Why are GN's so quick?

[dgreen1069]

Why is it that todays vehicles with 425hp (GTO, Charger SRT8) are not any quicker than even stock Grand Nationals? I know GN's were quick for there time, but they seem to still be at the top of the heap with the best anyone has to offer today? What makes our cars so quick from a standing stop?

 

[Royal-T-Ltd]

TORQUE...... but there are alot of cars that can beat gns off the line... unless you brake torque, alot of newer performance cars have the potential to whoop a stock GN/ T type from a stop and in the quarter. It also depends on who's driving the cars.

 

[dgreen1069]

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand that plenty of vehicles can run circles around a stock GN. What I'm asking is how does a stock GN keep up with brand new cars that have 100-180hp and 50-75lb-ft. torque advantages. Obviously the GN has to power brake to keep up, but even that doesn't explain it. Are high 13sec. GN's (stock) the norm or the exception? Is 0-60 in 5 sec. the norm or the exception?

 

[72firebird]

I think a big part of it is you're comparing rwhp rwtq on the GN vs Flywheel hp and tq from the newer cars. Most newer cars are only about 300 rwhp (as an estimate for 04 GTO, 05 GTO would take a stock GN which would be your 425 hp). So you probably have like a 30 rwhp difference and probably no rwtq difference since the LS1 is about 300 rwtq. Another thing I could think of as a reason is with a turbo car you typically have a steep increase in power and then it levels out for a little while once you recieve full boost. On an NA motor you have more of a gradual climb to the peak throughout the whole rpm band.

 

[GNVYUS 1]

Most stock GN's were low 14 second cars, only the GNX could pull off high 13 consistantly.

Rumor has it that GM had to sandbag the HP numbers on the GN to keep the corvette crew happy. Makes sense as there has yet to be a car advertised by GM with more HP than the Vette. Most say the GN was close to 300hp and with 355 TQ, and the torque curve is fat from 2200 rpm on unlike most NA cars.

 

[RobsIron]

I know I'm a little late, but as soon as I read your thread I immediately thought Torque.

Royal beat me to it.

These cars are TORQUE MONSTERS!

 

[NJVetteGuy]

Don't forget that some guys have had almost 20 years to figure out exactly how to launch their TRs, tune them and make sure that they put every ounce of power to the ground. My bone stock/stock tire '04 GTO A4 went 13.59@101.88 with a 1.98 60', so the times on newer cars are very dependent on driver. It's not just our beloved Buick torque, LS1s lay down more torque than HP stock. My stock GTO dyno was 308 RWHP and 328 RWTQ. I still love the fact that it took the automakers so long to put out cars that will run with a stock TR

 

[RobsIron]

What makes TRs so great is that it takes 2005 LS2 technology to even start a comparision to a little 80s V6.

I LUV IT.

 

[bishir]

Almost any forced induction vehicle is going to be making lots of torque. That and the quickly rising and flat power curve of a turbo vehicle. Those were mentioned, but what was not mentioned is weight... My GN is around 3400lbs which might seem heavy, but even Mustangs now outweigh that. Factor in the GTO's weight and I'd guess it's around 3800lbs. That's .4 in the 1/4.

 

[72firebird]

What makes TRs so great is that it takes 2005 LS2 technology to even start a comparision to a little 80s V6.

I LUV IT.

No in 1997 when they came out with the LS1 they had the V6 beat, even the LT1 was extremely close to the TR. But it's because it was so hard to get around the emmisions. Just like what happened in the late 70s early 80s.

 

[Robbie-87plz]

The reason we're so darn quick is cause we have a menehune under the hood.

 

[acoen]

GN/TRs are quick even when compared to the 60's muscle cars. 14.1 in the quarter mile and a 5 second range 0-60 is nothing to sneeze at. What makes the GN/TR (especially the GN) quick (besided the under rated HP numbers)? It's the MYSTIC of the Grand National. The name alone will strike fear in almost any fox bodied 5.0 Mustang owner. Almost everyone that is familiar with the car remembers them faster than they actually were (and are). Is it the menacing black paint, whistling turbo, great stance or quiet yet nasty demeanor, all I know, they comand respect, even to gear heads that know better. Just ask any guy who takes their GN on a Sunday cruise and happen to pull up against a late model F-Body, Mustang or Ricer....no need to race. The legend of the Grand National alone is enough to beat them to the next light. It happens to me every other Sunday or so. The legend is the formula that makes the GN/TR so fast....

I know I'm being a little crazy here, but for the most part it's true. Can you tell I love my GN?

Aaron

 

[72firebird]

I agree with the legend of the GN but what also put them in the all-mighty spot was the ability to make them so quick for so cheap. When the GN came out everyone was used to having to spend big bucks to make a 2 second gain in the quarter mile. This meant nitrous, heads, cam, etc. You had to really dig deep into your pockets to have a quick car. However those fortunate enough to own a GN could spend half that and be just as fast. Turbos were just really making their way into public vehicles. No one really understoof the potential that they had at first because they were used to seeing the turbo in an inefficient motor. If you were to ask me the GN is what started the whole movement of turbos on a typical civilian vehicle. Everyone noticed the positive side of the turbo after the GN and liked the gas milage and performance that was available. That's why I think the GN created the big name for itself. If it would have been released today instead of in the 80s no one would think anything of it besides for the fact it's just another turbo V6 car and that it's pretty quick but nothing out of the ordinary. It was definatley ahead of its time.

