# 1987 Buick Grand National GNX. IMHO - Greatest Car Ever **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 20, 2002, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961 "2002-12-20T03:14:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mr.Cynical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@Mr.Cynical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Cynical)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/21 "2002-12-21T05:53:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tony Montana \* > Oh \*\*Cynical \*\*, do you have a link perhaps? There’s (sadly) not a lot of good quality pictures out there, but I did manage to find one [GNX](http://www.dealernetworkingservices.com/gnx.jpg) jpg that was pretty clean. Personally, I prefer them to have the windows tinted over heavily, but that’s MHO. This, friends and neighbors, was a family car with BIG BALLS. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/22 "2002-12-21T23:09:01Z")
> [@](#): > > WRX faster than a GNX? Not really: > > Wow I actually found a site that lets you compare the GNX and WRX side by side!! I did the same. In fact, I used the same csite. Just what about that site makes you conclude the GNX is faster? Let’s see: They both do 0-60 in 5.5 seconds (actually car and driver measured 5.4 for the WRX). They both do the 1/4 mile in exactly 14.4 seconds. The WRX has a top speed of 143 mph vs 142 for the GNX. There are some slight differences in intermediate numbers, no doubt due to the slightly different torque curves, and the much better traction the WRX has. The WRX is therefore faster off the line, and stays ahead of the GNX up to 60 mph. The GNX starts to catch up after that, and is going faster through the 1/4, although they both hit it in the same time. But then, the GNX’s bigger size and poor aerodynamics start to limit it, and they have the same top end. How do you get from that page that the GNX is faster? BTW, the WRX’s engine can handle a lot more power. There are some mods out there that are relatively inexpensive that turn the car into a supercar. For 12 grand a professional ‘tuner’ will crank that car up to 320 horsepower, and it’ll do 0-60 in 4.4 seconds, which is faster than an SVT Cobra, and in the same category as the Viper and other supercars. And, the WRX has AWD, which means that its’ power is available all the time, and the vehicle is more more controllable in the twisties. Which is why it’s the perennial rally champion. It’d be a lot more fun to drive than a GNX, although I will admit that it lacks the ‘cool’ factor. Frankly, I’d rather have my old 425HP 1967 Camaro. That beast was faster, cooler, and prettier than a GNX, and built better as well. Those’s 80’s era sedans from GM were crappy cars. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Cynical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@Mr.Cynical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Cynical)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/23 "2002-12-21T23:30:02Z")
Whatever inspires you, dude. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Tony\_Montana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/278dde/32.png) [@Tony\_Montana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tony_Montana)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2002, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/24 "2002-12-21T23:45:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > **BTW, the WRX’s engine can handle a lot more power. There are some mods out there that are relatively inexpensive that turn the car into a supercar. For 12 grand a professional ‘tuner’ will crank that car up to 320 horsepower, and it’ll do 0-60 in 4.4 seconds, which is faster than an SVT Cobra, and in the same category as the Viper and other supercars.** Do you have a cite for those figures? Like say a tuners URL? I’d like to see what they do. For instance, do they change/modify drivetrain components? I dont see those front half-shafts or the trans/transfer case lasting too long with that much power,especially if your gonna run with SVT Cobras down the 1/4 (which drivetrain is engineered for the power it has ) Actually, I dont see an already “stressed” (vs “non-stressed” larger engine) 4-banger engine handing that much punch for too long. Hmm $36.000.oo for a “super-car” subaru,thats not including repairs that come along with squeezing so much power out of such a small plant.I am _not_ just harping on the soob. for instance if I took my 'stang in too have a supercharger,intercooler,bigger fuel pump,etc,etc installed to get say 500 ponies out of it. The stang’s reliability would go down(its very reliable as is) ,also I’d have to buy a stronger transmission. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2002, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/25 "2002-12-22T06:08:46Z")
