"Later, you could get the [Cobalt SS] with a 2.0-liter turbo rated at 260 hp." Would that be the same 2.0 turbo that's in today's Buick Regal?
12 American Turbos
- Thread starter ls1mike
- Start date
- Status
I had a 1985 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe with the 5 speed manual box. I bought it for only $1500 in 1993 and ran it as my work beater until 1988, when I sold it to a friend's son for $900. It was a pretty decent car, but I hated the 85 mph speedo and cursed the Safety Nazis who promulgated that asinine regulation.
As for the 1980-1981 Trans Am turbo, I had a friend who worked in a Pontiac dealership when the cars were new. The underhood heat was so extreme that the windshield washer fluid would percolate in the lines and dribble out on to the hood. Pontiac wanted to go with a "futuristic" digital boost gauge mounted in the hood "scoop"(shades of the 1968-1972 GTO tachometers), but the underhood heat would quickly fry the electronics as well as the display. Pontiac ended up going with three lights in the scoop- standard on the Pace Car Editions, it became an option on all turbo Firebirds:
As for the 1980-1981 Trans Am turbo, I had a friend who worked in a Pontiac dealership when the cars were new. The underhood heat was so extreme that the windshield washer fluid would percolate in the lines and dribble out on to the hood. Pontiac wanted to go with a "futuristic" digital boost gauge mounted in the hood "scoop"(shades of the 1968-1972 GTO tachometers), but the underhood heat would quickly fry the electronics as well as the display. Pontiac ended up going with three lights in the scoop- standard on the Pace Car Editions, it became an option on all turbo Firebirds:
Originally Posted By: MCompact
I bought it for only $1500 in 1993 and ran it as my work beater until 1988
Sounds more like a Delorean...lol
I bought it for only $1500 in 1993 and ran it as my work beater until 1988
Sounds more like a Delorean...lol
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
The Turbo 301 V8 of the Trans AM was the engineering equivalent of putting Nancy Grace and Bill O'Reilly together to make a sexy movie. The potential was just never there, regardless of what components they thought they were using.
I don't know why they didn't just use the Buick 231 Turbo. It was already in production. (Monte Carlo and Buick Regal T-Type)
My opinion on that: you gotta remember there was a lot of inter-division fighting in GM at that time. They'd been burned by Chevy v8s turning up under Buick and Oldsmobile hoods when they hadn't publicized the fact that they were doing it. Pontiac in particular took a lot of heat for Trans Ams being produced with an Olds 403 hiding behind a "6.6" badge instead of the more familiar (and better performing in a muscle car) Pontiac 400. The 80s had a bit of backlash against using other divisions' engines quite so much... a sort of dying gasp of divisional identity before truly corporate engines like the Northstar, LTx/LSx finally appeared and the 3800 became the most widely-used V6 of the lot.
I'm not really defending the practice, just explaining. I agree with you they should have picked the Buick engine for that particular Firebird reboot. As usual, GM was 30 years late to the party with Ford and Chrysler having gone to a single line of corporate engines in the late 60s to early 60s. I mean, seriously: GM having 5 concurrently-produced engines in the 454-572 cubic inch range (Buick, Olds, and Pontiac had unique 455s, Chevy 454, and Cadillac 472) and a similar number of 350 CID engines (Chevy, Olds, Pontiac, Buick), and a weird smattering of oddities around 400 CID (Chevy 396/402 big-block, Chevy 400 smallblock, Pontiac 400, Olds 403, etc.) was pretty insane from any sort of cost analysis point of view. Granted, the engines were subtly different and had different strengths and weaknesses, but they weren't different ENOUGH to warrant all of them being produced at once, let alone the parts supply chain for all of that redundancy. But politically, the divisions at GM were far more independent than they were at Ford or Chrysler, and the executives spent a lot of time in petty pi***ng matches over stuff that really hurt the larger corporation. Like defending their own particular engine when another division's was objectively better...
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
The Turbo 301 V8 of the Trans AM was the engineering equivalent of putting Nancy Grace and Bill O'Reilly together to make a sexy movie. The potential was just never there, regardless of what components they thought they were using.