 

[jayG]

GN/TRs are quick even when compared to the 60's muscle cars. 14.1 in the quarter mile and a 5 second range 0-60 is nothing to sneeze at. What makes the GN/TR (especially the GN) quick (besided the under rated HP numbers)? It's the MYSTIC of the Grand National. The name alone will strike fear in almost any fox bodied 5.0 Mustang owner. Almost everyone that is familiar with the car remembers them faster than they actually were (and are). Is it the menacing black paint, whistling turbo, great stance or quiet yet nasty demeanor, all I know, they comand respect, even to gear heads that know better. Just ask any guy who takes their GN on a Sunday cruise and happen to pull up against a late model F-Body, Mustang or Ricer....no need to race. The legend of the Grand National alone is enough to beat them to the next light. It happens to me every other Sunday or so. The legend is the formula that makes the GN/TR so fast....

I know I'm being a little crazy here, but for the most part it's true. Can you tell I love my GN?

Aaron

Well put Aaron, I couldnt agree more! I hardly ever get any challenges while toolin' around town when Im in my T-Type( Its Black so it looks like a GN so it gets respect by proxy.....LOL). And my Turbo-Regal is far from fast compared to most Turbo-Regals/GN's out there today.... mine runs 13.4 in the 1/4 @ 103mph, 2.01 60ft on street tires (245/16's) stock turbo and injectors, 19lbs w/alky. So its definetly beatable by several of todays new cars. One that comes to mind is the WRX. But since most people are familiar with the "GN legend, or so they think, they usually stand down. But when Im driving my fox body Mustang ( a 1984 SVO 2.3 Turbo) everybody and there brotha wants a shot....but thats another story for another time and place.

 

[sr71gn]

Don't forget that some guys have had almost 20 years to figure out exactly how to launch their TRs, tune them and make sure that they put every ounce of power to the ground. My bone stock/stock tire '04 GTO A4 went 13.59@101.88 with a 1.98 60', so the times on newer cars are very dependent on driver. It's not just our beloved Buick torque, LS1s lay down more torque than HP stock. My stock GTO dyno was 308 RWHP and 328 RWTQ. I still love the fact that it took the automakers so long to put out cars that will run with a stock TR

actually, in 1987, the gnx's ran 13.4 right out of the box---but they ran higher boost stock and hooked better than the gn

my stock 1987, and i wasnt alone, ran 13.10's on radials with ram air, chip, and open exhaust

so i dont know if the new cars have really caught up with the stock gns from 1987

 

[XLR8]

It seems as though the new cars have good mph but can't et for beans. I think Buick made a pretty good rear suspension for drag racing. All you need are tires and air bags to cut low 1.6 60' times.

 

[BLACK6PACK]

Remember that at 14.7 psi of boost, in laymens terms, our little 231 cubic inch motors injest the same amount of air and fuel as a 462 inch NA motor. Add to that a fairly good stock suspension for drag racing, and you end up with a pretty potent car from the factory.

 

[turbojimmy]

Given the MPH of today's quicker cars, I think that powerplant technology has greatly exceeded the suspension and tire technology. They're making a lot more power than the GNs (stock vs. stock). They just can't put the power to the ground. If they do put sticky tires on, stuff starts to break.

Jim

 

[blk00z28]

Given the MPH of today's quicker cars, I think that powerplant technology has greatly exceeded the suspension and tire technology. They're making a lot more power than the GNs (stock vs. stock). They just can't put the power to the ground. If they do put sticky tires on, stuff starts to break.

Jim

< Insert any 4th Gen F-body >

The thing I loved about the hp numbers game is this. My Camaro put down 255rwhp and 265rwtq. Within that same week I was running the 13.6 you see in my sig. Nothing changed to the car, and it was in 98 degree weather. RWHP numbers mean nothing. I have mustang buddies that brag till they are blue in the face how their car put down 360 bla bla to the ground. And yet they only run mid 13's

You guys wanna talk dyno numbers. http://performin.homeip.net/Normspage/Syclones.html 7th pic down.

I removed the front driveshaft and put it on a rear chasis dynomometer and it achieved 292 horsepower and 404 foot pounds of torque in bone stock form.

 

[Quick6'n'-K.C.]

Our cars are older and we have more mods since they are a few years older, we have the advantage over a newer car because weve been working on tweaking our cars for a lil while....

Ive been driving a 67 400 4spd firebird all week in the 95° heat, typically this car should have ran 14.1 in the 1/4 back when it was brand new, sure as heck doesnt feel as fast as a LS2 GTO or a stock GN... Why? cause its old and not as new anymore... the turbo buicks are almost 20 years old and still holding their own, all that are taken care of run at least a second under par and some dead ringers are 11 second stock turbo cars...

there will not be a point in my life when i dont own a 1987 turbo regal, these cars are the best thing that ive owned, and ive owned too many!

BW