Slowest car ever

[mcrn]

Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
Originally Posted By: mcrn
True but its nicer when there are a few that are faster than when everyone is faster. Get that picture?


Can I get this translated to English?


True = I was agreeing with what you said earlier.

But its nicer when there are a few that are faster = It is more enjoyable when there are a few cars or vehicles on the road driving at the same time as I am on the road driving my vehicle.

Than when everyone is faster = Compared to having everyone who is driving on the road being faster than me.

Get that picture? = Do you understand?

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted By: slammds15
'88 International Blue Bird bus body with a four speed auto and a 6.9 in front of it. I passed everything as long as it was parked or a stationary object I hated having to rescue drivers with a dead bus.


Hehehe.. I do recall some of the full sized school buses in my era being painfully slow climbing the hills where I grew up. I remember them being gas engined, 4 spds?, then gas + automatic (really slow). Diesel automatics were just coming into the mainstream when I was in school and I'm still a young feller having graduated HS in 1988.

Joel

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: mpvue
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: mpvue

btw, the cobalt does it w/ almost half the displacement.


But you'll still lose in a drag race!


HP/L is the stupidest comparison EVAR!


by 6/10ths? WOW.
HP/L is an acceptable way to compare apples to apples last time I checked.
using geek speak like EVAR is also pretty stupid.


I was going to stay out of this but, wow!

HP/L means absolutely nothing. What matters is who gets across the finish line first. Mine makes over 180hp/L and I could care less. If I lost to one of the V8 guys and used that argument I would be laughed off the track.

What you're not getting is my car even at it's level is completely daily drivable. It's not a high strung laggy 4 banger. It feels like a bone stock car until you put your foot into it.

Comparing it to a Cobalt, please. Stock for stock mine is a little quicker. Throw equal mods at both and the GN will walk it like it's standing still. Let's not forget as power levels go up the FWD handicap is going to get larger.

Here's my friend's GN that I thew a larger turbo and intercooler on. $1,500 in mods, runs mid-bottom 11s depending on the tune. This is racing my TL and yes, I have it to the floor the whole time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvA-qkRZWag

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
Hey BuickGN...do you have your list of mods posted here anywhere? That's some incredible performance numbers, even for a GNX.

Fun car...I was working at a Pontiac / Olds / GMC dealer during the GNX heyday. They were wiping the pavement with the current Vette and completely humiliating the Monte Carlo SS. I remember when that engine surfaced in the '89 Trans Am and we had one delivered. NOBODY was allowed to drive it and it spent its time on the showroom until a buyer came along. I think the car came back about a year later as a trade-in, and I thought that was finally my chance to drive one..but the sales manager kept the keys locked in his desk. :-(


Sure.

Factory 4.1L block out of a junkyard bored .035" over to make it a 4" bore so I can use the cheap Chevy pistons (JE)

Stock rods

Stock crank

Small 212-212 flat tappet cam

Ported GN1 heads

Stock headers

Block girdle

Ported stock intake manifold

Bored stock throttlebody

GH6765 DBB turbo

Ford Powerstroke intercooler

That's about it for the engine.

Rear end is mostly stock. Trans is where the money is.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: BuickGN


62hp in a 3000lb car is dangerous.


Thinking that one is above the law, better than other drivers, and therefore entitled to drive over the limit is dangerous.

People talking and texting are dangerous.

People aware of the other vehicles on the road are far less dangerous, provided they don't have bad habits like those given above.

So how is 62 hp, or based upon my comment, 120 hp dangerous? Because somebody feels entitled to mash the go pedal without concern for other cars/ drivers, let alone physics?

Last I checked, we also share the road with other slower vehicles, and slow is generally superior for economy anyhow. Too much power is just as dangerous, and generally also corresponds to a better than you, entitlement attitude, which is dangerous.


You're acting like a hippie. We are Americans, we have free will, we have the choice to buy what we want. You have an opinion and that's all it is but the thought to limit what we can buy based on your opinion is wrong.

It's obvious you've never owned a fast car. I could care less about speeding or top speed. There's so much assumption in your post I don't know where to start. You're assuming just because I have a fast car I speed. You're assuming that since it's not deathly slow I don't pay attention to the road. You're assuming I have an entitlement, better than you attitude. You're assuming I think I'm above the law. All this because I have a faster than you deem necessary car??? You're the one with the attitude.

I've owned the GN for my entire adult life and I'm 32. I've never had a wreck, fender bender, spinout, nothing. It's not dangerous as long as you have some form of self control, skill, and know when to use it and when not to. I'm assuming my TL would fall into your "too fast" category too. So sad.

 

[Vikas]

I want to know if BuickGN is claiming 2 second 0-60 in his own GN. I also know nothing about the drag racing but I can say that there are not many street legal vehicles having 4 wheels which can go 0-60 in 2 seconds.

- Vikas

 

[mpvue]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: mpvue
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: mpvue

btw, the cobalt does it w/ almost half the displacement.


But you'll still lose in a drag race!


HP/L is the stupidest comparison EVAR!


by 6/10ths? WOW.
HP/L is an acceptable way to compare apples to apples last time I checked.
using geek speak like EVAR is also pretty stupid.


I was going to stay out of this but, wow!

HP/L means absolutely nothing. What matters is who gets across the finish line first. Mine makes over 180hp/L and I could care less. If I lost to one of the V8 guys and used that argument I would be laughed off the track.

What you're not getting is my car even at it's level is completely daily drivable. It's not a high strung laggy 4 banger. It feels like a bone stock car until you put your foot into it.

Comparing it to a Cobalt, please. Stock for stock mine is a little quicker. Throw equal mods at both and the GN will walk it like it's standing still. Let's not forget as power levels go up the FWD handicap is going to get larger.

Here's my friend's GN that I thew a larger turbo and intercooler on. $1,500 in mods, runs mid-bottom 11s depending on the tune. This is racing my TL and yes, I have it to the floor the whole time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvA-qkRZWag


I don't know why you're getting all bent out of shape, I didn't even adress you or your car at all.
I was only responding to a guy who had these great memories of the GN when it was new. I was merely making to comparison that the rated hp #'s at the time were ok, but fall somewhat short by what's available today. all I attempted to point out was that the hottest car of '86, the GN made 64hp/liter, while a turbo ecotec makes 130hp/liter.
just making a comparison on how far things have come w/ regards to specific output.
I never said anything about drag racing, or trap speeds or 60' times, just specific output.

 

[XS650]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
I want to know if BuickGN is claiming 2 second 0-60 in his own GN. I also know nothing about the drag racing but I can say that there are not many street legal vehicles having 4 wheels which can go 0-60 in 2 seconds.

- Vikas


That would be an average of 1.37g from 0-60. Since it would take 750 rwhp to maintain that acceleration at 60 mph, that rather remarkable.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: XS650
Originally Posted By: Vikas
I want to know if BuickGN is claiming 2 second 0-60 in his own GN. I also know nothing about the drag racing but I can say that there are not many street legal vehicles having 4 wheels which can go 0-60 in 2 seconds.

- Vikas


That would be an average of 1.37g from 0-60. Since it would take 750 rwhp to maintain that acceleration at 60 mph, that rather remarkable.


It's 602 at the wheels, I estimate 7-720hp at the flywheel. Car weighs a hair over 3,000lbs.

1.37g is easily doable. It makes my head spin and the skin on my face pull back. It pulls bottom 1.5 60' times on average, has dipped into the 1.4s a time or two.

Don't forget it's got 620lbs of torque at the wheels being held against the convertor and then released. At the track on slicks I launch it wide open, 28psi boost for all it's worth.

I honestly don't know the 0-60mph number which I stated but I would be surprised if it were above 2.5 seconds. You take a Viper or Vette that can run low 4 second 0-60 times on street tires and put them up against my GN (I run around on slicks all the time), the race is over by 60mph, not even close. My purpose is not to brag, just illustrating the difference in slicks and street tires.

 

[XS650]

2.5 seconds is believable for that combination on good slicks.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: XS650
2.5 seconds is believable for that combination on good slicks.


Any way to calculate this now that I'm curious?

