you can draw me in on the LC2 all you want LOL but change that "C" to an "S" and now we're talkin!!!!! LS2 baby, thats the way to roll.

 

if u under rate them also u get cheaper insurance

 

LS2 huh...a design of genious but carried out with neolithic incompetance...it could and should have been faster! I'll take a grand nat any day...then comes my 2nd fav the road runner

 

What do you think I'm making numbers up ? Go to the turbobuick boards if you don't believe me. I know of 2 guys that had their stock TTA's dyno'ed and they got a hair over 300hp(I can't remember their screen names though).

We all know GM loves to underrate their cars....LS1's ring a bell?

EDIT: I meant at the crank in my one response...been working long hours and apparently my brain isn't working lol. 300 at the crank, 50 more than what GM rated them at.

 

I wish GM would have underrated the L98

 

lmao.

 

Guess you've never seen either run at the track then eh?

 

i kinda doubt them based on advertised numbers but figured they were underrated

all the ones i seen run 11's or better LOL
Dem buick boys dont mess around!!

 

First off, the TTA engine is better out the door than a gn engine. I own a TTA and also have done extensive work on friends turbobuicks and have another complete drivetrain for one of my own.

Our heads are slightly better on the exhaust side. The headers are a little nicer. Boost was raised from 13.5psi to 16.5 psi on the TTA. Intercooler was also the more efficient design from the GNX. Trans were also made specially for the TTA and shared all factory revisions and work overs more in line with GNX. Want scarier stuff? Look at the prom versions of the too cars. One was truly made to run :-) No huge earth shattering changes were made, just a whole ton of little ones, that when added up make a substantial difference in power. Look at the buick boards, 99% of the time it takes a TTA owner less parts and $$$ to do the same thing as an equivelant GN.


Stock to stock?assuming properly tuned to factory specs) TTA would eat a GN. U know why? Did it three times stock to stock with 3 different cars. Nother pure stock fact, 140mph is 6psi of boost and about a qrtr gas pedal left :-) I believe it very easily would punch a 160+mph hole i the air.

13.3-13.4 very low low boost launch 96k on the car on a decent nite with street tires. Trapped a couple of 103-104 mph runs too. First and only time at the track pure stock.(all the way down to nylon toothed timing chain). Kinda mad I satarted playing with it so serioulsy now. Some tires and launching with some boost I'd bet a 12 was in it from the factory.

Okay Im done for now:-)
later
Jeremy

 

a TTA will beat a TPI Vette yes, but the Vette vs GN was a drivers match. both cars were typically in the high 13s with an occasional mid 13 sec freak car

not true.

in 86' the Vette was rated at 230hp (until the verts came out midyear which had 235). the 86' GN was rated at a higher 235hp.

then in 87' Corvette upped the pony count to 240, but the GN upped as well to 245.

finally in 89' the TTA was (under)rated at 250hp while the Corvete only had 245

 

I thought the GN was a 90 degree V6 and the TTA was a 60 degree v6.

 

my buddys got an 86 t type with cai and chip going 12.79

 

sigh..I want my buick back

 

No, it's the same block.

 

Sigh you ask a buick guy whats faster he's gonna tell you that the grand nat is a better drag car, you ask a 3rd gen guy whats faster he's gonna raise his eyebrow and tell you the TTA...From what I've seen they both are in the same ball park...

 

the tta would turn circles around the gn though so the tta wins

 

KagA152-Thats usually an excuse reserved for ricers...

http://www.gnttype.org/forums/showth...?p=933#post933

TTA's don't run a 13 flat!

 

Some factory freaks CAN and HAVE.

These people that claim TTA's run 13.9's are probably WAY above sea level.

 

whats this about GNX hook better than TTA? both cars are capable of planting power well. Australian 9-bolt rears are not crappy. they are pretty strong but gears and parts for them arent made so thats the only bad thing about them. What rears do GN's have?

 

The 9-bolt is a good rear but not as good as the GN rears.

They run a 8.5'' 10-bolt. Good, solid rear.

 

I'm not talking about some factory freak ...I'm talking about the average tta...and everyone at gnttype isn't above sea level...this is the accepted and documented time form these cars...like the 2jz supras and rb26 skylines these cars have alot of hype and myth surrounding their name...

