What vehicle would *you* buy if you were given $28K?

In My Humble Opinion
121

The GNX was a mid 13 sec car in the 80’s and the GN would just crack into the 13’s - that is not bad by today’s standards. Remember we are not talking about a sports car, this is a 3,700# coupe that carries 5 adults and luggage.

These cars were also using computer controlled fuel and timing DIS inginition and sequential fuel injection years before these systems found there way onto most any other car - even the high end imports.

The cars running low 11 are using fuel like Sunoco GT-100, it is an unleaded street legal pump gas, low 12’s and high 11’s on any premium 93 octane fuel.

This is way different from using nitrous. Nitrous cools the air charge so much that high boost (25#'s) can be run on pump gas - that is an easy low 11 combination.

BTW, those octane boosters don’t work - adding 2 to 5 gallons of toluene or xylene to ten gallons of pump gas will make a difference; also need to add 2 ounces of top engine oil lube per gallon of solvent.

122

BTW They seem to last just fine. Even when starting with an engine with over 100K miles. Even when run as daily drivers.

123

Speaking from first-hand experience, the 2003 Cobra has approx 375rwhp stock (yes, Ford underrated it) and runs the 1/4 in about 12.7. This is from seeing the dyno graphs and watching these cars at the track.

Just a little nitpick, sorry about that.

124

I was just going by the stated book figures.

B&I: I will grant you that the GNX was using some pretty new technology for its time. But my point is that the vehicle has been hyped beyond belief. I know people who think Grand Nationals were the fastest cars ever made. They talk about their massive power with awe. But the fact is, we’re talking 276 HP in a 3700# car. That’s just not a whole lot any more. And, the thing was $30,000, in 1985.

A new Honda Accord now has 240HP. The Audi S4 has 369 and AWD. The Mercedes S series AMG has 469 HP. These are all family sedans in the same weight range. A WRX STi will beat a GNX in every category, by a wide margin. And you can do the same thing to it if you want - dial in more boost. There was a guy just busted in Paris for street racing, who was running 500HP in his WRX and taking pink slips off of Ferrari owners.

125

That’s a common misconception. The Evo only runs 19psi at the torque peak and then tapers off to 16 psi at redline. So with just a boost controller set to 19psi you can get a pretty significant power increase.

In fact, I’ve seen dynos where Evo’s with minor mods are running 310 horsepower at the wheels!!! (stock is rated 271 at the flywheel, about 220 at the wheels) So that’s a very nice 90 hp increase and still on the stock turbo and engine internals left untouched.

Yeah, I think I want an Evo. I drive a turbo Talon right now, so I guess I’m on the Mitsu bandwagon.

126

These are the same people that think retired police cars have the special engine taken out and a stock one put in its place. They also remove the interceptor police chip too, before being sold to the public. :wink:
They for sure are not the fastest production cars ever made, but for joe public, it’s a bad ass car. I’m sure they’re are alot of ferraris, BMW’s, and twin turbo corvettes that can beat it, but nobody can affords those cars. Hence a lot of people like the GN. It doesn’t have to be a GN either, i’ll take just a regular turbo regal.:slight_smile:

127

Strange how these cars are lighter and have more HP but do not run faster.

The GNX was made in 1987 - way heavier than the WRX but runs the same in the 1/4 - looks better and feels more substantial

128

Now let’s see how fast its lap times are…

Are you suggesting that the Grand National GNX’s horsepower was under-rated?

According to CarVideos.com, the GNX has a 1/4 mile time of about 14.4 seconds. That would be almost exactly what I would have expected from a car like this. For example, the Nissan Altima does the 1/4 in 14.45 seconds, according to Car and Driver. It has 245Hp, and weighs a few hundred pounds less.

13.4 seconds in a big sedan is exactly the speed of a BMW M5. The M5 weighs about 250 pounds more, but it has 400 HP, and 369 ft lbs of torque! Plus it has modern tires, traction control, etc.

Or consider a BMW M3, which is only 3415 lbs, and has 343HP. It can do the quarter in 13.3s.

This is why I find some of these performance claims for the GNX to be suspicious. Let’s see… 70 less horsepower than an M3, 300 lbs more weight, and 80’s era suspension and tire technology, and we’re supposed to believe it has the same performance?

I would expect a GNX to have about 400 HP, STOCK, in order to make that 13.4 quarter mile. Can you point to any dyno figures or official track times that verify this?

Sorry to harp on this, but the claims for the Grand National have been bothering me for a while, and I figure this is a good time to clear it up. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’d like to see the data rather than just anecdotes.

129

C&D said the GN not the GNX did 0 to 60 in 4.9 and 13.9 in the 1/4
The GNX is just a bit faster running mid 13’s. They are torque monsters. It is obvious that they were under rated. They run faster than cars much lighter.

Just go to the track and see for your self.

I was running 240 HP imports that I do not believe weighed anything near that of my Bonneville that is rated maybe 200 HP, and we were running mid 15’s - it is not just HP, it is the area under the torque curve that tells the real power story (My race car was not ready for the track yet so I figured WTH and ran the commuter car

130

Torque has a lot to do with it. And not just numbers either, the power band has to pretty broad to see real power. Horsepower is good, but not the best thing in measuring real power.
**400 HP, and 369 ft lbs of torque! **. Those are some pretty sorry #'s for a car of that caliber. It should be more like 400/500. And another thing, these ratings that you have Sam Stone, are they rear wheel ratings, or flywheel ratings? 30% +/- is lossed power through the drivetrain. That makes a big difference in determing whether or not GN’s are less/more powerful than these modern day cars.