I don't know why they didn't just use the Buick 231 Turbo. It was already in production. (Monte Carlo and Buick Regal T-Type)
My opinion on that: you gotta remember there was a lot of inter-division fighting in GM at that time. They'd been burned by Chevy v8s turning up under Buick and Oldsmobile hoods when they hadn't publicized the fact that they were doing it. Pontiac in particular took a lot of heat for Trans Ams being produced with an Olds 403 hiding behind a "6.6" badge instead of the more familiar (and better performing in a muscle car) Pontiac 400. The 80s had a bit of backlash against using other divisions' engines quite so much... a sort of dying gasp of divisional identity before truly corporate engines like the Northstar, LTx/LSx finally appeared and the 3800 became the most widely-used V6 of the lot.
I'm not really defending the practice, just explaining. I agree with you they should have picked the Buick engine for that particular Firebird reboot. As usual, GM was 30 years late to the party with Ford and Chrysler having gone to a single line of corporate engines in the late 60s to early 60s. I mean, seriously: GM having 5 concurrently-produced engines in the 454-572 cubic inch range (Buick, Olds, and Pontiac had unique 455s, Chevy 454, and Cadillac 472) and a similar number of 350 CID engines (Chevy, Olds, Pontiac, Buick), and a weird smattering of oddities around 400 CID (Chevy 396/402 big-block, Chevy 400 smallblock, Pontiac 400, Olds 403, etc.) was pretty insane from any sort of cost analysis point of view. Granted, the engines were subtly different and had different strengths and weaknesses, but they weren't different ENOUGH to warrant all of them being produced at once, let alone the parts supply chain for all of that redundancy. But politically, the divisions at GM were far more independent than they were at Ford or Chrysler, and the executives spent a lot of time in petty pi***ng matches over stuff that really hurt the larger corporation. Like defending their own particular engine when another division's was objectively better...
Oh, I get that....except the Buick 231 was already the V6 base engine for the Firebird. I guess they didn't want to further defile the Trans Am name with another division's engine...at that time. It would eventually happen.
In 1980, to get the "fast" Mustang, you got the 4-cylinder turbo. The 302 was on hiatus and the 255 was pretty pathetic. The Dodge Charger had a VW 1.7 and the "Challenger" was a Mitsubishi Galant (no Lil' Red Express for 1980...Porsche 928 owners could breathe a sigh of relief that they wouldn't have another year of Dodge tailgates to look at). The AMX was an AMC Spirit with a stripe package. Seems to be the perfect time to unleash a V6 turbo Firebird.
Guess that's why I don't make the big bucks working for GM.
In 1980, to get the "fast" Mustang, you got the 4-cylinder turbo. The 302 was on hiatus and the 255 was pretty pathetic. The Dodge Charger had a VW 1.7 and the "Challenger" was a Mitsubishi Galant (no Lil' Red Express for 1980...Porsche 928 owners could breathe a sigh of relief that they wouldn't have another year of Dodge tailgates to look at). The AMX was an AMC Spirit with a stripe package. Seems to be the perfect time to unleash a V6 turbo Firebird.
Guess that's why I don't make the big bucks working for GM.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Guess that's why I don't make the big bucks working for GM.
You utilize logical thought processes and common sense. That alone would have disqualified you from working at any management level in the GM of the 1980s...
Guess that's why I don't make the big bucks working for GM.
You utilize logical thought processes and common sense. That alone would have disqualified you from working at any management level in the GM of the 1980s...
I figured the Buick 231 was eliminated either because it didn't meet tougher smog laws, or because major changes would need to be made so the engine could be installed transversely. GM was converting numerous cars to FWD during the 1980s.
The 80's had quite a few interesting cars. I still have my 1987 Buick Grand National I bought new. I still smile every time I drive it. One car I wish I got, however, is one of those Dodge Omni GLH or GLH-S editions. Those little cars flat out flew! Give credit where due for these cars even being built given what the automakers were up against regarding regulations and the current level of technology they had at the time.
Originally Posted By: artificialist
I figured the Buick 231 was eliminated either because it didn't meet tougher smog laws, or because major changes would need to be made so the engine could be installed transversely. GM was converting numerous cars to FWD during the 1980s.
The Buick 231 was the California emissions engine in the Camaro and Monte Carlo (no 229s in California)
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
The 80's had quite a few interesting cars. I still have my 1987 Buick Grand National I bought new. I still smile every time I drive it. One car I wish I got, however, is one of those Dodge Omni GLH or GLH-S editions. Those little cars flat out flew! Give credit where due for these cars even being built given what the automakers were up against regarding regulations and the current level of technology they had at the time.
I don't know....Chrysler put the 2.2 Turbo in everything.
Omni Small car? 2.2 Turbo
Compact Sporty coupe Daytona? 2.2 Turbo
Personal luxury coupe and convertible LeBaron? 2.2 Turbo
New Yorker large luxury car? 2.2 Turbo
Ridiculously expensive LeBaron looking "Maserati" thing? 2.2 Turbo (1989 model)
Minivan?! [heck] yes a 2.2 Turbo!
I'm honestly surprised that they didn't stuff 2.2 Turbos in the leftover Renault21/Eagle Medallions from the AMC purchase
I figured the Buick 231 was eliminated either because it didn't meet tougher smog laws, or because major changes would need to be made so the engine could be installed transversely. GM was converting numerous cars to FWD during the 1980s.
The Buick 231 was the California emissions engine in the Camaro and Monte Carlo (no 229s in California)
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
The 80's had quite a few interesting cars. I still have my 1987 Buick Grand National I bought new. I still smile every time I drive it. One car I wish I got, however, is one of those Dodge Omni GLH or GLH-S editions. Those little cars flat out flew! Give credit where due for these cars even being built given what the automakers were up against regarding regulations and the current level of technology they had at the time.
I don't know....Chrysler put the 2.2 Turbo in everything.
Omni Small car? 2.2 Turbo
Compact Sporty coupe Daytona? 2.2 Turbo
Personal luxury coupe and convertible LeBaron? 2.2 Turbo
New Yorker large luxury car? 2.2 Turbo
Ridiculously expensive LeBaron looking "Maserati" thing? 2.2 Turbo (1989 model)
Minivan?! [heck] yes a 2.2 Turbo!
I'm honestly surprised that they didn't stuff 2.2 Turbos in the leftover Renault21/Eagle Medallions from the AMC purchase
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: artificialist
I figured the Buick 231 was eliminated either because it didn't meet tougher smog laws, or because major changes would need to be made so the engine could be installed transversely. GM was converting numerous cars to FWD during the 1980s.
The Buick 231 was the California emissions engine in the Camaro and Monte Carlo (no 229s in California)
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
The 80's had quite a few interesting cars. I still have my 1987 Buick Grand National I bought new. I still smile every time I drive it. One car I wish I got, however, is one of those Dodge Omni GLH or GLH-S editions. Those little cars flat out flew! Give credit where due for these cars even being built given what the automakers were up against regarding regulations and the current level of technology they had at the time.
I don't know....Chrysler put the 2.2 Turbo in everything.
Omni Small car? 2.2 Turbo
Compact Sporty coupe Daytona? 2.2 Turbo
Personal luxury coupe and convertible LeBaron? 2.2 Turbo
New Yorker large luxury car? 2.2 Turbo
Ridiculously expensive LeBaron looking "Maserati" thing? 2.2 Turbo (1989 model)
Minivan?! [heck] yes a 2.2 Turbo!
I'm honestly surprised that they didn't stuff 2.2 Turbos in the leftover Renault21/Eagle Medallions from the AMC purchase
All good points. Goes along with what I was saying about car makers having to do alot with a little in a bad time peroid. All Chrylser had was the 2.2 and the Mitsubishi 2.6 and I also joked about it being in everything lol. But that GLHS was a Shelby and it was the fasted little car they made. I remember getting my butt handed to me by one when I had an Iroc-Z with the L98 350.