Sorry guys I know this is a 3rd gen site but I'm just being honest..its not fair to expect a 13.0 out of the average tta...STOCK...as far as traction goes they make more suspension parts for the grand nats than they do 3rd gens or most other f-bodies for that matter!

 

You're saying they don't...I'm saying they CAN..of course not EVERY one is going to pull those times...

I'm sorry but if you can only muster a 13.9 out of a TTA@sea level then people like that should be driving hon-duh's.

 

hey calico......your a buick guy but you listed that gn's came with a limited slip. that was an option. you have never seen a peg leg gn? funny you would think they would come with posi. many buyers tought they did, thats why so many more t's have posi and the gn's dont as often, also, and i hate to pick on you, but you said a gn is to a t-type what a zo6 is to a vette?!?!? did you for get that the zo6 has a different motor?the ls6? does not illustrate your point too well huh? just thought i should point that out. continue with your 3800 bickering........just to add a good friend of mine had a very stock tta and it ran 13.12 at ennis.another friend has a hot air that ran a 13.56 with a chip ,a cutout and fuel pressure reg. he was running 15psi. supprised the hell out of me, but i still kicked the sh*it out of him in my gta that had an air foil, a flowmaster,and an air filter. of corse he was on 235/60/15s and i was on nitto dr's, but we can ignore that! funny how he ran a 8.5 1/8 and the gta ran 8.8 on slicks, but on the stereet he had trouble hooking up, so i took the win!

 

oh by the way the hot air buick wieghed 200lbs less than the gta, our cars at least. before i pulled weight, my car weighed 3515. his weighed 3320 with a full tank. thats real weight from a scale not title weight my car weighed 3380 last i put it on the scale and i anticipate about 90lbs less now. the cheapest way to go fast is less wieght!

 

Anyone who can't get better than a 13.9 out of a TTA on a sea level track ought not to be driving it... Magazine yahoos from back then got significantly better than that... Like this one:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/s/jstriet/gnxtta.jpg

 

assuming a race weight of 3500lbs, a tta trapping 107 as some LS1's are supposively, that would take nearly 400 flywheel power
http://www.speedworldmotorplex.com/calc.htm

to run 13.2 thats 355 at flywheel, so rated at 250 at factory specs, thats one heck of a cover up. LOL GM couldnt have got away with that one. its obvious the difference of 250hp and 355hp. LOL

 

I've also seen those tta/gn stories first hand. 13's easy and 12's with very little massage, mostly driver technique adjustments. 250 hp was net hp, not flywheel hp. Net takes flywheel hp and then deducts for accesory drag. Items such as alternator, ps, a/c air pump and even auto trans pump all deduct from flywheel hp rating. This method was adopted in the early 70's to help with insurance companies jacking up rates based on big hp numbers.

 

so are L98's rated like this as well? Even still, to run low 13's its gonna take more than advertised power.

 

to my knowledge, all automobiles sold in North America still use the net rating. Sometimes you'll see a standard shift car with a 5 or 10 hp higher number than the auto car with the exact same engine. Sometimes you'll see a camaro with a higher number than the Firebird (usually the 80's cars) because one division used the automatic numbers and one used the stick numbers. Just something to think about....
The only good or reliable test is a chassis dyno.....

 

Tell that to the guys that have dyno'ed their TTA's and have gotten 300RWHP....

Also, the LS1 will usually trap higher than a TTA.

 

vejatabul-I'm a buick guy...but I drive a gta? Naw I' not a buick gu...I'm a realistic guy...No Iv'e never seen a peg leg gn, ttype yeah but gn no... How do you know it was the original rear end in the gn?...as far as the z06 vs reg vette...I wasn't compairing the drivetrain in that instance I was saying how they are the same car but one has the upgrade option..."continue with your 3800 bickering"...this is a discussion board Cuzz...so I'm discussing...stop trying to lash out by going tit 4 tat! I'm simply just doing what this board is mean't to do..DISCUSS! Stop having tunnel vision and stop getting touchy because I think the GN is quicker than the tta! Thats what the magazines say and thats what I'm goin by, not your Burger King parking lot monkey spew that you over heard hangin out you buddy's civic and are now trying to shovel my way!

ps show me SLIPS or I'm gonna throw up the bs flag...you ran less than a 13.5 with an cut-out, exhaust and a airfoil...STOP WASTING MY TIME!

