carrera 0-60 times

[masraum]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

A 930 Turbo would have to be much faster i would think, but the 1983 928 was not that fast in acceleration. (mid 6's IIRC).

In 1983 the Buick T-Type Turbo (non-intercooled) was introduced, that ran a 0-60 time of 5.5 0-60 (going from memory)

Here are some Internet numbers for the '87 GN.

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/buick-grandnational/buick-grandnational.shtml

Production: Grand Nationals: 20,193 GNX: 547
Engines: Grand National: 3.8L V6 Turbo 245 bhp @ 4400 rpm, 355 ft-lb @ 2000 rpm. GNX: 3.8L V6 Turbo 276 bhp @ 4400 rpm, 360 ft-lb @ 3000 rpm.
Performance: Grand National: 1/4 mile in 14.23 seconds @ 98 mph. GNX: 0-60 in 5.5 seconds, 1/4 mile in 13.43 seconds @ 103 mph.

From an article about the 1987 GNX
http://bestuff.com/stuff/buick-grand-national

A contemporary Porsche 930 hit 60 mph in 5.0 seconds and ran the quarter mile in 13.6 seconds, roughly equivalent to the GNX , which cost much less and could out-accelerate the naturally-aspirated 911 of the day. Ironically, many believe that these performance numbers were the reason the GNX was axed. GM didn’t want one of its own cars outperforming its flagship, the Corvette, and pulled the plug on the Buick program. The muscle cars of the 1960s had the power to beat the GNX , but the tires of the time could not transform this into speed, not to mention the numerous techniques employed in the GNX allowed the car to transfer all the power to the ground, such as a ladder bar that ran from the mid-section of the car to the rear axle, so as to increase traction. This is also the reason why a GNX will actually lift the rear end up when the car is about to launch heavily. The GNX never made much of a road-track competitor to cars like the 911, but it could certainly hold its own on a drag strip.

[notfarnow]

For $hits and giggles, I wonder what the fastest modern *production* Honda Civic can manage, 0-60

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by masraum

Here are some Internet numbers for the '87 GN.

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/buick-grandnational/buick-grandnational.shtml


From an article about the 1987 GNX
http://bestuff.com/stuff/buick-grand-national

Very wrong internet numbers if car and driver can be believed (that's where my numbers in post 11 came from).

All i know is that when i went to the drag strip back in the 80s nothing new (or newish) could touch the GN's.

They would crush same year vettes by a half dozen car lengths, indicating that the real world performance gap was even bigger than the on paper advantage they enjoyed.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Very wrong internet numbers if car and driver can be believed (that's where my numbers came from).

All i know is that when i went to the drag strip back in the 80s nothing new (or newish) could touch the GN's.

The would crush same year vettes by a half dozen car lengths.

Yeah, all of the mags were saying that the GNs were beating the Vettes in the 1/4. Most said that if the race had been longer, that the Vette would have pulled ahead.

[GG Allin]

The non intercooled T-Types & GN's were nothing special. I had an 87 T-Type, the car was ridiculous. With just a chip and sticky tires it ran low 12's. No turbo lag on a drag strip either. You build the boost, then let go of the brakes. It ran faster 60 foot times than 11 second cars.

I saw two of them on a flatbed yesterday. One GN and one T-Type WE4. I had no camera but thought a picture like that would be cool several years down the road. I'll probably get another one at some point, most likely a WE4. A 3.2 Carrera is in line ahead of that though

[notfarnow]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Very wrong internet numbers if car and driver can be believed (that's where my numbers came from).

All i know is that when i went to the drag strip back in the 80s nothing new (or newish) could touch the GN's.

They would crush same year vettes by a half dozen car lengths.

The numbers are impressive, but I wouldn't want to drive one. They just never did it for me

[GG Allin]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

All i know is that when i went to the drag strip back in the 80s nothing new (or newish) could touch the GN's.

They would crush same year vettes by a half dozen car lengths, indicating that the real world performance gap was even bigger than the on paper advantage they enjoyed.

I wonder if anyone was running them unchipped. My car stock only ran 14's. The chip & tires made all the difference.

[FastCarFan]

Originally Posted by imcarthur

And from the same article (actually Feb 1984) here is the quote:



Ian

The article said the Carrera is the "fastest factory-offered car for sale in the United States", it didn't say "quickest". There is a big difference. The test results show a top-speed of 149 mph. I doubt the GNX would go that fast...but it would definitely beat a Carrera at the strip.

[m21sniper]

They did it for me. This one was mine:


1983 T-Type Turbo with transplanted 1985 GN Motor. Stage I turbo, 3" downpipe, no cat aftermarket exhaust, 30lb injectors, adj fuel pressure regulator/fuel pump and stage I chip.(about $1200.00 in total mods if i remember correctly)

It ran high 12's all day long.

