I was wondeing who would win..I have heard a lot of talk about new mustangs breaking all sorts of records for 1/4 mile times...275 hp engines turnng out high 12s ect...
so lined up in the 1/4 who gets the win?

 

High 12?
I talked to a guy with a new gt with a K&N and exhaust
and he said he was only running low 14, high 13 with slicks and a close to perfect run down the track.
David
I heard they are coming out with a new SVT mustang
I dont think I will dare mess with them

 

What??

LOL, new M*****gs are barely faster than 350 TPI's. They run low 14's-high 13's. A mildly modded L98 should be able to beat 1 of those stock. The engine that gets all the attention in musclecars right now is the LS1. A TTA would definetly beat 1 of those!!

 

The new GT would get killed by the TTA, especially since the TTA is an auto and it would take a new GT, with a 5-speed, Slicks, a lot of lost weight, a great driver, and a prayer to keep up with a TTA. Sure the GTs can run high 13s, the majority don't do it consistently and we all know the TTAs run mid-low 13s. Its too bad GM lost the 3.8s with the turbos, but they couldn't make anything faster than the vette.

 

Well as it so happens I am helping a friend of mine build up a 2001 GT, with 4.10's, cat back, underdrive pulleys, K&N cold air, and chip, I can still stomp him on the street, I think it would be worse at the track. Dont get me wrong its quick but I keep my TTA ready to go. If you run into someone with a stocker and its not tuned good, it could happen that the GT would win.

 

Or the Turbo Trans Am would win because:

#1- The Mustang is really a 14 second car that breaks into the
high 13's with bolt ons and a 4 leaf clover.

#2- The Mustang is slow.

The new Saleen S351's run 12's with a Supercharged 351. Throw a couple of mods on a 3.8 Turbo (a V-6) and you'll beat those too.

All TTA's should be kept in tune in my opinion, anyone who lets one go should be shot.

 

hey shrp1...beautiful car...one question....do you use your car as a daily driver? I want a TTA so bad...but I dont know if I want to get one once I graduate H.S. I would have my beater...to go back and forth to college...but I would love to drive the TTA around everywhere else. But I dont want to ruin a beautiful machine...but then again how could I spend all that money and not get full use out of it. What do you guys think?...daily driver...or just a weekend cruiser? If not a daily driver then I think I am going to go for a '93-'98 TA...I want an LS1 but too much money right now for me.

James

 

Damnit! im tired of you guys saying that GM canned the GN because it was faster than the Corvette!!! They did this because the Regal went front wheel drive the next year!! Man, im sick of that crap. The Corvette isnt everything to GM you know. They almost canned it before the C5 went into prodution, so it isnt all that great to them. GM only cares about sales and profit. If the Vette isnt making the General some money, theyll kill it too. Oh, and for the record, the Corvette was faster than the GN, do you forget the Callaway twin turbo option?

 

How many times do we have to go over this...

There is NO comparison between the S351 and the 4.6L GT's. The S351 has a roots blown winsdor motor making 6# of boost. Combine this with a stiff ROAD RACING suspension and ROAD RACING tires, and you're not going to get very good times out of it. It was not built with drag racing in mind and does not belong on the drag strip. If you want to see what it can do, check out how it performed in the SCCA World Challenge. Saleen's record there speaks for itself.

The newer GT's can easily run 13's, but no, it's not going to happen your first time out and it probably won't happen for the guy that goes to the track twice a season. It's going to take some dedication and track time to figure it all out, but once you learn how to drive it you're going to put up some good numbers.

I've seen it with my own two eyes and this is the last time I'm going to say this. For anyone who doesn't believe it, I guess you'll have to learn the hard way when one hands you your ***.

 

Callaway wasnt considered a production vehicle because of the VERY LOW production numbers.

BUT your right about the GN being killed because of GM switching to FWD.

Phil

 

youre right, the Callaway wasnt a production vehicle, but it WAS a RPO option. It had its own code and everything. It was also listed on the Corvette option sheets from 86' - 91'. A corvette with a twin turbo option was indeed a factory produced car. Just like the turbo Grand Prixs and TTAs, the Callaway was sent out to other facilities to recieve the modifications.

