So my 375rwhp was a tad on the high side, but not unheard of. A better average range would be 355-370rwhp. That’s still a lot higher than the 315-320rwhp you would expect from the advertied numbers. For whatever reason, Ford underrated the new Cobras.
What’s amazing is how well they respond to mods (CAI, mufflers, exhaust, throttle body). They can reach 400rwhp with very little extra.
Huh. I wonder where they got those numbers from (Dynapack or Dynojet). Everything else I’ve seen has been lower. That ~320 I quoted earlier was from some dyno pulls, not Ford. Looks like there’s a lot of variance between vehicles.
As far as minor mods making them MUCH fast, oh yeah. Just a little bit of I/H/E + chip makes then so scary fast it’s unbelievable.
Not a big fan, though. IMHO, the interior blows. But the performance is very impressive.
If the number you’ve seen were local and not SAE corrected, that would explain the difference. Colorado has a lower air density which results in lower dyno numbers.
Now I want the new engine even more. I’m shooting for 350 rwhp out of the little 4 banger.
Unfortunately, there is is a lot of metal beyond both the front and rear wheels. I tried a power slide once on a rainy road and completely lost control of the car. Definately not a Porsche when the tires break loose.
First I will say that I have only been to the track maybe four times - I have gone to the track to race many dozens of times personally making hundreds of runs in many different cars so unless you have more track time - up yours; Hell, even if you don’t!
Second: "13.9 seconds in the 1/4…Zero to 60 in 4.9 seconds… Faster than a Lamborghini Countach (5.1 seconds)… even outsprints two of Ferrari’s blur bloods-the Testarossa (5.0 seconds) and the GTO (5.1 seconds)…As near as we could tell, our test car had not been tinckered with… We tested on a brutally cold day-8*F-which we calculated had improved the engine output by another 15 hp. Ceppos, Rich (1986). Buick Grand National, Speed is a Gun Slinger In Black. Car and Driver. Vol 31, No. 10, April 1986 page 129.
Ths hp (235) was rated at 4,400 rpm’s for a reason; Torque = 330@2,800 rpm’s.
For that matter, why are we all harshing on the GNX? It’s the apex of pre-Taurus and post-Fuel Crisis/Cat Converter american automobiles. And those engines, because the factories sucked, had amazing stress tolerances. Nowadays, it’s a lot tighter. But that’s what blueprinting’s about.
Sure, there are faster, more comfortable, and better handling cars for less nowadays. So what?
for less? the base price for the turbo regal was $13,714.
>>“the wording on the intake in the picture to that article?”<<
If I understand you correctly it says “SHORT TAKE”
I printed it from film at the library along with a section from a 1/97 C&D that rated the GN as #1 in top-gear acceleration - says the 911 turbo would probably have won except for the manual trans that did not allow for good revs like the automatic in the GN.
There’s two kinds of GNX. One says “Grand National”, and one says GNX, I think, on the hood scoop. One’s a prototype and the other’s production. I’m sorry, this is twenty year old memories.
Well Magiver, it’s worth noting that prior to the current water-cooled Porsche 911’s, gee, the previous air-cooled 911’s were notoriously tail heavy. In particular, those made before 1990 or so. In the final few years of the air-cooled 911’s life, the Stuttgart people did some concerted work on the rear suspension geometry etc to make the rear end more tractable but prior to that, they were murder.
As a dear friend of mine once described… (he was a very wealthy dentist working in England at the time and it was this guy who owned the 1979 F2 car) he once owned a mid 80’s 911 and was driving through a roundabout in ENgland somewhere and without being too forceful in his driving, well one day he made the mistake of lifting off throttle mid corner and his Porsche swung around on him before he could say Jack Robinson. And this was a guy who was regularly racing at A-grade open wheeler meetings across England - so he was no slouch. But it was the nature of the old 911 apparently. The more you lifted off, the more the rear end swung around on you. It took some time to get used to the concept of “if in doubt, floor it…” because what happened is that the weight transfer under acceleration would dig the rear wheels in, thereby improving rear end grip, whereas lifting off made the rear end very light.
As you noted, the real issue is where all your weight is placed. That, and how little there is of it. That’s why the Lotus Elise is such a screamer. If they were to release that car with a twin turbo or a roots supercharger, you would have a truly great supercar I suspect. Only 850 kgs (the weight of 4 x 750cc motorbikes) and a mid mounted engine… combined with all wishbone suspension etc. Imagine getting 300+ hp out of the engine system?
Various drivers of that Lotus Elise tell me it’s the closest thing they’ve driven to a road going go-kart - such is it’s ability to get into wonderful controlled 4 wheel drifts without body roll.
quote:
and Dodge is doing it today with the neon SRT-4, which is dyno’ing about 245HP at the rear wheels), or the Grand National has a little bit of hype floating around over it.
-Sam Stone
Uh… the Neon is front wheel drive… what exactly are they measuring 245 hp of at the rear wheels?
Picky, picky. Slip of the tongue. I’m well aware that the Neon is FWD.
As for beating 4.9 0-60 times, the WRX STi does it, and the Mitsubishi Evo does it. The Evo posted a time of 4.69 seconds in the last C&D. 1/4 mile at 13.08. Both of those times are faster than a Grand National.
And at $28,000, that’s probably pretty close to the price of the GNX, considering inflation.
Wan’t there a turbine car that almost won the Indy 500 in the early 70’s.
The British navy switched from steam piston engines to steam turbine engines in the early 1900’s. The Abrams tank has a turbine engine so why doe the latest Rolls Royce have a 12 cylinder piston design?
Rosen Motors had an interesting design with gas tubine generator
On the OP, other than the Corvette and the fastest Mustangs the performance wars have moved overseas. Obviously the new rally spec. cars are a hoot. The foreign luxury car makers are in the middle of a massive horsepower war. It’s a beautiful thing.
Damn, my typing got ahead of my brain. The US also makes the Viper, that new Neon SRT-4 you’ve been discussing, and some fast trucks–especially the Lightning. The GTO, coming soon, will hopefully be a sign of things to come.
Mercedes-AMG and BMW-M still have a bit of a head start.
It doesn’t matter if the brakes aren’t as good as a modern car, or if the fuel efficiency isn’t as good, or if the shock absorbers aren’t as good, or if there’s diff whine, or gearbox whine…
Just look at that car…
Don’t make 'em like that anymore… (shape wise that is…)
Boo Boo Foo: Check out the '05 Mustang. It’s a ‘retro’ design based on the 60’s Fastback Mustang. It also comes with 400HP in the GT, apparently. That will make it the fastest Mustang ever produced.
You’re right, though - the '66 Fastback is a gorgeous car.