DJ Dep

I've seen a lot of posts that suggested that the Vette carried the distinction of being GM's main performace car after the big compression drop. Well...that isn't quite true. As a matter of fact, there's a car that most V8 owners would rather forget. Here's the info from Popular Mechanics...

The Regal

With the exception of the aftermarket boost gauge stuck to its steering column and the illegal elimination of its catalyst, Bob Hansen's 1987 Buick Regal T-Type is all stock. And with the stock 15 psi of turbo boost, it runs the quarter mile, according to Hansen, in 13.80 seconds-exactly what we remember them running a decade ago.

But Hansen cranked up his boost to 22 psi for this test, filled the tank with 100 octane (no lead) and tore off runs in the mid-12s all day, with a best pass of 12.52 at 110.35 mph.

Hansen has owned this car for four years. It has over 140,000 miles on it, and the 3.8-liter (231 cu. in.) V6 motor, which is factory-rated at 245 hp and 355 ft.-lb. of torque, has never been apart. Hansen even drove it to New Jersey from his hometown of Concorde Township, Ohio, and averaged 25 mpg. At the end of the day, he drove it home.

Off the line, Hansen launched his turbocharged car harder than the big-block contenders. At low rpm with no turbo boost, the T-Type is like a V6 sedan. Then about 30 ft. out, when most cars start to hook up, the boost really came on, the tires broke loose and he was gone, manually shifting though the 4-speed automatic at 5100 rpm. Cool stuff.

In the slalom and the braking, the Buick performed worse than the new cars, and better than the oldies. Driving the turbo Buick is a completely different experience from driving any other car here. There's no rumble from the engine, just an evil hiss from the turbocharger. Then, it breaks the tires loose at the top of First gear, which is a bit unnerving if you're not ready for it. And at full boost, it shoves you so hard into the seat that it feels like Hulk Hogan is standing on your chest.

We included the T-Type because it represents a perfect mix of the old and the new. It has an old-style sedan chassis like a classic musclecar, but it's powered by a high-tech, fuel-injected engine, like a modern musclecar. It's sort of a bridge between two eras. If Hansen had run with 15 psi of boost, he still would have beaten every old car except the Hemicuda.
http://popularmechanics.com/automoti...s/index3.phtml

Note that this was NOT the Grand National. This was a T-type.
No big horsepower ratings. No gigantic torque. No drag slicks. And 140,000 miles on the engine. Pretty spectacular stuff. If I remember right Buick even had a governor on the engine to limit top end because the outdated chassis couldn't handle the full power potential of the engine.

Dep

SanDiegoPaul

And all with 8:1 compression! :smash: :mad :rolleyes:

DJ Dep

Yep...8-1. I remember going into a Buick showroom when they first brought out the Grand National. A female salesPERSON came up to me and started talking about the nice interior and sporty looks. Of course, my first words were "can I pop the hood?" She looked over at the salesmanager (a man) and he nodded yes. I couldn't believe how tiny the engine looked. Then out of the blue this saleswoman says "it's the fastest American production car made". I almost peed all over myself :D

I told her she was mistaken and walked out. Turned out the dimbulb broad was right!!!

Dep

Shark Racer

The GN was rated 240/~340. The GNX was 300 / ~420.

The 'vettes didn't have speed limiters. I'd call the GN and the T-type, which was an identical car with exception to trim, the quickest straightline cars of the time, with exception to RPO B2K which was a few years later.

Wonder which would win on a road course, the T-type or the 87 vette? You could throw me the keys to a 12 second GN and a 13-second 'vette, and I'd take the 'vette in a heartbeat. My little brother had GN's sibling, the Olds Cutlass, and that thing is a land-yacht. Maybe they can be made into drag strip cars, but the 70's and 80's 'vettes were holding quite a few SCCA showroom titles.

BTW, I don't think I need to worry about my head getting too swelled... I like it as it is...

-Steve

C3 Shark Tank

The Regal T-Type is a nice car. There's a video on the page below, third column second one from bottom. He runs against a Grand National :thumbs:

Misfit Racing Videos

mapman

Dep,

Interesting post. The Buick drivers I see around here these days are NOT your go-fast kind of folks! Most of them look old enough to have voted for President Hoover. :lol:

Guru_4_hire

so why was the vette never turbocharged from the factory?? seems like a turbo L98 would have gone places in a hurry......

73 LS-4

The Calloway's of that era were turbocharged L-98's, and there was an RPO code for them so I guess you could say they were factory.

While were on the subject of things faster then the vette during a given model year, you can always bring up the 455 SD pontiac firebirds of 73 and 74. I think they were 320 net horse in 73 compared to my LS-4's 275 net in 73. Then there's 70 with the LS-6 chevelle, the corvette didn't get its planned LS-7, so only the LS-5 and LT-1 were the top vette engines in 1970. I'm sure there's more examples of other GM's having more power then the vettes, but these are the first to pop into my head.

:cheers:
Pat Kunz

Crash Dummy

mapman....

Not true at all. If you think Vette owners get serious about their cars you are not part of the Grand National crowd. At one time(maybe there still is) there were some very serious races staging only Grand Nationals against Mustangs in the mid-east areas(Chicago, etc). I had a guy who bought my Super Gas full chrome moly chassis Regal out of Chicago and put a twin turbo charged aluminum V-6 in it and was running in the high 7's the last time I heard. He had more in that engine than you could ever imagine for our vettes.... $40K at the time. I was running in the mid 9's with a 468. Just proves what technology can do.

Dalannex

I know this post is just a curious topic on the Regal, so this is just my thoughts on the subject. I would love to have a Grand National, or a Regal or Cutlass for that matter, from that time frame because I love the body style. But, I wouldn't pay the money that it takes to get into the Regal or the GN (maybe a cutlass, they're cheaper :D) because when I look at one of them I think, "imagine what kind of vette I could buy for that, and when it's said and done that is still a GN, or Regal or whatever, and I could have a Vette". :D I think that a Corvette says something that the others don't. When you think GM flagship sportscar you think Corvette. :chevy Them Grand Nationals are still awful cool though.

-Justin

WA 2 FST

You can find near mint-condition low-mileage GNs (not GNX...those are much more rare and $$) for mid-teens. I found one just 3 years ago in Nebraska that had 12k miles. The guy wanted $13.5k for it. That would have been a good deal. The thing was all original and stock, except the owner (original owner, too) had an aftermarket chip in it.

These things were seriously fast, and if they'd stuck the turbo V6 in the Vette it would have been crazy fast. Of course, I realize anything but a V8 in a Vette is considered heretical, so that would never have happened.

The turbo Firebird of that era was also very fast.

As far as Dep comparing a regular T-type vs. a GN...well, realize that when the guy throws in 100 octane and bumps the boost significantly, he just accounted for the difference in HP ... and then some. A bone stock GN in perfect tune, down here in the heat of Texas will not run better than low, mid-13s on stock tires. Add some good gas and turn up the boost, instant high-12s. :)

Fevre

The cylone has the best potential of all GM super cars/trucks in somewhat stock configuration. All wheel drive and 4.3 litres with a turbo. 4.9 sec 0-60 stock is pretty fast. Crank the boost up, add a chip and hold on. :yesnod:

DJ Dep

QUOTE:
"You could throw me the keys to a 12 second GN and a 13-second 'vette, and I'd take the 'vette in a heartbeat"

Don't do that if you want to win a 1/4 mile race ;) The Buicks were NOT sports cars and were never intended to run road courses. Of course, the same could be said for Vettes and dragstrips :)

"My little brother had GN's sibling, the Olds Cutlass, and that thing is a land-yacht."

Ummm...your reaching with that comparison. Oldsmobile NEVER had a turbo- injected engine like the Buick had. The Olds Cutlass was more a small luxury car than a performance car. I AM surprised you didn't bring up the Monte Carlo SS, which was also around back then on the same frame and with basically the same body parts as the Buick. It WAS sorta advertised as a performance car (dual exhaust, 4 bbl carb, aero package) since it was used in NASCAR (Dale Earnhardt's car). They were also pretty slow, but looked nice. 305 engine was okay in a truck for light duty, but never really made it in the Monte or IROC cars as a performance engine in stock form. BTW...the 305 was available in the Buick Regal back when the turbo was available. It was a corporate engine (read Chevy). It wasn't a very popular option and is kinda hard to find now.

The swelled head remark I made was in jest :jester
I wouldn't take a V6 for performance either. The turbo Buick is pretty much "at it's peak" as far as modifying it. You just buy it and drive it. It was an interesting experiment in just how hot you could make a VERY tame V6 engine. I had an '83 Regal and that same engine. With 2bbl carb it put out 150 enemic horsepower and was a hassle to merge on a highway.

Dep


[Modified by Dep, 9:12 AM 12/17/2002]

DJ Dep

Wes Wes Wes....we are going to kidnap you out of that land of low ETs and bring you up into drag race land. How are you ever going to REALLY know how fast your new big block is if you are constantly running under a handicap??? ;)

I question your statement about the turbo Firebird being fast. I think the ONLY distinction that car had was it was used ONCE as a pace car for Indy.
If I remember right that was Pontiac's 301 engine and it was a dud with the turbo option. It LOOKED very cool, but I think that was pretty much a failed experiment. They didn't waste any time switching over to the corporate (Chevy) 350 and dropping the turbo option. It certainly was nowhere near the Buick in performance...even with a turbo V8.

