Black Air - Toyota Nation Forum : Toyota Car and Truck Forums
General Discussion General discussion of basically anything automotive-related.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
#1 Old 12-25-2012, 01:54 PM
Senior TN Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 1,946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Thanks: 180
Thanked 283 Times in 201 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
(Thread Starter)
Black Air

I just watched Black Air, the documentary about the Buick Grand National. It is well worth watching so I won't give away too much but I did want to share one tidbit of the story with everyone that I found to be hilarious. When they released the GNX one of the writers at Car & Driver took it to a drag strip and raced against a twin turbo Callaway Corvette. On the first run he had his wife and child in the GNX with him. At one point the wife asked.

"Why is the Corvette slowing down?"

"It's not we're pulling away!"


lol great car.



When this baby hits 88 miles an hour, you're gonna see some serious sh*t.
Xenos is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 12-25-2012, 02:16 PM
Official TN Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Portland
Posts: 105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 3
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
I can't wait to see it. There's a lot of buzz on the Buick forum I belong to.
IcypearlSE is offline  
#3 Old 12-25-2012, 02:23 PM
Banned as a troll
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 528
Thanked 345 Times in 277 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
Corvettes of that era were slow.


The GNX put out 276hp/360Tq and did 0-60 in 4.7s.....impressive in it's day, but not really much to brag about today.

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1...-and-gnx-video

Quote:
For its final year, Buick even built a higher-performance variant called the GNX, which boasted performance and handling improvement over base models. Thanks to a larger turbocharger and other modifications, the GNX put out a conservatively-rated 276 horsepower and 360 pound-feet of torque, which made it capable of 0-60 mph runs in a truly impressive 4.7 seconds.

Last edited by Vmax2007; 12-25-2012 at 02:35 PM.
Vmax2007 is offline  
#4 Old 12-25-2012, 02:47 PM
Senior TN Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 1,946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Thanks: 180
Thanked 283 Times in 201 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vmax2007 View Post
Corvettes of that era were slow.


The GNX put out 276hp/360Tq and did 0-60 in 4.7s.....impressive in it's day, but not really much to brag about today.

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1...-and-gnx-video
Everything in the 80's was slow for the most part. Not really the point. The Grand National was faster than cars that cost a lot more money to buy, like the Callaway Corvette for instance. Additionally a 0 to 60 of 4.7 or 4.9 is not slow, even by today's standards.



When this baby hits 88 miles an hour, you're gonna see some serious sh*t.
Xenos is offline  
#5 Old 12-25-2012, 02:50 PM
Banned as a troll
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 528
Thanked 345 Times in 277 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenos View Post
Everything in the 80's was slow for the most part. Not really the point. The Grand National was faster than cars that cost a lot more money to buy, like the Callaway Corvette for instance. Additionally a 0 to 60 of 4.7 or 4.9 is not slow, even by today's standards.

It is slow for a top-of-line performance variant.

The GMC Syclone that came out a few years later with basically the same engine was quicker.

Also, "quickness" (i.e. 0-60 and 1/4 mile) is only one metric. Put this car on a track where overall performance is measured and those cars "it beat" would make it look silly.

Last edited by Vmax2007; 12-25-2012 at 03:10 PM.
Vmax2007 is offline  
#6 Old 12-25-2012, 03:09 PM
Senior TN Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 1,946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Thanks: 180
Thanked 283 Times in 201 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
(Thread Starter)
I should have known that if I dared to say anything that in any way did not shine favorably upon a Corvette that Vmax would get all butt hurt and start with excuses and the "but this" and "but that". Whatever clown.


Fact of the matter is, the Grand National had better 0 to 60 times than most of the cars in the world at that time to include the likes of Ferrari, Porsche and even your precious Corvette. And it did so at a fraction of the price tag. That was the only point I was making. But rather than just agree that the GN was and is a great car you have to start with the naysaying because I dared to point out that it beat a Corvette and that just flies all over your monster size ego.



When this baby hits 88 miles an hour, you're gonna see some serious sh*t.

Last edited by Xenos; 12-25-2012 at 03:10 PM.
Xenos is offline  
#7 Old 12-25-2012, 03:16 PM
Banned as a troll
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 528
Thanked 345 Times in 277 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenos View Post
I should have known that if I dared to say anything that in any way did not shine favorably upon a Corvette that Vmax would get all butt hurt and start with excuses and the "but this" and "but that". Whatever clown.


Fact of the matter is, the Grand National had better 0 to 60 times than most of the cars in the world at that time to include the likes of Ferrari, Porsche and even your precious Corvette. And it did so at a fraction of the price tag. That was the only point I was making. But rather than just agree that the GN was and is a great car you have to start with the naysaying because I dared to point out that it beat a Corvette and that just flies all over your monster size ego.

Hey Dickweed, I happened to also love the GN and GNX...along with the GMC Syclone/Typhoon.

