Is the Buick GNX Now the Coolest Car in the World?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was cool when it came out, I remember reading about it in a car magazine as a kid. I think Chevy made their version too -- Monte Carlo SS.

But the problem is it's still a GM car from that era, so you get a very mediocre interior. And horsepower has come a long way so your average Honda Accord these days can outrun it.

I’d like to see the Accords you’re driving; the GNX had a 0-60 time of 4.7 seconds.

BULLSH!T!!!!!

I owned a 1987 GNX from ‘92-‘96 when I was single, young, and stupid with no expenses and living with housemates. It had about 27k miles on it when I bought it, so it was broken in but still fresh, but it needed a new intercooler and the turbo had started to get end play in the impeller bearings, so I did a new turbo and intercooler. So theoretically with a broken-in engine and brand new induction system, it should’ve been at maximum available power (this was long before dyno machines became widespread and all your “data” had to come from a stopwatch and the seat of your pants).

I don’t care what the published figures say, it WAS NOT a sub-5 second car. And I didn’t race it many times, but I never saw less than about 13.10’s at 109’s, even with Hoosier drag tires.

On street tires, I could just barely pull ahead and stay in front of my friend’s ‘89 Taurus SHO - which itself was a very cool car for the time, too.

I traded it for a ‘95 Acura NSX, which was my dream car at the time, and kept the NSX until I got married. The NSX was superior to the Buick in every possible way, despite feeling and being slower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was cool when it came out, I remember reading about it in a car magazine as a kid. I think Chevy made their version too -- Monte Carlo SS.

But the problem is it's still a GM car from that era, so you get a very mediocre interior. And horsepower has come a long way so your average Honda Accord these days can outrun it.

I’d like to see the Accords you’re driving; the GNX had a 0-60 time of 4.7 seconds.

BULLSH!T!!!!!

I owned a 1987 GNX from ‘92-‘96 when I was single, young, and stupid with no expenses and living with housemates. It had about 27k miles on it when I bought it, so it was broken in but still fresh, but it needed a new intercooler and the turbo had started to get end play in the impeller bearings, so I did a new turbo and intercooler. So theoretically with a broken-in engine and brand new induction system, it should’ve been at maximum available power (this was long before dyno machines became widespread and all your “data” had to come from a stopwatch and the seat of your pants).

I don’t care what the published figures say, it WAS NOT a sub-5 second car. And I didn’t race it many times, but I never saw less than about 13.10’s at 109’s, even with Hoosier drag tires.

On street tires, I could just barely pull ahead and stay in front of my friend’s ‘89 Taurus SHO - which itself was a very cool car for the time, too.

I traded it for a ‘95 Acura NSX, which was my dream car at the time, and kept the NSX until I got married. The NSX was superior to the Buick in every possible way, despite feeling and being slower.

Compared to 15.6 for the accord? A 13 sec quarter mile is sub 5 sec 0-60. Let’s say it’s mid 13s with street tires; that still blows away modern day accords. The original statement was that modern accords could outrun it which simply isn’t true. I have a modern accord; it’s not fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was cool when it came out, I remember reading about it in a car magazine as a kid. I think Chevy made their version too -- Monte Carlo SS.

But the problem is it's still a GM car from that era, so you get a very mediocre interior. And horsepower has come a long way so your average Honda Accord these days can outrun it.

I’d like to see the Accords you’re driving; the GNX had a 0-60 time of 4.7 seconds.

BULLSH!T!!!!!

I owned a 1987 GNX from ‘92-‘96 when I was single, young, and stupid with no expenses and living with housemates. It had about 27k miles on it when I bought it, so it was broken in but still fresh, but it needed a new intercooler and the turbo had started to get end play in the impeller bearings, so I did a new turbo and intercooler. So theoretically with a broken-in engine and brand new induction system, it should’ve been at maximum available power (this was long before dyno machines became widespread and all your “data” had to come from a stopwatch and the seat of your pants).

I don’t care what the published figures say, it WAS NOT a sub-5 second car. And I didn’t race it many times, but I never saw less than about 13.10’s at 109’s, even with Hoosier drag tires.

On street tires, I could just barely pull ahead and stay in front of my friend’s ‘89 Taurus SHO - which itself was a very cool car for the time, too.

I traded it for a ‘95 Acura NSX, which was my dream car at the time, and kept the NSX until I got married. The NSX was superior to the Buick in every possible way, despite feeling and being slower.

Compared to 15.6 for the accord? A 13 sec quarter mile is sub 5 sec 0-60. Let’s say it’s mid 13s with street tires; that still blows away modern day accords. The original statement was that modern accords could outrun it which simply isn’t true. I have a modern accord; it’s not fast.

Most forced induction cars of that area which relied on a single large-CFM turbo were not “quick off the line” despite being crazy fast on the top end. The GNX was no exception. It takes time - about 2.5 seconds - to spool that enormous turbo up and fill that huge intercooler up with pressure - requiring an additional second - before all that high pressure air starts hitting the intake manifold and fuel flow can be turned up. Until that 3.5 seconds passes, it’s just a heavy car trying to get off the line being pushed by an iron block mid-sized V6. Sure, once the boost hits it takes off like a rocket. But it’s not doing 0-60 in under 5. But it might do 40-100 in 6.

Turbo lag in the 80’s was brutal.