Take the best case scenario of a 1.48 60' time. It leaves with the left front about 9" in the air and the right barely touching. One of my friend's claims he's seen air under the right tire. I really think it could beat a 2.5 but that's a tough claim to prove.

 

[OVERKILL]

Ford's 10.0L BOSS did 0-60 in 1.9 seconds.

There were reports of race-trim RS200 Cosworth cars (AWD, turbo, 650HP) doing ~2.0 second 0-60 times as well.

On a tire, with GN's setup, I don't see ~2.0 being all that lofty a goal, especially given how the car 60 ft's.

If you have a car that is setup to go from 0-1320ft as fast as possible, it should be no surprise that its 0-60 is going to be MUCH better than a car NOT setup for drag racing, even with similar power output.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Ford's 10.0L BOSS did 0-60 in 1.9 seconds.

There were reports of race-trim RS200 Cosworth cars (AWD, turbo, 650HP) doing ~2.0 second 0-60 times as well.

On a tire, with GN's setup, I don't see ~2.0 being all that lofty a goal, especially given how the car 60 ft's.

If you have a car that is setup to go from 0-1320ft as fast as possible, it should be no surprise that its 0-60 is going to be MUCH better than a car NOT setup for drag racing, even with similar power output.


I'm trying to remember if there was an old calculator the estimated 0-60 by 60' time. I understand there's a ton of room for error but I seem to remember something like that.

Was that a 10L V10? I vaguely remember that project but it seems like it was a long time ago.

 

[OVERKILL]

Nope, it was a stroked BOSS 429 converted to EFI.

Don't remember the calculator bud, sorry

 

[Vikas]

One of the ironic thing that I have noted is that when *I* am driving a relatively fast vehicle (read: good acceleration) I am content at driving sedately. But if my car does not have good performance, I end up driving faster.

- Vikas

 

[Colt45ws]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
One of the ironic thing that I have noted is that when *I* am driving a relatively fast vehicle (read: good acceleration) I am content at driving sedately. But if my car does not have good performance, I end up driving faster.

- Vikas

I noticed this with my Vic versus my Cavalier. Not a fast car, but since I actually have torque, I don't feel compelled to go WOT at every stop light, and hold it down until Im going way over the limit. I take off more with traffic and end up over still, but in a more normal +0-5 range as opposed to +5-15.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: mpvue

the monte SS IIRC had 180hp. the corvette had 235hp, and the GN had a rated 245hp. by todays' standards that isn't much to brag about; a turbo ECOTEC makes 260hp now, and the 3.9 V6 in the last gen malibu SS made 240hp w/o a turbo!
the GN was a good starting point and the aftermarket really took off with them.


All true numbers, but I swear horses are getting smaller these days just so they can advertise more of them. I do know that the official SAE test definitions and parameters do change a bit over time, but I haven't really followed it since the 80s.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: mpvue

the monte SS IIRC had 180hp. the corvette had 235hp, and the GN had a rated 245hp. by todays' standards that isn't much to brag about; a turbo ECOTEC makes 260hp now, and the 3.9 V6 in the last gen malibu SS made 240hp w/o a turbo!
the GN was a good starting point and the aftermarket really took off with them.


All true numbers, but I swear horses are getting smaller these days just so they can advertise more of them. I do know that the official SAE test definitions and parameters do change a bit over time, but I haven't really followed it since the 80s.





I just seems like peak numbers are going up and engines are peakier. Now you can have a high output 6 banger with peak numbers similar to your stock 440 for advertising purposes. People don't realize the 440 makes power everywhere on the tach and not just 500rpm before redline and that it would murder a modern car with similar numbers.

I remember bone stock running the LT1 Z28s when they were new. Through the 1/4 I always put about 3 cars on them. However at the top of each gear, especially second, they would actually make up a couple feet on me. It was scary the first few times then I got used to it. I'm assuming they had more peak hp and I had more under the curve.

 

[Colt45ws]

Horsepower sells cars, torque moves them off the lot.

 

[Samilcar]

Consumer Reports did a comparison test on 2009 sports cars this month (Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger) and all of the 0-60 mph times were around 5 seconds. The same models that they tested in 1968 all ran around 10 seconds. We're living in the golden age of performance cars. Get 'em while you still can.