Originally Posted By: artificialist
I figured the Buick 231 was eliminated either because it didn't meet tougher smog laws, or because major changes would need to be made so the engine could be installed transversely. GM was converting numerous cars to FWD during the 1980s.
The Buick 231 was the California emissions engine in the Camaro and Monte Carlo (no 229s in California)
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
The 80's had quite a few interesting cars. I still have my 1987 Buick Grand National I bought new. I still smile every time I drive it. One car I wish I got, however, is one of those Dodge Omni GLH or GLH-S editions. Those little cars flat out flew! Give credit where due for these cars even being built given what the automakers were up against regarding regulations and the current level of technology they had at the time.
I don't know....Chrysler put the 2.2 Turbo in everything.
Omni Small car? 2.2 Turbo
Compact Sporty coupe Daytona? 2.2 Turbo
Personal luxury coupe and convertible LeBaron? 2.2 Turbo
New Yorker large luxury car? 2.2 Turbo
Ridiculously expensive LeBaron looking "Maserati" thing? 2.2 Turbo (1989 model)
Minivan?! [heck] yes a 2.2 Turbo!
I'm honestly surprised that they didn't stuff 2.2 Turbos in the leftover Renault21/Eagle Medallions from the AMC purchase
All good points. Goes along with what I was saying about car makers having to do alot with a little in a bad time peroid. All Chrylser had was the 2.2 and the Mitsubishi 2.6 and I also joked about it being in everything lol. But that GLHS was a Shelby and it was the fasted little car they made. I remember getting my butt handed to me by one when I had an Iroc-Z with the L98 350.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Oh, I get that....except the Buick 231 was already the V6 base engine for the Firebird. I guess they didn't want to further defile the Trans Am name with another division's engine...at that time. It would eventually happen.
Nope. They defiled it with Genuine Pontiac parts instead.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
In 1980, to get the "fast" Mustang, you got the 4-cylinder turbo. The 302 was on hiatus and the 255 was pretty pathetic. The Dodge Charger had a VW 1.7 and the "Challenger" was a Mitsubishi Galant (no Lil' Red Express for 1980...Porsche 928 owners could breathe a sigh of relief that they wouldn't have another year of Dodge tailgates to look at). The AMX was an AMC Spirit with a stripe package. Seems to be the perfect time to unleash a V6 turbo Firebird.
Guess that's why I don't make the big bucks working for GM.
In a nutshell, the 1980s sucked rope as far as cars go. I had the misfortune of coming of driving age at the EXACT worst moment in automotive history. Got my license in 1980 at age 16. Graduated college in '86. Affordable new cars? Sure, but ugh... not a single one that I'd actually WANT to drive. A GN or GNX was out of my price range as a first-year engineer also taking grad school classes. A GLHS? Would have been fun in hindsight, but I loathed FWD even back then. That's why I kept my hand-me-down '73 Satellite so dang long!
Oh, I get that....except the Buick 231 was already the V6 base engine for the Firebird. I guess they didn't want to further defile the Trans Am name with another division's engine...at that time. It would eventually happen.
Nope. They defiled it with Genuine Pontiac parts instead.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
In 1980, to get the "fast" Mustang, you got the 4-cylinder turbo. The 302 was on hiatus and the 255 was pretty pathetic. The Dodge Charger had a VW 1.7 and the "Challenger" was a Mitsubishi Galant (no Lil' Red Express for 1980...Porsche 928 owners could breathe a sigh of relief that they wouldn't have another year of Dodge tailgates to look at). The AMX was an AMC Spirit with a stripe package. Seems to be the perfect time to unleash a V6 turbo Firebird.
Guess that's why I don't make the big bucks working for GM.
In a nutshell, the 1980s sucked rope as far as cars go. I had the misfortune of coming of driving age at the EXACT worst moment in automotive history. Got my license in 1980 at age 16. Graduated college in '86. Affordable new cars? Sure, but ugh... not a single one that I'd actually WANT to drive. A GN or GNX was out of my price range as a first-year engineer also taking grad school classes. A GLHS? Would have been fun in hindsight, but I loathed FWD even back then. That's why I kept my hand-me-down '73 Satellite so dang long!
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: artificialist
I figured the Buick 231 was eliminated either because it didn't meet tougher smog laws, or because major changes would need to be made so the engine could be installed transversely. GM was converting numerous cars to FWD during the 1980s.
The Buick 231 was the California emissions engine in the Camaro and Monte Carlo (no 229s in California)
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
The 80's had quite a few interesting cars. I still have my 1987 Buick Grand National I bought new. I still smile every time I drive it. One car I wish I got, however, is one of those Dodge Omni GLH or GLH-S editions. Those little cars flat out flew! Give credit where due for these cars even being built given what the automakers were up against regarding regulations and the current level of technology they had at the time.
I don't know....Chrysler put the 2.2 Turbo in everything.
Omni Small car? 2.2 Turbo
Compact Sporty coupe Daytona? 2.2 Turbo
Personal luxury coupe and convertible LeBaron? 2.2 Turbo
New Yorker large luxury car? 2.2 Turbo
Ridiculously expensive LeBaron looking "Maserati" thing? 2.2 Turbo (1989 model)
Minivan?! [heck] yes a 2.2 Turbo!
I'm honestly surprised that they didn't stuff 2.2 Turbos in the leftover Renault21/Eagle Medallions from the AMC purchase
Chrysler had a *lot* of variations on their 4-banger turbo, and you're right it went in *everything* until they started producing their in-house V6 (the 3.3L) around '88. Credit to them for making those turbos hold up very well in daily-driven use by non-enthusiasts, too. They continued to use the oil-swilling Mitsubishi 3.0 v6 for way too long too, unfortunately. A lot of people mistakenly thought all those blue-smoke-puffing minivans in the early 90s were turbo Chrysler engines, but that was actually a dead giveaway of a 3.0 Mitsu v6 with bad valve guides.
Of the turbos: the bigger 2.5L version was the workhorse in most applications from 1989 onward, but the 2.2 hung around as well. The "Turbo 1" package (be it 2.2 or 2.5) was a basic turbo setup, no intercooler. It went in *everything,* especially from 89 onward and in 2.5L form. The "Turbo II" was the higher performance version with an intercooler, used in things like the GLH/GLHS. The "Turbo III" was unique to the Spirit R/T and Daytona IROC R/T, with a (trouble-prone, prototype shoved into mass production) 16-valve DOHC head and a timing belt that tended to last about 10,000 miles. When it worked, it put out over 220 horsepower and by every objective measure beat the Taurus SHO... except it went in a really cheesy stretched K-car and the SHO stomped it in fit/finish/civility and sales. The Turbo IV was probably the best of the lot, using a variable-nozzle turbo with virtually no "turbo lag" and an intercooler, but came at the end and only went into less than 2000 vehicles.
The "Chrysler TC by Maserati" had an engine all its own. It was a 2.2L block and essentially a Turbo II, but it had a 16-valve head that was completely different than the Turbo III 16-V head (much more reliable), different turbo, and lots of detail differences.
Originally Posted By: artificialist
I figured the Buick 231 was eliminated either because it didn't meet tougher smog laws, or because major changes would need to be made so the engine could be installed transversely. GM was converting numerous cars to FWD during the 1980s.
The Buick 231 was the California emissions engine in the Camaro and Monte Carlo (no 229s in California)
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
The 80's had quite a few interesting cars. I still have my 1987 Buick Grand National I bought new. I still smile every time I drive it. One car I wish I got, however, is one of those Dodge Omni GLH or GLH-S editions. Those little cars flat out flew! Give credit where due for these cars even being built given what the automakers were up against regarding regulations and the current level of technology they had at the time.
I don't know....Chrysler put the 2.2 Turbo in everything.
Omni Small car? 2.2 Turbo
Compact Sporty coupe Daytona? 2.2 Turbo
Personal luxury coupe and convertible LeBaron? 2.2 Turbo
New Yorker large luxury car? 2.2 Turbo
Ridiculously expensive LeBaron looking "Maserati" thing? 2.2 Turbo (1989 model)
Minivan?! [heck] yes a 2.2 Turbo!
I'm honestly surprised that they didn't stuff 2.2 Turbos in the leftover Renault21/Eagle Medallions from the AMC purchase
Chrysler had a *lot* of variations on their 4-banger turbo, and you're right it went in *everything* until they started producing their in-house V6 (the 3.3L) around '88. Credit to them for making those turbos hold up very well in daily-driven use by non-enthusiasts, too. They continued to use the oil-swilling Mitsubishi 3.0 v6 for way too long too, unfortunately. A lot of people mistakenly thought all those blue-smoke-puffing minivans in the early 90s were turbo Chrysler engines, but that was actually a dead giveaway of a 3.0 Mitsu v6 with bad valve guides.
Of the turbos: the bigger 2.5L version was the workhorse in most applications from 1989 onward, but the 2.2 hung around as well. The "Turbo 1" package (be it 2.2 or 2.5) was a basic turbo setup, no intercooler. It went in *everything,* especially from 89 onward and in 2.5L form. The "Turbo II" was the higher performance version with an intercooler, used in things like the GLH/GLHS. The "Turbo III" was unique to the Spirit R/T and Daytona IROC R/T, with a (trouble-prone, prototype shoved into mass production) 16-valve DOHC head and a timing belt that tended to last about 10,000 miles. When it worked, it put out over 220 horsepower and by every objective measure beat the Taurus SHO... except it went in a really cheesy stretched K-car and the SHO stomped it in fit/finish/civility and sales. The Turbo IV was probably the best of the lot, using a variable-nozzle turbo with virtually no "turbo lag" and an intercooler, but came at the end and only went into less than 2000 vehicles.
The "Chrysler TC by Maserati" had an engine all its own. It was a 2.2L block and essentially a Turbo II, but it had a 16-valve head that was completely different than the Turbo III 16-V head (much more reliable), different turbo, and lots of detail differences.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
The "Chrysler TC by Maserati" had an engine all its own. It was a 2.2L block and essentially a Turbo II, but it had a 16-valve head that was completely different than the Turbo III 16-V head (much more reliable), different turbo, and lots of detail differences.
If you got an '89 with automatic, you got a SOHC 2.2 TurboII.
Only 501 of the cars were sold with the Cosworth-Maserati engine. With such a low production run, parts are correspondingly difficult to obtain. Accounting for a few spares, more than 500 Cosworth-Maserati engines were made, and a few NOS cylinder heads are known to exist; rebuilding existing assemblies is the usual option over replacement parts for the top end of the engine.... The twin-cam Cosworth-Maserati engine five-speeds are the most desirable, thanks to their unique cylinder head, highest 200 horsepower rating, and low 501-unit production run. The Chrysler Turbo II automatics and Mitsubishi-Chrysler 3.0-liter V-6 TC cars land in second and third place, respectively. Hemmings
The "Chrysler TC by Maserati" had an engine all its own. It was a 2.2L block and essentially a Turbo II, but it had a 16-valve head that was completely different than the Turbo III 16-V head (much more reliable), different turbo, and lots of detail differences.
If you got an '89 with automatic, you got a SOHC 2.2 TurboII.
Only 501 of the cars were sold with the Cosworth-Maserati engine. With such a low production run, parts are correspondingly difficult to obtain. Accounting for a few spares, more than 500 Cosworth-Maserati engines were made, and a few NOS cylinder heads are known to exist; rebuilding existing assemblies is the usual option over replacement parts for the top end of the engine.... The twin-cam Cosworth-Maserati engine five-speeds are the most desirable, thanks to their unique cylinder head, highest 200 horsepower rating, and low 501-unit production run. The Chrysler Turbo II automatics and Mitsubishi-Chrysler 3.0-liter V-6 TC cars land in second and third place, respectively. Hemmings
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
In a nutshell, the 1980s sucked rope as far as cars go. I had the misfortune of coming of driving age at the EXACT worst moment in automotive history. Got my license in 1980 at age 16. Graduated college in '86. Affordable new cars? Sure, but ugh... not a single one that I'd actually WANT to drive. A GN or GNX was out of my price range as a first-year engineer also taking grad school classes. A GLHS? Would have been fun in hindsight, but I loathed FWD even back then. That's why I kept my hand-me-down '73 Satellite so dang long!