And FYI, I do not own and have never owned a C4, so no, it was not faster than "my precious Corvette". In fact, I never even liked the C4 Vettes.

And like I said in my previous post, put the GN/GNX on a track with curves along with those cars you claim it's "faster" than and let's see which one owns which. 0-60 hardly defines overall performance.

Once again, you FAIL at life.

Last edited by Vmax2007; 12-25-2012 at 03:24 PM.
Vmax2007 is offline  
#8 Old 12-25-2012, 03:29 PM
Senior TN Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 1,946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Thanks: 180
Thanked 283 Times in 201 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vmax2007 View Post
Hey Dickweed, I happened to also love the GN and GNX...along with the GMC Syclone/Typhoon.

And FYI, I do not own and have never owned a C4, so no, it was not faster than "my precious Corvette". In fact, I never even liked the C4 Vettes.

And like I said in my previous post, put the GN/GNX on a track with curves along with those cars you claim it's "faster" than and let's see which one owns which. 0-60 hardly defines overall performance.

Once again, you FAIL at life.
If you had bothered to watch the Documentary before flying off the handle you would already know that even Buick never claimed the car was built for precise handling. It was a GM G body sedan, there's not much to work with there from a handling standpoint. The Buick guys just wanted to generate some excitement in the brand and they knew the best way to to do that was to do something with the Regal.

By the way, 2013 Ford Taurus SHO 0 to 60 time. . . . 5.1. hmmm I guess that's pretty slow for a, what was it you called it?

Quote:
top-of-line performance variant.



When this baby hits 88 miles an hour, you're gonna see some serious sh*t.
Xenos is offline  
#9 Old 12-25-2012, 03:30 PM
TN Post Wh*re
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Thanks: 127
Thanked 225 Times in 192 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenos View Post
I should have known that if I dared to say anything that in any way did not shine favorably upon a Corvette that Vmax would get all butt hurt and start with excuses and the "but this" and "but that". Whatever clown.


Fact of the matter is, the Grand National had better 0 to 60 times than most of the cars in the world at that time to include the likes of Ferrari, Porsche and even your precious Corvette. And it did so at a fraction of the price tag. That was the only point I was making. But rather than just agree that the GN was and is a great car you have to start with the naysaying because I dared to point out that it beat a Corvette and that just flies all over your monster size ego.
With all due respect, I would have to disagree.

GNX was primarily a straight line car intended to shine on the drag strip (much like what Toyota Supra's legacy is). That is where it really did exceptionally well.

Many of the other cars you mention, (although still very very fast in a straight line) are built with the primary goal of making them truly stand out around the race track since suspension geometry ideal for dragstrip and how the suspension is pre-loaded off the line is not ideal for track racing especially when RWD is concerned and vice versa.

You can see that Porsche itself never advertises the fastest straight line numbers for the car that is most hardcore race track car, which is the Porsche 911 GT3 RS 4.0 as it is more expensive than the 911 Turbo S, but the Turbo S kills the 911 GT3 RS 4.0 in a straight line inspite of similar horsepower ratings because of AWD.

For example, fully independent and multi-link rear suspension is probably a terrible design for off-the-line drag racing etc. It is just that either computers and electronic nannies are required to overcome the limitations or design decisions need to be made according to the priorities.

SSM 05 Corolla XRS 6 Spd VVTL-i 2ZZ-GE /04 Corolla S 1ZZ-FE (sold)

BT: 14.67@96mph(I/E)/Injen CAI/Greddy SP2/MT90/Michelin Pilot SS 205/45/17/Megan/Koni/Slotted rotors/Ceramic pads/Enkei PF01 17 x 7.5

Lift off@6000 - 8400 rpm

"LFA - Passion, soul and character in its purest form"

silver04rollas is offline  
#10 Old 12-25-2012, 03:34 PM
Banned as a troll
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 528
Thanked 345 Times in 277 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenos View Post
If you had bothered to watch the Documentary before flying off the handle you would already know that even Buick never claimed the car was built for precise handling. It was a GM G body sedan, there's not much to work with there from a handling standpoint. The Buick guys just wanted to generate some excitement in the brand and they knew the best way to to do that was to do something with the Regal.

By the way, 2013 Ford Taurus SHO 0 to 60 time. . . . 5.1. hmmm I guess that's pretty slow for a, what was it you called it?
The Taurus SHO is a bloated, heavy pig. Yes, it is slow for that reason....and not just slow 0-60 either.

I just find it ignorant when someone like you sees this and immediately claims it's "faster" just because it had a slightly quicker 0-60 time.

Put that GN/GNX on a track where all performance metrics matter and even a base C4 would make it look stupid.