The 68/69 Camaro with the L89 engine is what I was thinking of. As far as the supercharger on the Focus… yes, I _think_ it should be possible, with the existing hardware. I’ve seen it done once, and the gentleman said it was all but bolt on. They didn’t massage the engine much in the SVT, but they did boost the clutch up nicely, as well as the famous suspension. Personally, I’d drool for the RS or 4WD Cosworth version, but I doubt they’re coming over. My forte’ is backroad driving, so the suspension matters more than just raw speed. Well, Heathen, that’s a doozie of a pic, but okay. [http://community-2.webtv.net/j2xx/AlardPhotoGallery/](http://community-2.webtv.net/j2xx/AlardPhotoGallery/) Nothing like a good Allard J2-X. Specially a nice Cad-Allard. Sort of a proto-Cobra. I think this month’s Road and Track has a nice article on the WRX and the speedier version we’re getting next year. Car and Driver does. > **[M2 Subaru WRX](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15136057/m2-subaru-wrx-specialty-file/)** > > A $12,995 parts package from M2 Performance makes for a rather pricey - but very swift - Subaru Impreza WRX. Neons are kind of crappy, but… [http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/firstdrives/articledisplay.asp?articleid=390](http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/firstdrives/articledisplay.asp?articleid=390) This might just change your mind. Though I’m still not fond of turbos. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2002, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/26 "2002-12-22T21:37:18Z")
Hm. Looking at the Car and Driver article, they’re saying that the drivetrain, surprisingly, should do nicely even after the tuner parts. ---
**Author:** ![Tony\_Montana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/278dde/32.png) [@Tony\_Montana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tony_Montana)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/27 "2002-12-23T00:00:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by E-Sabbath \* > \*\*Hm. Looking at the Car and Driver article, they’re saying that the drivetrain, surprisingly, should do nicely even after the tuner parts. \*\* hrumph ,I guess I’ll try to find an article or something when I get a chance as I am curious… ---
**Author:** ![I\_am\_Sparticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@I\_am\_Sparticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_Sparticus)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/28 "2002-12-23T02:43:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by happyheathen \* > \*\*[Top _THIS!_](http://www.motionalmemories.com/1933-Duesenberg-SJ-Speedster.htm) \*\* You can’t happy. That car used to be in the Harrah’s collection, and it is my all time favorite, most beautiful car ever made. With it’s relatively light body and supercharged straight 8 Lycoming engine, it is probably capable of about 150 in third. There is no babe on the planet I could not seduce with that car. ---
**Author:** ![Lorenzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4da419/32.png) [@Lorenzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lorenzo)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/29 "2002-12-23T06:11:43Z")
IIRC, the GNX was pretty amazing in a straight line, but that was about it. Sort of a one-trick and highly fragile pony. The only guy I knew who owned one went through three transmissions during the 12 month/12,000 mile warranty and bailed out when the warranty expired. Considering the limitations of the stock brakes and suspension, IMHO, 127, let alone 145 would be a pretty dangerous speed in that car. I would love to see a stat on how many football fields it would take to stop a GNX from 127 mph-0 with the stock rear drum, non-ABS brakes. At least Corvettes, Porsches, et al that achieve that kind of speed have matching brakes and suspension. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/30 "2002-12-23T07:14:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Do you have a cite for those figures? Like say a tuners URL? I’d like to see what they do. For instance, do they change/modify drivetrain components? [Here you go.](http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/features/2003/january/0301_specialtyfile_wrx.xml) ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/31 "2002-12-23T07:20:49Z")
Er… Sam. I just _posted_ that link. ---
**Author:** ![Blown\_Injected](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@Blown\_Injected](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blown_Injected)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/32 "2002-12-23T11:30:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*I did the same. In fact, I used the same csite. > > Just what about that site makes you conclude the GNX is faster? Let’s see: > > They both do 0-60 in 5.5 seconds (actually car and driver measured 5.4 for the WRX). > > They both do the 1/4 mile in exactly 14.4 seconds. > > The WRX has a top speed of 143 mph vs 142 for the GNX. > > There are some slight differences in intermediate numbers, no doubt due to the slightly different torque curves, and the much better traction the WRX has. The WRX is therefore faster off the line, and stays ahead of the GNX up to 60 mph. The GNX starts to catch up after that, and is going faster through the 1/4, although they both hit it in the same time. But then, the GNX’s bigger size and poor aerodynamics start to limit it, and they have the same top end. > > How do you get from that page that the GNX is faster? > > BTW, the WRX’s engine can handle a lot more power. There are some mods out there that are relatively inexpensive that turn the car into a supercar. For 12 grand a professional ‘tuner’ will crank that car up to 320 horsepower, and it’ll do 0-60 in 4.4 seconds, which is faster than an SVT Cobra, and in the same category as the Viper and other supercars. > > And, the WRX has AWD, which means that its’ power is available all the time, and the vehicle is more more controllable in the twisties. Which is why it’s the perennial rally champion. It’d be a lot more fun to drive than a GNX, although I will admit that it lacks the ‘cool’ factor. > > Frankly, I’d rather have my old 425HP 1967 Camaro. That beast was faster, cooler, and prettier than a GNX, and built better as well. Those’s 80’s era sedans from GM were crappy cars. \*\* There are GN’s with 150,000+ miles on them that with $300 (not 12K) worth of mods are in the 400 hp range. C&D tested the 86 GN at 4.9 0-60. A Mustang will also go WAY faster with mods in the hundreds. If you’re going slow enough to turn, you’re not going fast enough to be racing! Check the car message boards - nothing seems to be as feared as the Turbo Regal even after almost 15 years. Lets check back in another 15 years and see what people say about the WRX. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/33 "2002-12-23T11:57:12Z")
Yes, but is that 400 modern (brake) horsepower, or 400 horsepower the old fashioned way? And some of us prefer the ability to turn at speed. Otherwise, drag racing would be the ultimate sport. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/34 "2002-12-23T16:54:00Z")
Why the fascination with the Grand National? It’s cool and all, I guess, but when it comes right down to it, it’s just a crappy 80’s era Buick Regal, complete with body and frame that are about as rigid as silly putty. As fast cars go, even in a straight line, it’s not even in the top 10 for factory muscle. How about a '69 Camaro with the L-88 427? Or the L-88 vette? Or the LS-7 454, which made its way into all manner of GM cars? Or then there’s the '71 Hemi Cuda, or the Hemi Charger, or the Superbird. Or how today, where you can go down to your Ford dealer and pick up a 2002 Mustang Cobra SVT, with 390 supercharged horsepower? And of course, there’s the Viper, with over 500 horsepower. Grand Nationals were really cool for their time, because during that era cars were slow and ugly. So the Grand National stood out from the crowd. But by the standards of the eras before and after that period, the Grand National is nothing special. Like I said, a WRX will keep up with it in a straight line, and blow it away in the curves. And it’s only 24 grand, and has All-Wheel-Drive. And it’s a four-door import sedan or station wagon! I mean, a Grand National only had 245 Horsepower stock. A Nissan Maxima has that. The GNX had 276 horsepower. The WRX STI has that, and it’s 400 lbs lighter. It’ll blow a GNX away. In fact, I’ll bet the Grand National GNX wouldn’t even be in the top 10 of current cars under 40 grand for speed. And if you want that Domestic Muscle Car thing, why not pick up a [2004 Pontiac GTO](http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/A086EA321C8922A1CA256BDF001F4471)? It’s supposed to have 350HP, and will be a far superior car to the GNX. ---
**Author:** ![Tony\_Montana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/278dde/32.png) [@Tony\_Montana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tony_Montana)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/35 "2002-12-23T18:21:10Z")
OK I looked at the site,Sure itll keep up with a bone stock SVT cobra. tweek that cobra a little tho…And Im still not sold on it.Its missing that all important cool factor for me. I mean lets say I am joe millionaire I buy one of those suby’s for my GF(she loves them BTW)and a cobra SVT for my half of the garage. Which one would still get looks 6,7,or 10yrs from now? (given they’re both still cherry) also not sold on the longevity of an already high-revving already stressed plant _or_ the drive train, little is said on it… ---