 

the tta isn't making over 300rwhp cmon now we are just being riduculios...if it makes that much hp then how much tq does it make?

 

wait a minute, you say that TTA will dyno 300rwhp. (Stock right?) Thats 375 flywheel horsepower assuming 20%loss. LS1's have 350 hp at most although rated at 305-320ish(same as vette motor) . a TTA is lighter than LS1 so it should outrun the LS1.

But you say LS1 will trap higher? how is that possible. underpowered car that is heavier will not trap faster nor be quicker in the quarter. LS1 will consistently at 105-106mph and more. thats about right for 350hp or around that. If a TTA cant top that, then there is no way its putting out 300rwhp.

please clarify this for me

 

also the only way a TTA is under 13.5 is the fact that it is indeed underrated and is putting out alot of power. There is no way to tell unless we all round up TTA owners that are still stock (assuming that there is some out there) and dyno them and run them on the track. Do our own tests.


If it is true that TTA's got better intercooler and some other goodies that GN's didnt have, then the TTA will be making more power and thus a bit faster assuming GN and TTA weigh about the same and have same gears.

 

I'm done arguing. Stop reading the magazines and go to the ****ing track. Stop basing opinions on a few little ******* driver's that can't drive.

Two, TWO people on turbobuick dynoe'd their TTA's and came up with 300RWHP. Did I say EVERY one pulls those numbers? Nope...I said they CAN.

Have fun reading magazines ladies...I'm off to the track.

Also, just because a car has more/less power doesn't mean it will trap higher/lower.

 

That's already been stated NUMEROUS times...the TTA got some better parts than the GN and is NO QUESTION faster....

 

Double post

 

It's NOT though You said yourself...you read magazines #1 anything you base off magazines has no creditabillity. Also, the magazines never tested a TTA vs. GN . It was a TTA vs GNX

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/s/jstriet/gnxtta.jpg

Already been posted but read the times dude...2nd race the ET's were the same with a 3mph difference in trap speed...meaning the TTA driver couldn't launch the damn thing(which is what I was saying before).(using your own medicine against you )

Like I've said before please use some real world experience and stop reading magazines. You've said before I'm biased...not really considering I don't own a TTA...I like anything and everything turbo buick powered. I think you're the one being biased

 

LMAO, i love how alot of people come on here and give responses that bite the heads of people...LOL

Chill out man, just asking for clarification. Go to your track and have fun there. Most cars at the track arent stock so you cant make comparisions from that. how many TTA owners are going to abuse there cars like that anyway? They are rare. 1550 ever made. I havent ever seen one. LOL

And you said "tell that to the guys that have dyno'd their TTA's at 300rwhp" How can some cars be making 300rwhp and others not be close to that? Factory freaks but come on, a broad difference in numbers from car to car doesnt make sense.

true it is possible, but for a case like this, stock for stock the more power generally will trap higher. You know Trap speed is indicator of horsepower. And a big difference in power will result in variances in trap speeds, usually the more powered car being higher


edit, this post sounds abit angered, LOL its not meant to call you out or anything. dont take it too personal. Just trying to clear things up as i hear so much about GN's and TTA's i dont know what the real facts are anymore. LOL

 

SHUTUP!

lol j/k

Didn't take anything personally

 

Two letters.

GM!

 

woot!! i hate to **** people off. LOL

GM rocks but not lately. New C6 is sweet but no camaros so it sucks LOL

 

BTW, where the hell is Delmont,PA?

 

a bit south east of Pittsburgh. GO STEELERS!!! 8-1

 

Bah.