Smokey Yunick and I agree(d) with you, he said about the US car industry's engines (specifically US engines) in the early 80's "I want to puke":
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1873&dat=19811009&id=G3EpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HdIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1755,4139139
I've complained here before about the state of US engine design back then, and was branded an import fanboi for my trouble. I guess Smokey was an import fanboi too.
The fact is the writing was on the wall in the early 70's, but for another decade the US makers messed around with: lousy import 4 cylinders, large slow heavy iron block domestic 4 cylinders, TBi's on 60's era all-iron V8 engines and other dead-ends instead of getting their R&D act together. Even after that into the 90's, it was more OHV, more iron/aluminum engines, more 2VPC, all the stuff that couldn't (and wouldn't) last in the marketplace. The US Big Three have had a shocking lack of investment in their engine technology. Finally in the 2000's they were forced to do something, for example Ford hired a German company to engineer their latest twin turbo V6, probably because they couldn't do it themselves.
In a nutshell, the 1980s sucked rope as far as cars go. I had the misfortune of coming of driving age at the EXACT worst moment in automotive history. Got my license in 1980 at age 16. Graduated college in '86. Affordable new cars? Sure, but ugh... not a single one that I'd actually WANT to drive. A GN or GNX was out of my price range as a first-year engineer also taking grad school classes. A GLHS? Would have been fun in hindsight, but I loathed FWD even back then. That's why I kept my hand-me-down '73 Satellite so dang long!
Smokey Yunick and I agree(d) with you, he said about the US car industry's engines (specifically US engines) in the early 80's "I want to puke":
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1873&dat=19811009&id=G3EpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HdIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1755,4139139
I've complained here before about the state of US engine design back then, and was branded an import fanboi for my trouble. I guess Smokey was an import fanboi too.
The fact is the writing was on the wall in the early 70's, but for another decade the US makers messed around with: lousy import 4 cylinders, large slow heavy iron block domestic 4 cylinders, TBi's on 60's era all-iron V8 engines and other dead-ends instead of getting their R&D act together. Even after that into the 90's, it was more OHV, more iron/aluminum engines, more 2VPC, all the stuff that couldn't (and wouldn't) last in the marketplace. The US Big Three have had a shocking lack of investment in their engine technology. Finally in the 2000's they were forced to do something, for example Ford hired a German company to engineer their latest twin turbo V6, probably because they couldn't do it themselves.
I liked the '86-7 turbo regals-not the black GN/GNX so much as the regals were the same drivetrain available in all the regal colors=a real sleepercar. The 'black Buicks' were more sinister critters. I have #300 of the '89 tta and I call it 'the beast'
Bud_One
Site Donor 2022
What about the Pontiac McLaren Turbo Grand Prix ?
The 80s were when performance came back. In fact, it started in 1982: the return of the 5.0 Mustang. Next year, it was the aero Thunderbird with the EFI turbo engine. Chrysler kicked it up a notch in 1984 with the Daytona & Laser, then GM did it again a year later with the Tuned Port F-bodies.
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
"Later, you could get the [Cobalt SS] with a 2.0-liter turbo rated at 260 hp." Would that be the same 2.0 turbo that's in today's Buick Regal?
Yes it is; same engine that came in the HHR SS, the Solstice, and now the new Malibu turbo and Cadillac CTS. Great engine, hardly any turbo lag.
"Later, you could get the [Cobalt SS] with a 2.0-liter turbo rated at 260 hp." Would that be the same 2.0 turbo that's in today's Buick Regal?
Yes it is; same engine that came in the HHR SS, the Solstice, and now the new Malibu turbo and Cadillac CTS. Great engine, hardly any turbo lag.
- Status
Similar threads