**Author:** ![SlightDistrurbance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@SlightDistrurbance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlightDistrurbance)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/36 "2002-12-23T18:23:23Z")
I’ll take any sweet G bodied car. The GNX was a beauty, speed aside. The Grand Prix’s, the Regal’s, the Cutlass Supreme’s, the Brougham’s, the Hurst’s, what I would do to get my hands on one of them… (Drools heavily) Mr. Cynical, you have excellent taste in cars. ---
**Author:** ![Who\_me\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@Who\_me\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Who_me_1)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/37 "2002-12-23T18:30:44Z")
Well, the 1970 Mustang 429 Boss kicks its butt… pretty soundly too!!! I love the site! Thanks racekarl!!! [http://www.car-videos.com/performance/view.asp?ID1=13&ID2=70](http://www.car-videos.com/performance/view.asp?ID1=13&ID2=70) ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/38 "2002-12-23T18:44:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Cynical \* > \*\*I want one. I always have. I think it is the single coolest car ever rolled off the line. > Discuss. \*\* Not the coolest, sorry. But it damn near had the coolest testing photo ever seen in a car mag. Either Car and Driver or Road and Track tested it, and during the 0-60 test it basically liquified its rear tires on the massive burnout-- the smoke from the tires was truly stunning in height. I had to chuckle just looking at the picture-- now that was a car with **power**. The first Ferrari Testarosa was the coolest, IMHO. Or the 1963 Split-window Corvette. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/39 "2002-12-23T18:57:54Z")
> [@](#): > > OK I looked at the site,Sure itll keep up with a bone stock SVT cobra. tweek that cobra a little tho…And Im still not sold on it.Its missing that all important cool factor for me. I mean lets say I am joe millionaire I buy one of those suby’s for my GF(she loves them BTW)and a cobra SVT for my half of the garage. Which one would still get looks 6,7,or 10yrs from now? (given they’re both still cherry) > > also not sold on the longevity of an already high-revving already stressed plant or the drive train, little is said on it… The engine in the WRX is bulletproof. I understand that the rally car uses a stock engine with a bigger turbo, and puts out well over 320 HP. I’ve heard of close to 400 hp with that little engine. The clutch is also plenty strong. The tranny, I’m not so sure about it. I think that’s the weak link in the WRX drivetrain. But what makes a WRX fast isn’t just the horsepower. It’s the AWD. The car’s horsepower is usable all the time. A Regal might keep up with it on the track in a straight line with heated tires and a clean road surface, and with a driver who knows what he’s doing. But in typical street trim, with slightly worn tires and a road surface with all kinds of impurities on it, a WRX will simply eat its lunch, because the Regal will be smoking its tires while the WRX boogies down the road. This is the big factor in performance. If you look at a lot of those older muscle cars, they turn in 1/4 mile times that aren’t that spectacular. The reason is simply because they can’t use all the horsepower the can make. Their standard suspensions and tires just can’t cut it. I know - I owned one of them. I had a 1967 Camaro with over 400 HP. With the stock suspension, flooring the car would just cause massive amounts of wheel hop and the car wouldn’t really go anywhere. $1000 worth of suspension mods later, and I could keep the wheels from hopping but they’d still just light up and smoke if I floored it. In a WRX, you can rev the thing to 6000 RPM and drop the clutch, and the car will just _take off_. But enough about the WRX. How about we put the GNX up against a little [Mitsubishi Lancer](http://www.car-videos.com/performance/view.asp?ID1=13&ID2=45)? Sorry, but a 3600 lb car with 275 horsepower and 2wd just doesn’t get my blood going. In the mid-80’s it would have, but those were the dark ages for performance cars. The only reason the GNX is remembered at all is because it was a decent car in a era of crap. But now we’re in an era of great cars, and just decent doesn’t cut it any more. ---
**Author:** ![Tony\_Montana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/278dde/32.png) [@Tony\_Montana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tony_Montana)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961/40 "2002-12-23T19:33:52Z")
wheel hop is a thing of the waay past. Theres nothing wrong with the little thing. If I had the money I’d buy both a suby and a Cobra. But I’d keep the pony in the garage when the weather turned,and drive the soob… Does that mean the soob would be more expendable to me? perhaps… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1987-buick-grand-national-gnx-imho-greatest-car-ever/143961.md?page=3)