I regret selling it to this day. The power that jammed you into the seat as that turbo spooled up in a pass....oh....my....god.

Quote:Originally Posted by mbrouder
I wonder if anyone was running them unchipped. My car stock only ran 14's. The chip & tires made all the difference.

The chips added something like 40-50 horsepower, so yes, it did not take long for the stock eprom to go bye bye.

Even still, i don't really count a chipped car as modified. To me it's just a reflection of what the factory car is actually capable of.

[GG Allin]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Even still, i don't really count a chipped car as modified. To me it's just a reflection of what the factory car is actually capable of.

I'll go with that, but it would be hard to sell a car with a warranty when the boost hits 21 psi.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by notfarnow

For $hits and giggles, I wonder what the fastest modern *production* Honda Civic can manage, 0-60

6.7 seconds, IIRC.

A Euro car magazine once said it could get a first edition Acura Integra R-type to 60 in 5.5 seconds.

[DARISC]

My SC goes 0-60 in 3.14159265.

[dd74]

My '74 is fast enough to warp time.

[masraum]

Apparently in stock form the GNs were limited to 124mph, supposedly because that's what their tires were rated for, but I'd have thought that in the late 80s, VR and ZR ratings were available which are both 149 (V- up to 149 and Z in excess of 149).

[MRM]

There was a review of the new 84 Carrera in Car and Driver when it first came out. My PO gave me a copy when I bought my car. It's been posted here a couple of times. I think that's what you're referring to.

According the article the 0-60 times were either 5.3 or 5.5 seconds. It was low enough that I've never seen any other publication's numbers match it. I think it was 5.3 and the fastest I've seen anywhere else was 5.5. It was a full second quicker than the SC. (And in two weeks the 915 probably needed to be rebuilt and the 0-60 times dropped to 9 seconds to accomodate the now leisurely 1-2 shift. Hmm, maybe that's my car's problem)

What the article did say was that it was the fastest production car available in the US that year because it had a top speed of 150. I think that's what you remember. The Lambo wasnt available in the US at the time so the Carrera took honors as fasted production car in America.

EDIT: Next time I read the whole thread before answering.

[Steve W]

I wouldn't be surprised if the C&D car had a ringer Euro compression motor with the C&D driver dumping the clutch at 4000 rpm to get a low 5 second time.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Steve W

I wouldn't be surprised if the C&D car had a ringer Euro compression motor with the C&D driver dumping the clutch at 4000 rpm to get a low 5 second time.

Well, the Euro high compression motor would be bad, but the clutch dump launch, while painful, is what a 0-60 is about (if the car requires it).

0-60 runs are about whatever it takes to get the car from 0 to 60 as quick as the car can do it. It doesn't matter if that means slip the clutch from 1500 rpm or dump the clutch at 7000. If that's what it takes, and you can do it 5 or 10 times with similar results, then that's the number. What the heck good is a number "Our test drivers using leisurely launches, slow shifts and 75% throttle got to 60 mph in 15 seconds. They didn't want to spill their starbucks."

[TGTIW]

Wasn't the 959 out in 1986?

0-60: 3.6 s

[FastCarFan]

Originally Posted by masraum

Well, the Euro high compression motor would be bad, but the clutch dump launch, while painful, is what a 0-60 is about (if the car requires it).

0-60 runs are about whatever it takes to get the car from 0 to 60 as quick as the car can do it. It doesn't matter if that means slip the clutch from 1500 rpm or dump the clutch at 7000. If that's what it takes, and you can do it 5 or 10 times with similar results, then that's the number. What the heck good is a number "Our test drivers using leisurely launches, slow shifts and 75% throttle got to 60 mph in 15 seconds. They didn't want to spill their starbucks."

I used to work for Chevrolet & called on a dealer who was quite the gear-head. He liked ZR1 Corvettes (had 4-5 in his "barn", most with 0 miles) & Porsche Turbos (had a '97 or '98 Turbo S in early 1998). I was talking about the new Camaro Z28 SS & said it was a great car. He said, "Let me drop the clutch at 4,000 rpm & I will tell you if it is a great car or not."

Around 1993 or so, I remember hearing about a Corvette powertrain guy (I think his name was Jim Minniker) who could do a 0-60 run better than anyone else. Chevrolet always used him for published Corvette 0-60 times. He had developed the perfect technique for launching the Vette. I am sure it involved dumping the clutch too!

Originally Posted by TGTIW

Wasn't the 959 out in 1986?

0-60: 3.6 s

Not for sale in the U.S.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by masraum

Apparently in stock form the GNs were limited to 124mph, supposedly because that's what their tires were rated for, but I'd have thought that in the late 80s, VR and ZR ratings were available which are both 149 (V- up to 149 and Z in excess of 149).

With a stage 1 chip the top end was 160mph.