Actual (vs advertised) HP of a completely stock '87 TB

[Johnnie]

Has anyone ever dyno'd a bone stock '87 TB? I know it's advertised as 245 hp, but it sure runs like a heluva lot more. I want to get the facts before I put the numbers on my info sheet for this season's car shows.
My '66 SS 396 Chevelle had approximately 375 hp when I finished the motor build and I am almost positive my GN is quicker in the quarter.... At least it sure as hell feels that way to me.

 

[fast86gn]

This has been several years ago... we had a bone stock 87GN on the dyno and I think it pulled right around 260 RWHP. So about 300 or so at the crank? It had a K&N filter but in stock configuration and a Red Armstrong chip. Don't have any info on the chip?

 

[ScottHeidinger]

I think a lot of people overlook the torque these cars have. I think factory rated around 350 and that was probably under rated also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mikestertwo]

I dyno'd mine years ago with 140K on the clock and it came in at 246hp at the rear wheels. All stock including BBKJ chip.

 

[fast86gn]

TQ was 345 I believe. Probably more than Johnnie's Chevelle?

 

[1986 Buick GX1]

Back when Kenne bell and ATR first started selling performance parts for the '86, '87 TR's their baseline was 265 hp even though the '86 was rated at 235 hp / 335 torque and the '87 was rated at 245 hp / 345 torque.
I can only think this was at the crank. They never said what the torque was.

 

[dynoman]

My GN in 1986 with only a HyperTech chip ran 13.8 in the 1/4 . The Wallace Racing calculator put it at 270.74 hp for a 3600 lb car & driver and I know it had to be heavier than that because it was a fully optioned moon roof car and I WAS 165 lbs back then .

 

[Chuck Leeper]

I watched Jim Ruggles do dyno tests on out of the crate, 87 engines. 290FW.
Jim was a stickler for "details/accuracy". He had 2 dynos. one for the v8 engines, one for the, as he said. vibrator 6's.

 

[Johnnie]

Thank you guys for your responses. I gues my "seat of the pants " dyno' is pretty accurate as I always thought it was closer to 300 Hp at the crank.
BTW, my chevelle was a 396 360hp from the factory with torque around 350 or so. I just rebuilt it and added an L-88 cam, roller rockers and a 780 Holley. Best ET was only a 13.89 , and like I said before, I am almost positive my GN would hold its own against it or even beat it .... And get almost 3x the gas mileage too. Can't beat that.

 

[Ttype6]

The turbo Buicks accelerate so well for the same reason the stage 1 Buicks did in 1970. Torque. It comes on early and sticks around for a while. They both have a flat torque curve. Of course,the power curve is also very flat.

 

[Mr.Spool]

Has anyone ever dyno'd a bone stock '87 TB? I know it's advertised as 245 hp, but it sure runs like a heluva lot more. I want to get the facts before I put the numbers on my info sheet for this season's car shows.
My '66 SS 396 Chevelle had approximately 375 hp when I finished the motor build and I am almost positive my GN is quicker in the quarter.... At least it sure as hell feels that way to me.

The gn will be quicker without wheel spin due to the torque and gearing.they are acceleration cars that were great through the 1/8mile until they layed down up top because they had almost 100 horsepower less than the actual torque number.horsepower was in the mid 200s torque was in the mid 300s.