torque but kept it 170hp.

well according to msn autos the hp in 98 for the 3.1 was 150. i also looked at a 2000, since thats what i have, and it was 170. so it got upped somewhere along the way.

edit- but then again they are wrong about 01-04 v6 mustangs...

I'd say that from a dig or a roll you'd have the car, but I've run around against my friend who has a Monte Carlo 3.4 liter and I kick him down each time. I don't see why the Malibu would have beat you unless you weren't really getting into the throttle or you've got something fouled up mechanically...