 

no you cant confuse a gn with a t-type....also the grand national is a package like a z06...all turbo regals of the same year have the same engines...the grand nats had front buckets that have a black and light grey cloth, all black paint job, special 15x8" wheels, grand nat badging, a rear lip spoiler, a lsd posi 3.42, 8.5 rear end and a special suspension. but with that came weight so the t-types are a little quicker


sounds like your comparing a gn as a package on a regal. much like a zo6 is a pakage on a vette. when in reallity the zo6 is a different body style. its a fixed roof coupe. it has a different motor and different trans.you should be clearer.
as for my car running a 13,5, i never said that . i said the buick ran a 13.56. read closer.
another friend has a hot air that ran a 13.56 with a chip ,a cutout and fuel pressure reg. he was running 15psi. supprised the hell out of me, but i still kicked the sh*it out of him in my gta that had an air foil, a flowmaster,and an air filter. of corse he was on 235/60/15s and i was on nitto dr's, but we can ignore that! funny how he ran a 8.5 1/8 and the gta ran 8.8 on slicks, but on the stereet he had trouble hooking up, so i took the win

i dont eat at burgerking or even go into there establishment, im a vegetarian. im 26 yrs old, im not a kid hangin out "my buddies civic" and and i have much more experiance than you think. for you to assume that, says alot about your character.
i never once said anything about i think the tta is faster. i stated what a friends car ran.

you decided to insult me, because i corrected you? and i have tunnel vision? and to think your the one that misread my post and mis quoted it, and you assumed somthing that was not even there. who has tunnel vision? seems like your only seeing a few words of my post as opposed to the post as a whole......sounds like tunnel vision......

oh the 3800 bickering comment was not directed at you , it was a joke directed at the topic.

 

does that mean if I make the same car to put out 1000hp at the flywheel it is now only going to get 800hp to the wheels with the same transmission and flywheel?
or if I put a 100hp motor in the same car with the same tranny/rear and stuff that it will put out 80hp?

that 20% loss is a bunch of cow dung

 

exactly

some say 15% or around even 10% is lost with manuals. I just use 20% loss.

alot of Ls1's dyno 280-295 at the wheels, so it has 340-350 hp at flywheel

 

see the percentage thing does not work well. by the way most ls1's make 295-315hp. the highest ive seen from a bone/factory stock ls1 was a 2000 camaro auto and it made 328hp and 320tq.
lets pose a question.....everyone agrees that a dyno measures torque right? ok it measures the torque and then formulates for horsepower. so if you have an auto with a big coverter(3500-4500rpm) in an ls1 and it makes 330hp and 430tq...............see? big converters cause it to look like you make massive amounts of torque IF you calculate for how much torque you make at the flywheel. now if your arriving at your horsepower figure based on how much torque you make then how accurat can a dyno really be? everyone here knows and undertands that it would be impossible to make 516tq@3500rpm and 396hp@6200rpm on a naturaly asspirated motor? its not mathmaticly possible since torque and horsepower have a direct intersection at 5252rpm see.........

HP = rpm x T(torque)
5252(constant)

that works out to 609hp. if it just put down 330hp to the ground then obviously it does not make 960hp at the flywheel.

if you have ever seen an ls1 dynoed on a stand out of a car they make around 410hp to 430hp.

this gets cooler.......on a turbo charged car, for every 7 degree temp. change you change the hp/tq out put by 11%!!!!!
on a n/a motor for every 10 degree change in temp you change its output by 11%!
now if we use a dynojet witch has humidity and temp. corection factors that are aproxamated for a n/a car then obviously it would not show a very accurate reading.

if a tta dyno's at(as example) 250hp and its 100 degrees outside, and the humidity is 50%,how much power does it theoreticly make at the flywheel?

this is what im tring to say....you can take et or mph and aproximate hp. you can dyno a car and aproximate et and mph, but when it comes down to times at the track dynos dont always tell the truth! my car ran what equated to be a 12.35 1/4 mile(7.99 1/8) but it made 270hp to the wheels. my car weighed about 3250lbs(give or take 6lbs for fuel used). if you do the math it comes out to 341hp to the wheels! my car never made anything near that!


and in closeing thats why you CAN NOT figure et for horsepower made to the wheels on a dyno and say it is deffinate.

 

oh by the way guys i worked for speedtek for 3 years and we had a dyno. ive seen literaly hundreds of stock and modified ls1's dyno. along with dynoing my own cars from time to time. and the occasional astro van.......or....dodge cummins that makes 620hp and 1540tq to the ground....or sometimes an infinity g20.......or a 2.2l s10. almost any car you could imagine.....twice or thrice....