Chrysler was big on turbos for a while in the 80's. Just about every car in their lineup had it as an option. A cheap way to get power out of weak engines. But there was a downside. Chrysler didn't realize that turbos increased wear on internal parts. Most of those motors either had turbos that quit working, or they toasted the engine. Another failed turbo experiement.
The only factory turbos that seemed to work well were in pickup trucks with diesels, and that is where most of them are now. I dunno if the Viper is turbo, but for $65,000 it SHOULD be turbo and it should last. Then again, Chrysler now has a hemi in it's trucks, and the Viper seems to get truck hand-me-downs, so we might see a hemi in the Viper next. That could be VERY bad news for Vettes in competition.

Dep

MIKER

Turbo Buick Into 1971 Corvette
Mike Cambio, a 1996 Real Street Eliminator participant, dropped a turbo Buick (Regal/GN) engine and TH200-4R trans into a 1971 Corvette. For motor mounts, the stock Buick mounts on the engine work, but the frame mounts had to be fabricated. The Vette’s TH400 trans crossmember accommodated the 200-4R by slotting the mounting holes. The 200-4R is within 1/2 inch in length of a TH400, and the Corvette’s stock-length driveshaft worked with a TH350 yoke--the same piece as used in a 200-4R. The stock Buick turbo V-6 oil pan fit perfectly in the Vette’s chassis, while the factory Buick exhaust manifolds cleared the car’s framerails and steering box. Mike had a turbo downpipe fabbed at a muffler shop. The result is a stock-looking Corvette that runs low 11s on 10-inch slicks and knocks down nearly 25 mpg on the highway. http://www.carcraft.com/editorial/ar...pe=745&aid=987


Car Craft’s “Real Street Eliminator” was always one of my favorite articles because it covered well balanced cars built for street use. The competition is rated in six categories: Acceleration (100 points), Slalom (75 points), Braking (50 points), Fuel Economy (25 points), Ride & Drive (100 points), and Craftsmanship (150 points).
Here’s an example article for those who have not heard of it.
1992 Car Craft Magazine, Real Street Eliminator http://www.sportmachines.com/magrack...aft_12-92.html

WA 2 FST

That's why it is imperative to use Density Altitude readings when comparing times across the country. The guys up in NJ (Englishtown) consistently race at 600-1000' BELOW sea level. Here in N. Texas we are consistently at 1000-2000' _above_ sea level, and that's not considering the 100^F days (I don't bother racing then). ;)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was the Buick V6 that was used in the Firebird for at least one year. Same motor, Dep. There just weren't nearly as many of these T/As as there were GNs. It was a turbo V6 that produced 240hp/300tq. It was a mid-13 second car stock. I don't know if it was a 301 or what. I'm also not counting the 4.3 turbo motors in the Syclone/Typhoon trucks. Neat vehicles, but needed a serious bottom end to make truly reliable power. Not so with the stout Buick block.

I'm certainly not referring to some other GM conglomeration of parts. ;) I know there was a lot of crap back in the mid, late -80s. In fact, the Ford 5.0 Mustang was easily the best V8 out there ... in the "pony car" class.

Wrencher

Those Buicks are deceptive, thats for sure! However, my goal is to find a clean Turbo Trans Am and replace the 301 with a 8.0 to 1 o-ringed 455 with a proper cam and boost. That oughta do it...

Hans

Fevre

Here is another 'if I am not mistaken':

The 4.9 turbo was in the gen 2 trans am, like smokey and the bandit, and the 6 cyl (not sure of the disp) turbo was in the gen 3 GTA trans am. My gens might be off since I am not sure when the gens changed.

DJ Dep

Wes: The one I was talking about was the V8 version. I had no idea they had a V6 in the Trans Am. Still and all...the Turbo Trans Am was never as popular as the big block versions. After having a monstrous 455 Super Duty motor it's hard to drop down to something that small ;)
It must be a VERY rare car in the Turbo V6 version.

A side note...the 2002 WS-6 Trans Am is actually FASTER than the SS Camaro. I thought those engines were identical??

Dep


[Modified by Dep, 10:57 AM 12/17/2002]

MikeC

:iagree:

The old 301 turbo v-8..... the 3rd gen Transam had buicks 3.8 turbo. It'll probably smoke a GN or T-type because of less weight.

Like was previously said watch out for the Syclones and Typhoons.