http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...&category=6137

Only reason I posted it is because its not listed off the bat as a TTA.

 

The price is way to high.

 

Just for kicks - I tried to look up value at www.kbb.com but they didn't have a listing due to rarity.

I checked www.nada.com and found:

http://www3.nadaguides.com/Values/Va...=1989&ColorId=

I guess the price is high - too bad. Although, you'd be basically buying a NEW car!

 

Here's one that just ended. Hopefully the prices are on the rise

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...tem=2412759068

 

How could anyone have one of those and not be able to drive it? I couldn't do it.

 

i never really liked white cars before i saw a white gta. now i love them

 

well i guess when you have as many nice cars as that guy seems to have yo udon't mind not driving the TTA that often. damn

 

That car didnt cost 23K new, he is high if he thinks he'll get that much for it.

If it *DID* cost that much new, I can see why the mustangs were selling more ... they only cost 13K new.

 

85TurboGT

TTAs back in 89 were not going for 25 grand...they were going for 31 grand!

Back in 89 (80s in general) very/very little could touch a TTA or a GNX in performance (this includes imports)...that's why the high price tag. The GNs for that matter were cleaning up the streets/strips here in america. Sure there might have been a couple "factory freak" 89-90 LXs and 90-92 Z-28s...but one half turn on the waste gate control arm and a 2 gallons of race gas will pretty much wrap that up.

I agree that he's asking a bit high...but putting things into perspective...20 grand for a car that will beat a Z06 napping and all you need is to turn up the boost 4 lbs and 2 gal of race gas (cost $12 bucks)and a $30 chip isn't that bad. Me on the other hand...50-70 grand for a car that runs high 12s/low 13s is a bit high in my book

 

I agree with you 1989TTA. Hard to beat if you think about bang for the buck. The question is would you rather have the style of the TTA or a newer car. I would prefer the TTA personally. I think it's one of the sexiest cars ever constructed.

Imagine smoking some newer car at the light. The loser pulls up to you and asks "what the hell do you have under the hood of that thing?" Then reply "Only a V-6."

To me the only downside is you'd have to do some minor work on it because it is likely to have some mechanical issues due to it's age. But I imagine that it's nothing you can't take car of cheaply. And it would be all the same stuff we all had to do when we bought our current F-Bodies used.

 

87WS6

What's great about the TTA though...is that it's also the ultimate sleeper. When I drive the Turbo TA around town...people really don't know what I suspect that people only notice it because of its 'new like" condition...and maybe the Indy Stickers on the doors.

As a owner of a TTA...though..I have noticed that you are considered the "bastard child" by some people...not 100% accepted by GN people and F-Body people. The most attitude I get are from LS-1 owners that are accustomed to looking down on 3rd gen cars and thinking that their mighty LS-1s are Gods Gift to the automotive world...

License plate: "Buick heart...Pontiac Soul!"

My favorites: Drive through fast food comments:

Cool Pace car...it's a 350?
Nice Turbo 350!
What do you have in there...a lawnmower engine?

 

Wow, I didnt think they were selling for that high. In retrospect, the fastest "stock" mustangs were the 87's and early 88's, if you ordered the coupe with radio and A/C delete and a 5spd, all you had to do was bolt on slicks, and 4.10's, and you were running high 12's.

I've always wanted to get a turbo buick, but they just cost too damn much. I feel putting twin's on a mustang isn't going to raise its value much, but the upkeep is going to be compounded.

It is a nice car, he could have probably started at 13-15K and still got 20K out of it. I give it props.

 

How did that guy get 4k on his car and never register it?

 

I heard that some '89 TTA's went for as much as $35k or more! I have the original sticker from my 1990 IROC Convertable, it sold for $21k with options. Not hard to believe that a TTA would sell for over $30k in 1989.

 

Drop-Top
BTW....in my opinion...the convert IROCs are some of the best looking cars to come out of any car manufacturer.

As one critic put it...the design is so gorgous that one is to think if there should be MORE acclaim and hoopla if the price tag wasn't ONLY $20 grand...as compared to vehicles in the high 50s-70s...


Your correct...the MFSR is $31,000. The previous owner of the car paid $34,000 in Orange County, CA There was a huge fee in there somewhere. I paid 15 grand even a year ago with the vehicle having 21,000 original miles. Yes it did come with the "owner's kit and all paperwork" all intact in the trunk. The guy loved quote "the way it drives"...but really wasn't into the Camaro/Firebird thing. His loss/my gain

 

Is the Turbo TA lighter than the GNX's and the Turbo Regal? I know the Turbo Regal's were lighter than the GNX's, and slightly faster. How many of the TTA's were made, and how many are still around in fairly decent shape, with a 3.8T still in it?

Rob

 

Here's the general info breakdown

87 GN was good from anywhere 13.9-14.3 14lbs boost
A famous head to head test results of GNX vs TTA...was very close in the 13.3-13.4 range. GNX Turbo set at 15lbs boost, TTA set at 16.5 lbs boost.

There were 547 GNXs and 1555 TTAs made.

GNs were speed limited to 120 mph (chip) due to lack of robustness at high speed and puny 225 "H" rated tires

GNXs had significant suspension mods and were not speed limited. Came outfitted with 245s "Z" rated rubber front and 255s "Z" rated rubber out back.

TTAs are about 150-200 lbs lighter and also are not speed limited-"Z" rated 245s was the deal.

Both cars make close to 400 lbs of torque @3200 RPM. That's what make them scream 0-70mph. Launch spool technique is critical.