The GN/GNX was a very cool car that was quick in a straight line. It was NOT "faster than sports cars costing far more". That is an ignorant statement...period.
Vmax2007 is offline  
#11 Old 12-25-2012, 03:46 PM
Senior TN Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 1,946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Thanks: 180
Thanked 283 Times in 201 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vmax2007 View Post
the GN/GNX was a very cool car that was quick in a straight line. It was NOT "faster than sports cars costing far more". That is an ignorant statement...period.

Really? I guess you better take that up with the folks that made the documentary than and actually showed the comparison numbers. I guess you better take it up with the guy who is interviewed at the start of the documentary who had a Ferrari at the time and got smoked by a friend of his who had just bought a GN. I guess they are all ignornant and you're right.



When this baby hits 88 miles an hour, you're gonna see some serious sh*t.
Xenos is offline  
#12 Old 12-25-2012, 03:52 PM
Banned as a troll
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 528
Thanked 345 Times in 277 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenos View Post
Really? I guess you better take that up with the folks that made the documentary than and actually showed the comparison numbers. I guess you better take it up with the guy who is interviewed at the start of the documentary who had a Ferrari at the time and got smoked by a friend of his who had just bought a GN. I guess they are all ignornant and you're right.

Hey, you are free to define "faster" any way you like, and so am I.

Let's just say I am pretty sure Ferrari or any mfr could slap a turbo-charger on a car that rides like a parade float and give it a quick 0-60 time.

The GN/GNX was a quick car 0-60...beyond that it was crappy handling POS with lousy reliability.

I know, I had an 83 Buick Regal with the same 3.8L V6 (NA of course) and the car was a pile of crap. Same car minus the turbo-charger.

Edit: So, based on your definition of "fast", the 2011 Corvette Z06 is just as fast as a Lexus LFA as they have identical 0-60 times of 3.6s. And the ZR1 absolutely smokes it with a 3.3s 0-60 time. Correct?

Last edited by Vmax2007; 12-25-2012 at 04:01 PM.
Vmax2007 is offline  
#13 Old 12-25-2012, 06:05 PM
TN Post Wh*re
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland Oh
Posts: 7,512
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Thanks: 974
Thanked 212 Times in 204 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenos View Post
Really? I guess you better take that up with the folks that made the documentary than and actually showed the comparison numbers. I guess you better take it up with the guy who is interviewed at the start of the documentary who had a Ferrari at the time and got smoked by a friend of his who had just bought a GN. I guess they are all ignornant and you're right.


I actually agree with Vmax. The GN was really a 0-60 mph car and nothing more. I don't know if you know, but the same engine was used in the FWD Riviera as well. This was just an exercise to bring some excitement to the Buick brand since Pontiac and Chevrolet had their Firebirds and Camaros. 80s were more about fuel economy than performance so it was a surprise that a mainstream mostly older skewering brand would come up with a car like the GNX
zythr is offline  
#14 Old 12-25-2012, 06:52 PM
Official TN Member
 
BlackOmega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 20 Times in 19 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
All of this bickering is fairly stupid. Grand Nationals neat cars for their day. Their sole purpose in life was to beat the pony cars (Mustangs, Camaro's, Firechickens, Trans Am's, Capri's, etc.).
They were never intended for a road course; just the drag strip. And yes they were quick for their time. Even with a few Mods, those cars would scream down the strip.

That said, the regal was built on the same body as the Monte Carlo, which was a horrible piece of shit (I don't like GM very much so I have no idea what they called their chassis).
Tons of body roll, lots of squat, couldn't corner to save its life. Oh wait......what does that sound like? A DRAG CAR. duh.......

Although, a sub 5 second 0-60 time was considered very fast (for the time).

They're neat cars. Great idea, horrible execution.

FWIW, I used to build 5.0L mustangs for the strip and we'd regularly dust GN/X's without much trouble.
Hell, even the XR4Ti we modded (2.3 turbo), would dust it. But then again, it would dust 5.0L's like nothing too (35 psi boost).

2000 E55 AMG 426HP/ 474ft. lbs. torque

Last edited by BlackOmega; 12-25-2012 at 06:54 PM.
BlackOmega is offline  
#15 Old 12-25-2012, 08:10 PM
Senior TN Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 1,946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Thanks: 180
Thanked 283 Times in 201 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
(Thread Starter)
Gosh I'm pretty sure that I never claimed the GN was a handling car and that Buick never did either. Let me see. oh yes post number 8

Quote:
If you had bothered to watch the Documentary before flying off the handle you would already know that even Buick never claimed the car was built for precise handling. It was a GM G body sedan, there's not much to work with there from a handling standpoint. The Buick guys just wanted to generate some excitement in the brand and they knew the best way to to do that was to do something with the Regal.



When this baby hits 88 miles an hour, you're gonna see some serious sh*t.
Xenos is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Toyota Nation Forum : Toyota Car and Truck Forums > Toyota Nation Forums > General Discussion

Bookmarks

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome