Your favorite fast yet inexpensive car

BuickGN · Feb 27, 2009

Originally Posted By: wcbcruzer
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Again I'll have to say there's not much out there that can beat my $3,600 purchase price, 13.90s bone stock, and mid 11s for an extra $1,500 for a total of $5,100. Eveyone in town was convinced I had $20,000 in my engine when in reality it was a 150,000 mile factory longblock.

Sounds like a sweet ride. Are you boosting? You're going to have to school me on those GN's. How much horsepower did they come with from the factory?

Yep, 29psi at the hp in my sig but I usually run it around at 22psi since traction is the biggest issue. It's a factory turbo v6 car, just modded a little. I just got the new engine fired so once it's ready to go on the street, you're welcome to take a ride. Stock was a little underrated at 245hp and 365lbs torque. Thay ran 13.9 to 13.6 from the factory. Absolutely killed the Corvettes of the day.

D189379 · Feb 27, 2009

I prefer cars just for getting around. For speed I'll always go for a bike. My $12K 848 keeps me smiling these days.

Art_Vandelay · Feb 27, 2009

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Stock was a little underrated at 245hp and 365lbs torque. Thay ran 13.9 to 13.6 from the factory. Absolutely killed the Corvettes of the day.

I never realized they were ON like that. What was the factory 0-60 time on them?

wcbcruzer · Feb 27, 2009

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Yep, 29psi at the hp in my sig but I usually run it around at 22psi since traction is the biggest issue. It's a factory turbo v6 car, just modded a little. I just got the new engine fired so once it's ready to go on the street, you're welcome to take a ride. Stock was a little underrated at 245hp and 365lbs torque. Thay ran 13.9 to 13.6 from the factory. Absolutely killed the Corvettes of the day.

I just looked it up and those cars are sick! For its age they're really not selling for that "cheap" though. lol... After 1987 did they put that engine in any other vehicle?

TooManyWheels · Feb 27, 2009

That was put very briefly in an all-wheel drive version of the S-10 Blazer.

IndyIan · Feb 27, 2009

Originally Posted By: D189379
I prefer cars just for getting around. For speed I'll always go for a bike. My $12K 848 keeps me smiling these days.

You've been out in the garage polishing it for the last few months?

I agree though, bikes are a fantastic deal in speed/$. They also need quite abit more skill to ride fast safely but on a track that makes it fun as well.

I was watching a documentary on can-am racing and one of the drivers said he didn't notice the speed at all until something went wrong. In the actual racing all he noticed was relative speed between the cars and that was in the fastest cars at the time.

BuickGN · Feb 27, 2009

Originally Posted By: wcbcruzer
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Yep, 29psi at the hp in my sig but I usually run it around at 22psi since traction is the biggest issue. It's a factory turbo v6 car, just modded a little. I just got the new engine fired so once it's ready to go on the street, you're welcome to take a ride. Stock was a little underrated at 245hp and 365lbs torque. Thay ran 13.9 to 13.6 from the factory. Absolutely killed the Corvettes of the day.

I just looked it up and those cars are sick! For its age they're really not selling for that "cheap" though. lol... After 1987 did they put that engine in any other vehicle?

1989 Turbo Trans-am. 13.30s were the norm. I think it was rated at 250hp in that car but most of them put down 300 at the wheels.

I got mine when they weren't worth anything. $3,600 for mine, my dad got a mint condition 20,000 mile one for $7,500. Now it just sits in the garage, hasn't been driven in 3 years.

DragRace · Feb 28, 2009

Any 87-93 5.0 5-speed Mustang! Add some gear,exhaust,street drag radials,skinnies up front + shot of nitrous = high 12-sec 1/4 mile fun! Drove this same car to Texas and back, a 1200-mile trip with no issues at all.

Spanked my share of Vettes, Camaros,Chevelles that will tell you it's true

Barkleymut · Feb 28, 2009

For 27k I got my dream car, a new 07 mustang gt loaded up pretty nicely. It should last 200k with minimal maintenance, looks great and is plenty fast for me.

Jim 5 · Feb 28, 2009

Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
That was put very briefly in an all-wheel drive version of the S-10 Blazer.

Saw one of those about 2 weeks ago. Quite rare. I believe it is called the "Typhoon". It had the GNX engine and all wheel drive. You could really surprise alot of people as long as they don't know what it is!

