Your favorite fast yet inexpensive car

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
So you're telling me 300 rwhp was the norm for stock TTAs?

Interesting, because here's one with a upgraded MAF and a K&N making 229 rwhp, with a supplied dyno graph.

http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/turbo-trans-am-tech/181669-put-tta-dyno-sunday.html



Once again, real life or internet, which do I believe?

Upgraded MAF on a stock or even 11 second car does nothing for power. K&N does little to nothing on a stock car. These cars are sensitive to temp changes and such. Answer me this, how does a 3,700lb car trap 105mph with 220rwhp?

A larger MAF requires a different chip and I would assume the tune was off.

I've been around these cars more than the average person.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
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?



Car and Driver quoted 4.9sec to 60MPH for the Grand National and 4.7 for the GNX version.


I also own a GN. Bought it new in 1987 and has just 50k now and still like new. Minor mods, like BuickGN said, and I've been running low 12's in the 1/4 and still getting high 20's for miles per gallon. Mine is not modded like BuickGN's - I run 18psi boost max. and the car burns rubber thru 3rd gear. I can only imagine what BuickGN's feels like!
 
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
That was put very briefly in an all-wheel drive version of the S-10 Blazer.



Not true. The vehicle you are referring too is the Syclone (Sonoma p/up version) and Typhoon (the Jimmy SUV version) had a 4.3V6 not the 3.8 intercooled Buick engine.

The only other use of the GN engine was in the 1989 Turbo Trans Am Pace car.
 
Originally Posted By: Jim 5
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!



Again people - not true. The GNX engine was only used in 547 cars -all Buick GN's.

They used a 4.3V6.
 
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Jim 5
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!



Again people - not true. The GNX engine was only used in 547 cars -all Buick GN's.

They used a 4.3V6.


LOL. Took care of that already.

For the others, the TTA got the GNX intercooler and turbo. Heads were off of a FWD 3.0 Buick engine. This was so that the engine would fit between the strut towers as the standard GN engine is 1/2" wider than a SBC. Pistons have a larger dish to offset the smaller chamber volume in the head, compression ratio is identical. The TTA also got a crossdrilled crank for better lubrication. The stock ones I've driven would spike the boost to nearly 19psi in first gear and back off to 16psi.
 
Last edited:
I really enjoy my 3000GT VR-4. It runs 11.8 on pure pump, gets 25mpg on the highway, and I've had absolutely no problems with it (that weren't my own dumb fault). AWD, 6 speed, twin turbo, and I bought it for only $9k back in '03.

Allow me to post a small picture.

3SiSig1-3.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
So you're telling me 300 rwhp was the norm for stock TTAs?

Interesting, because here's one with a upgraded MAF and a K&N making 229 rwhp, with a supplied dyno graph.

http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/turbo-trans-am-tech/181669-put-tta-dyno-sunday.html



Once again, real life or internet, which do I believe?

Upgraded MAF on a stock or even 11 second car does nothing for power. K&N does little to nothing on a stock car. These cars are sensitive to temp changes and such. Answer me this, how does a 3,700lb car trap 105mph with 220rwhp?

A larger MAF requires a different chip and I would assume the tune was off.

I've been around these cars more than the average person.


The tune may have been off, but there are other people in the thread with 235 rwhp stock TTAs.

The cars do NOT make 300 rwhp as delivered.

I've seen two different examples trap right at 100 mph at a track 50 feet above sea level.

The cars did not weigh 3,700 lbs., but rather ~3,350 lbs. minus a driver.
 
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
So you're telling me 300 rwhp was the norm for stock TTAs?

Interesting, because here's one with a upgraded MAF and a K&N making 229 rwhp, with a supplied dyno graph.

http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/turbo-trans-am-tech/181669-put-tta-dyno-sunday.html





Once again, real life or internet, which do I believe?

Upgraded MAF on a stock or even 11 second car does nothing for power. K&N does little to nothing on a stock car. These cars are sensitive to temp changes and such. Answer me this, how does a 3,700lb car trap 105mph with 220rwhp?

A larger MAF requires a different chip and I would assume the tune was off.

I've been around these cars more than the average person.


The tune may have been off, but there are other people in the thread with 235 rwhp stock TTAs.

The cars do NOT make 300 rwhp as delivered.

I've seen two different examples trap right at 100 mph at a track 50 feet above sea level.

The cars did not weigh 3,700 lbs., but rather ~3,350 lbs. minus a driver.



You're beginning to get annoying. I've weighed them half tank minus driver and believe me, they're 3,600 and change. I've trapped 105mph in a factory stock TTA myself. Get out there and do it yourself, quit arguing with someone that has 1,000X more experience.
 
Annoying or not, I'm beginning to think you don't know what "stock" actually means.

I've seen what it takes to make 300 rwhp (SAE corrected on a Dynojet) with these cars, and it's a minor boost increase at the least.

3,600 and change with a TTA? Where is all this weight coming from, the Lexan T-tops?

