Originally posted by APT:
92-93 V6 option was a 3.3L. www.edmunds.com
u
After reading a cople of the messages, I wonder why you people even bothered replying. There is a lot of ignorance that it just isn't worth the effort in trying to get your point saccross as they will never understand some of the strengths the Contour has. There is also a lot of ignorance about Grand Ams so if you don't know, shut up and save the CEG face. You'll make us all look like asses. The Gramd AM (99+) has a place in the market, but it's a vastly different car from the Contour. Before you all say they are slow and suck, theu have automatics (consistancy) and a lot of torque. They run mid-high 15's at the track, same as non-SVT sticks with good launches. Be carefull of those older Grand Ams too. I had a '92 with a stick which was pretty quick, and I autocrossed it a lot. The car wasn't too bad for the amount of abuse I put it through.Aaron,
I do agree that the older GrandAm's weren't horrible cars. I do believe in '92 you could get them with the Quad4 and a stick. I don't recall which level of tune they came with, but somewhere at 180HP and above (upto 195HP) out of 2.3L, with early 90's technology, and yes, natrually aspirated. (FWIW, I had a 1990 Beretta GTZ with the 180HP Quad-4 and it ran 140+ MPH [calculated based on tach and ratios] on the German Autobahn.)
But the earlier GA's were a lot lighter cars than they are now.
Let me post this now, and I'll come back and fill in the details. Edmunds.com is slow to respond.
1992 GrandAM GT
http://www.edmunds.com/used/1992/pontiac/grandam/2drgtcoupe/specs.html?id=lin0066 2001 GrandAM GT
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2001/pontiac/grandam/2drgtcoupe/specs.html?id=lin0066 The 2001 has put on weight, and lost HP, but has more torque which
most 'mericans like.
TB