BuickGN · Feb 28, 2009

I hate to correct this, because I wish it were true, but the engine responsible for the Sy/TY was a Chevy 4.3L V6 turbo. Ran good in stock form but didn't have near the power holding potential (stock) of the Buick 3.8L (any faster than mid 11s and you're picking up engine parts).

They do respond very well to little mods and will put down the power amazingly well on the street. My friend's Typhoon bone stock with 80,000 miles ran 13.90 and with little mods it was running 13.20s.

Back when the ricer invasion happened and it seemed they were at every redlight, we would race one or two at the same time and turn the hazard lights on before the race even started just to be cocky and give them a taste of their own medicine. I've never had so many people want to beat me up.

Steve S · Feb 28, 2009

Define cheap, one of the fancied out brand new Vettes are quite impressive and are dirt cheap when you consider its alternatives.

TooManyWheels · Feb 28, 2009

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
I hate to correct this, because I wish it were true, but the engine responsible for the Sy/TY was a Chevy 4.3L V6 turbo.

No prob. I stand corrected.

Actually, that explains why those trucks never achieved the popularity of the GN.

cousincletus · Feb 28, 2009

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct...&standard=false
Here's one for ya.

Drew99GT · Feb 28, 2009

That's a heckuva a deal!

1sttruck · Feb 28, 2009

If you plan on really using the speed then pick something that has been designed for it as opposed to just being able to achieve it. Cars that are used at tracks with minimal upgrades would be good candidiates. Look at the work needed for something like police cruisers, where speeds are limited in the vehicles due to the inability to handle oil temps and such at speed. A trendy car with a nice engine but no heritage for sustained speeds can get creaky over time. 1/4 mile stuff is hard on powertrains too.

Jim 5 · Feb 28, 2009

Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
I hate to correct this, because I wish it were true, but the engine responsible for the Sy/TY was a Chevy 4.3L V6 turbo.

No prob. I stand corrected.

Actually, that explains why those trucks never achieved the popularity of the GN.

I stand corrected too!

Dave Hess · Feb 28, 2009

My vote is for the C5 Vette, they are dirty cheap and easy to work on.

Ben99GT · Mar 1, 2009

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
1989 Turbo Trans-am. 13.30s were the norm. I think it was rated at 250hp in that car but most of them put down 300 at the wheels.

I've only seen two turbo T/As run, but both were high 13s at 98-99 mph.

Mid-low 200s was the norm at the wheels: http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/0512gm_1989_pontiac_trans_am_turbo_feature/index.html

"While these motors were rated at 250 flywheel horsepower to appease the Corvette crowd, in actuality, the TTA motor reportedly made 301 hp on the PAS engine dyno. This seems in line with chassis dyno testing, in which TTAs usually made around 220 ponies to the wheels."

BuickGN · Mar 1, 2009

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
1989 Turbo Trans-am. 13.30s were the norm. I think it was rated at 250hp in that car but most of them put down 300 at the wheels.

I've only seen two turbo T/As run, but both were high 13s at 98-99 mph.

Mid-low 200s was the norm at the wheels: http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/0512gm_1989_pontiac_trans_am_turbo_feature/index.html

"While these motors were rated at 250 flywheel horsepower to appease the Corvette crowd, in actuality, the TTA motor reportedly made 301 hp on the PAS engine dyno. This seems in line with chassis dyno testing, in which TTAs usually made around 220 ponies to the wheels."

I've personally taken 7-8 TTAs down the track, a couple of them on factory original tires and I mangaged anywhere from 13.60s to 13.20s with them....bone stock with the mph from 100-105mph.

I've been there first hand during dyno tests of bone stock cars.

We had a debate locally of what was faster, an LS1 or LC2 f-body and I ran a bone stock down to the tires, air filter, and boost level against two different LS1 cars, one of which had exhaust and I put 1-2 cars on both cars both times. I personally did the modding later on in life in this particular car so I was able to compare the chip numbers, boost level, and I removed the factory paper air filter from it.

The internet and magazines are great as an overall source of info but I believe my first hand experience over anything else.

Even my '84 GN with the stock non-intercooled motor went 14.40 bone stock before I converted it to the later motor less than a year later. This one was tested at 15.8 by Car Craft. With the boost turned up and no other mods it went 13.90.

The car mags probably didn't powerbrake to leave with boost which will result in 2.2 60' times or worse.

Your favorite fast yet inexpensive car

Similar threads