More "internet" for you (3,346 lbs):
http://89tta.turbobuicks.net/ttaspecs.htm

http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/features/hppp_0610_1989_pontiac_trans_am/index.html

http://www.fast-autos.net/vehicles/Pontiac/1989/20th_Anniversary_Turbo_Trans-Am/
 
Last edited:
I have not read a single link you're posted. There is no reason to because I've done this in person. Believe it or not, it doesn't matter to me. I'll be in Gautier, Ms in late March and if that's close to your area, I'm sure I can find a stock TTA or GN to run against your Mustang to prove my point.

I don't need to make up excuses but these cars' boost varied a lot from the factory. The computer doesn't know what the boost actually is, it just uses a PWM solenoid to raise or lower it blindly. That's part of the reason you see stock numbers all over the place. My GN held 16psi bone stock while some only hold 12psi. That's part of the reason a stock TTA will trap from 100mph to 105mph bone stock. It's a large varience.

I'm not saying that I haven't driven one of these cars to a 14.2 1/4 time with mph at 98 but most of these are between 100-105mph with dynos from 230 to 290hp.
 
Several of those links are from 89TTA.com and Pontiax enthusiast, quoting GM and PAS figures. Scales vary, but I am certain GM's specs aren't off by 300 lbs.

Gautier is about 1.5 hours from me, and a stock TTA or GN need not apply.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Several of those links are from 89TTA.com and Pontiax enthusiast, quoting GM and PAS figures. Scales vary, but I am certain GM's specs aren't off by 300 lbs.

Gautier is about 1.5 hours from me, and a stock TTA or GN need not apply.


I guess you know it all since you have never weighed one, dyno'd one, or run one. Your arrogance is amazing.

I'm assuming your Mustang is heavily modded because a stock TTA would walk all over it.
 
Who is the arrogant one? Isn't it a bit arrogant to assume I have never "dyno'd or run one" or that I have zero experience with them?

Do you think I would have bothered challenging your claims if I didn't have some basis from which to do so? The answer to that is an emphatic no.

A stock TTA has 4-5 tenths and 2-3 mph on a well-driven stock 5-speed '99 GT. My car is not stock, or even a 2V.

I have a lot of respect for GN/TTAs and all of the turbo V6 GMs of that era, but you have simply been off base on your claims of their stock capabilities.
 
Perhaps Buick could have been driving factory freaks :) The guy that holds the bolt on record (no power adders like Nitrous of FI) for the 94-96 LT1 B-body runs low 12s with it in ideal weather. Most others who get close manage high 12s. Stock you can typically find an LT1 B-car run anywhere from 14.8-15.5 depending on conditions and drivers. Obviously calling all 94-96 LT1 Bcars 15.5 sec 1/4 mile times because of what is found on the net in most places certainly wouldn't be true..

And as other people mention that the newer Mustangs are pretty capable at the track, I've yet to personally see on at the Track bone stock go faster than 13.9, but obviously a quick youtube video search reveals people have gone faster with a bone stock new GT.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
I have a lot of respect for GN/TTAs and all of the turbo V6 GMs of that era, but you have simply been off base on your claims of their stock capabilities.


And to further clarify, I am referring most specifically to the claim that 300 rwhp is "the norm" for a stock TTA.

I don't doubt your experiences with ET at all, as the cars are torque monsters.
 
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
I have a lot of respect for GN/TTAs and all of the turbo V6 GMs of that era, but you have simply been off base on your claims of their stock capabilities.


And to further clarify, I am referring most specifically to the claim that 300 rwhp is "the norm" for a stock TTA.

I don't doubt your experiences with ET at all, as the cars are torque monsters.


My original post should've read 290-ish hp. I stand by that, on two occasions I've seen 290 and change. I don't know what more to say. I have very little dyno experience because IMO it's a waste and only for bragging rights.
 
What is inexpensive? I bought my 2006 mustang gt for $25,600 brand new. Spent $5700 for a whipple supercharger which I installed. Spend a couple hundred dollars on tires and suspension upgrades and you are an 11 second car even with their conservative tune. That's $32,000 for a new 11 second car. Sure you can build a faster car for less, but I likes my new car smell.

Find me a new car today that can do that for that price. I think you can get a 08 gt for less than I paid for my 06, sad times.
 
For a new car I don't think there is a lot that can beat a Mustang. It's a great platform to start with and it's cheap for V8 power and RWD.

Still, I plan on finding a low mileage Termi when my TL is paid off.
 
I'm very tempted by the new Mustang. I might give it a year for the new engines to come out and then it might be time to replace the Monte Carlo.

As much as I enjoy fast cars, I'm not a huge power nut, I'll probably get the V6.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
1 Week Review - 2025 Toyota Tacoma Hybrid Limited
3 4 5
Replies
96
Views
34K
meep
D
Any cars you regret buying? - My '14 CR-V experience
9 10 11
Replies
206
Views
43K
50yr Street Mech
W
20,000 miles in a CX-5 GT-R
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
23K
Tshane3000
UNC151
  • Locked
2018 Mercedes GLC43 AMG Coupe - 1st 5,000 Miles
2
Replies
23
Views
8K
silverrat
S
Overview of AWD Systems
2 3
Replies
57
Views
22K
Al
Back
Top Bottom