 

the new gts can "easily run 13's"..
my question is how come these car magazines<<besides mustang monthly or whatever..can only get them in the 14s
Look at it this way...
If 2001 gts runs 13 easy....
why would someone pay up to 30,000 dollars more for a cobra that can run low 13s? doesnt make any sense

 

Because a 2001 GT easily runs low 14s and with some effort runs 13s. Thats why they pay the extra for the Cobra so they can run easy low 13s.

 

that makes no sense...your gonna pay 30,000 dolars
for not even a full second off your et..
comeon guys stop the b.s. admit the mustangs are weak
they are for rich boys and stuk up girls
and remeber this is a "third gen site"
so dont bust my ***** for this comment

 

I agree with you 100%

 

Well if Callaway built it then it wasnt FACTORY produced. Heres the diff, callaway takes a vette and modifes it then sells it thru certain dealerships or his own company.

The TTA's were ACTUALLY assembled in the factory, BUT did so with engines built by PAS, then the cars were returned to PAS for final tuning and then onto any dealership with an order.

Yea its quibles.

SO by your own words tho the Callaway isnt a production car therefore the GN was the fastest Factory production car in 87.

Tuner cars like Callaway are seldom considered factory if ever.

L8R

 

isn't the cobra used more for road racing then drag?
think that is the one with IRS and a road going setup

you ask me IRS sucks for a drag launch. also guys remember a car setup up for raod racing is going to suck gnats *** on the drag strip since they are not going to find any grip

 

LincolnHawk, your a true thridgenner. I don't really care how many mustang owners are being 'cool' on this site. I once went to their 'coral' and got ripped on so bad. Rustang owners, unless you admit that our cars are COOLER, stop trying to be our buddies! Just kidding, but seriously, mustangs blow

 

New GT's are 14 sec. cars stock.

 

Nic what the he!! are you talking about? The Saleen S351 is as street worthy as any other car mentioned. Besides I was comparing the S351 to the TTA 3.8 Turbo. Once again excusses, excusses. So when a guy pulls up next to me in a Saleen and I say " wanna race " do I care if his car is a good road racer = Nope
Compare anything then.

 

I dont know how many times i hav to say this. Callaway's arent production cars. He makes his own vehicles like the C12. However, a corvette is a producton car. And a Callaway turbo optioned corvette WAS a production car. Just like the SS and Firehawks, a corvette was sent elsewhere for the mods. Alls it was is a vette with a very special factory authorized option. Lingenfelter has tuner cars, but none of them had Chevy's backing, The Callaway did. If you still dont think they are production cars, go find someone who owns one of these Vettes and tell him that. See what he says. And get him to show you his build sheet.

 

tta gets the win on this one, unless severly outta tune(owner should be shot) tpivette dude, why is the gn known as the fastest PRODUCTION car in 87? everyone else on the planet seems to aknowledge this but you. i dont get it why do you keep argueing this? accept and move on with your life. also why was the gn axed in 87 if the rest of the g bodies were still being built through 88?

 

Maybe he doesn't want to admit it because 'fastest' could be taken many ways by some. I will concede that in stock trim, in 1987, a GN MAY beat an 87 Vette L98 (if the vette driver really can't drive his manual too well). But, an experienced driver in a vette, i think he would edge out over the GN stock. Now, the turbo ta, probably not, but we are talking about 87 here.

