A/C vs NO A/C

[dust1987s10]

Do you gain any hr power taking out the A/c and put in a bypass pulley?
My compresser is shot and I don't getting anything cold from it?

[87wildside]

No gains unless you compare A/c on to off. You will save about 50-75 pounds deleting it. I for one will say keep it. You can save the weight in other places if that's a concern.

[hero dave]

keep it.... might want it later in summer. plus your not gaining anythin unless you are using it. except weight, not other gains.

[dust1987s10]

ok I was just looking for over all performance I know there aren't a lot of upgrades for the 2.5 and I wanna keep it running as long as possible
JUst wish it had a little more up and go, you know what I mean.

[87wildside]

2.5 is a great motor....I've had two and besides the EFI BS with them they are great engines. Hell, to bad you have any 87...I scraped all my 87 parts, all I have left is the 86 junk and they changed everything in 87.

Check the top right of the screen, click notifications. After the message click on my name to respond.

[csl2006]

eh when i had my 2.5 if i had the a/c or heater on goin up hills i had to kick her off to make it keep its speed up especially in the winter :|

[hero dave]

well what do you expect from a 2.5.... it's HALF of a 350!

[Cameo_S10]

well what do you expect from a 2.5.... it's HALF of a 350!

Less than half...LOL:D

[Nickelin'Dimer]

Iron-Duke: 4.00"-bore, 3.00"-stroke. 90hp...net. Not terribly torquey. Is it any wonder it was surplanted by the LN2 in '94?

Anyways, the GM Performance catalog had a multitude of parts for the Duke. Even a 4-bbl manifold & aluminum head. It's in the Pontiac section.

[87wildside]

Iron-Duke: 4.00"-bore, 3.00"-stroke. 90hp...net. Not terribly torquey. Is it any wonder it was surplanted by the LN2 in '94?

My 2.5 would beat the piss out of a 2.2. With the 4.11 rear it would take 4.3 trucks from a dig through first. After that it was over for me...:D

[Nickelin'Dimer]

I should also mention that the Duke was long in the tooth at the time, and they didn't see it paying to add MPI since the LN2 already had it. Kinda odd since the they shared the same design DIS... Trigger-wheel & all... from '88 until then.

And FTR: The LN2 produced 120net.hp. & more torque.

[87wildside]

And FTR: The LN2 produced 120net.hp. & more torque.Guess it was the weight or gearing of the second gens

[Jongo88]

My 2.2 was a dog

[Nickelin'Dimer]

All depends on how you drive it... And what you were weened upon.

And yes, gearing is a matter. My friend had a '98 equipt the same as my '94 (LN2/Auto) except his had a 3.42 FDR in it (Don't ask me why). One day we decided to have a lil' street-drag. Now, he had told me about how he learned that if you give it only 2/3's throttle upon launch release, it'll accelerate better than if you just mashed it to the floor. I applied that before this moment & found it to be true.

Now, I had just gotten my truck back from the engine rebuilder (Damn lifters got contaminated with metal frags left in the pan from the old timing set (Stupid wrench that worked on the truck before I got it's to blame for that) that the oiling system picked-up) and we were eager to see how well it ran. So... We staged-up, counted down to one & left. Out of the hole I was pullin' slightly (He noticed) on him before I even hit 2nd. And as soon as I did, the '94 jumped forward & just walked-away.

And seeing how I've had a Duke'd '85 w/auto in fleet-trim, with stock 3.73 FDR, and it never pulled this^ well, then yeah... I'd say it's the gears.

[ZR1-S10]

Speaking of removing the A/C, anybody got any ideas on how to run a A/C Delete Kit WITH a Wynjammer?