131

Do you have a link to the Car and Driver article?

Sorry to be such a skeptic, but 20 years of experience in the car building hobby has taught me that there is more BS and inflated claims around than you can shake a stick at. And all the sites I’ve found that corroborate those numbers are enthusiast sites that could just be spreading the same misleading info. So I tend to not believe performance claims unless someone can show me a respected journal that measured it, an official time slip, etc.

Take that 0-60 in 5 seconds thing. Here are some comparisons:

1999 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP:
Power: 240HP (supercharged 3.8L), 280 ft. lbs of torque
Weight: 3414 lbs
0-60: 6.8s
1/4 Mile: 15.4s

Chrysler 300M:
Power: 254hp, 255 ft lbs of torque
Weight: 3567lbs
0-60: 7.9s
1/4 mile: 15.8s

Infiniti G35:
Power: 280hp, 270 ft lbs torque
Weight: 3435 lbs.
0-60: 6.1s
1/4 mile: 14.6s

This last one gets to the heart of my conundrum. A G35 is 300 lbs lighter than a Regal GN. It has 60 more horsepower (about the same as a GNX). It rides on 45-series 18 inch monster tires (vs 50 series 16 tires on the GNX), so it’s going to have more traction. The rubber will be a more modern, stickier compound, too.

And yet, 0-60 in 6.1 seconds. 1/4 mile in 14.6. Yes, the GN has about 50 ft lbs more torque, but that isn’t going to make that much difference. A mustang Cobra has 390HP, 390 ft lbs of torque (more than all the Regals), and it does 0-60 in 4.86s, and the 1/4 mile in about 13.2. It also weighs about the same as a GNX.

If a GNX does the quarter in 13.4 seconds, it’s going to have to have about the same engine specs as the Mustang. Did the GNX come stock from the factory with 400HP? Was it derated by that much?

The 0-60 of 5 seconds for a stock GN sounds outlandish, especially on stock tires. It is VERY hard for a RWD car to get down to those kinds of numbers, unless it has insane amounts of power. Cars like the Chevelle 454SS with engines that were probably making 500HP couldn’t do it, because the tire and chassis technology of the time wouldn’t allow it. They’d just make lots of noise and white smoke. The reason the STi and Evo can crack the 5 second mark isn’t so much because of their power, but because they can put all that power on the pavement and translate it into forward motion. I just can’t see a Buick Regal having that kind of ability.

Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps the cars were actually shipping from the factory with engines putting out twice their claimed horsepower. Maybe they came with tires with a sticky compound that only lasted for 5,000 miles. I’d just like to see some evidence of that.

132

the 4.9 0-60 is from a 1986 C&D mag
I am talking rear wheel power,
The SC GTP’s I know of are a good bit faster than my Bonneville which runs mid 15 - and My PCV valve was bad causing strange vacuum problems when it ran the 15’s so that 15.4 does not sound right - there are lots running 14.00 with just a pulley, exhaust, K&N air filter and a different program for fuel/timing.
I am sorry that I can not offer an explanation as to why the imports CLAIM so much but don’t seem to hold up at the track

As the saying goes: the BS stops when the green flag drops!

I own, build, and drive race cars - I am talking about almost 20 year of experience - I am getting tired of this exchange - just put down the magazine and get in the seat and go to the track for your self - you will find that there are lots of 13 second cars (and 12 and 11 and 10) UNTIL you GO TO THE TRACK.

I am working with a Toyota All Trak right now - bet you guys are surprised at that! Lots of work, money, power per litter, but it is just so much easier and effective to do it with domestic’s.

I believe we have dragged this thread around enough for now - wanna continue maybe a new thread in a different forum is appropriate.
Bye Bye

133

I’m going to point out that the C&D numbers can’t be trusted all that much. If you look at one of my cites from the earlier thread, you notice that the GNXes shipped to C&D were a bit ringers… custom chips and whatnot.

134

We really should start a thread, titled Car Wars. GD or IMHO or Cafe Society?

135

GD probably. Anywhere else and I think you’ll get people confused with the Steve Jackson game.

136

Pontiac Grand Prix GTP Comp G…drools

137

Again, those numbers are pathetic. You know why the GN is faster than those cars? IT’S NOT HORSEPOWER!! The GN has a torque rating of 355 lbs @ 2000 rpm!!! And the torque curve is VERY broad!

That’s all that’s it, please let’s drop all this shit.

138

Hey, what’s wrong with SJG? I used to be a proud AADA member… specialized in ramplate hovercraft.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=190404

Thread made.

139

Absolutely nothing as long as you don’t mind people getting the wrong impression from a thread title. I see you’ve managed to avoid that issue, though. :slight_smile:

140

I’d take a Honda Elephant… er, Element, if it got better gas mileage (22/26 is all it gets.)

I do like the fact that it looks like a bread truck. I probably has room for my harp and/or my 4 dogs.