 

how did a 2001 gt vs a tta turn into a GN vs a 87 Vette cant we just agree that all gm rules in their own way, but im sure that the vette can outhandle the gn on a road track, in the quarter the gn would probably take the vette. Now i want to know how would the tta stand up to the gn at the drag strip and how the tta would hold up against the vette on a road track

:hail: vette
:hail: :hail: Grand National
:hail: :hail: :hail: TTA

2001 gt

 

the reason he is tlaking about making it hard to compare them is if you take a car built for road racing they tend not to do so well on the track due to lack of grip. almost like taking a car that is built for drag racing and taking it to go road racing

cars that have that STIFF road race setup on there cars do not get the front to rear as much as a drag car will have. the way the susp is setup is so that you hav as little body movement that you can
also if it has the IRS rear those things are a POS on the drag track
they lead to nice amounts of wheel hop, and lots of bad grip


still yes they can be used on the track but they are not setup for that

 

Paul,
TTA has more Hp, is somewhat lighter, and has far better traction, stock for stock, than the GN. TTA on a strip anyday. In comparison to a Vette & TTA on a road course, Corvette Fever mag did comparison in 89'. No course times, but Vette pulled .900 G's on 200' skidpad to the TTA's .870. Yet the TTA walked the vette by a second in the 1/4, and bested the Vette's top speed by 5 mph. IMO, depends how long the straights are.

 

just for the record i was talking about the twin turbo option for the corvette offered in 86-91. This was option code B2K and Chevrolet had certain vettes shipped to Callaway who bolted on the twin turbo setup. This combo was good for low 12s in the quarter. I know a stock GN would probably beat a stock Vette (maybe, it depends on the driver, when my 89 was stock i got a 13.9 out of it). But if you have a twin turbo vette, it would blow a GNs doors off. This was an actual production option offered by chevrolet, which makes a twin turbo vette a production vehicle. This is why i say the GN wasnt the fastest production car in 87. But no one wants to listen or believe me so this is the last im writing on the subject.

 

If it had a factory option code, that made it a production car just like the Firehawk. So, that would make what tpi89 is saying right.

 

you guys are singin to the wind on that one. it has always will be known as the fastest production car of 87 so get over it. it didnt get that rep by accident you know.

 

tpivette89 is right.

 

Hey Matt, your wrong. I have heard a lot of in my day, and i have even heard, oh yes, that the fastest car ever built was the camaro! All of 'em. I know that's BS, but lot's of people say lot's of BS. TPIvette is actually one hundred percent correct.

 

OH, by the way, RI sucks!!!! Just thought id throw that in. Yuppy

Hey all you DC guys, how bout Brooklyn AND DC vs. The Buick Board???

 

The Buick board ain't got a chance.

 

Thanks Convert, its about time someone recognized the facts. GNs are fast, but because the Callaway was produced in very few numbers (about 500 in a total run of 5 years), no one remembers them. The point is, it was a factory option to get a twin turbo vette in 87. That means every corvette buyer in 87 could have ordered their vettes this way. They were production vehicles, bottom line, end of story.

 

Ill give you some more 1987 GM facts. The callaway vette's are beautiful looking cars, where as the GN's are BUTT UGLY!!!! Also, a callaway vette would eat a modded GN for lunch.

 

Anything with a turbo is cool, no matter how ugly it is

 

Yeah that 's true. Turbo's are very cool. I wish i had a turbo on my car. The only uncool turbo cars are *****'s. Sure they're fast, but they are cheesy.

 

Even still, I think they're cool...just the tacky wings and fart pipes suck

 

ahh dreamers and bull****ers...the worlds full of um and this board has a few too ~ you guys can think whatever makes ya happy but us yuppies in turbo buicks will keep on keepin on. oh ya we still brake for corvettes he he. RI yuppies? howd ya come up with that one?

 

if you are talking import guys I have to call

but if you mean ***** as in wing from hell and trying to get the latest combat body kit with huge neon lights every place he can find on the car then yeah I agree

 

Import guys... hell no! I mean the *****'s that make their cars look like futuristic fighting machines. I love imported cars. Face it, no one makes em like the German's. Oh and, RX-7's are definitly great cars also.

 

ok dont start bringing the germans now

:hail: :hail: :hail: M3

 

Popular Mechanics tested the GNX and 87 Callaway B2K Vette
Both running low 13's. When lined up side by side " -- Buick all the way up to the point where aerodynamics become involved."

:nono:

 

I'll second that. :hail: M3

 

CONVERT, I'm sorry but you need to get a damn clue. You want to run vs. the Buick board??? Where the average timeslip over there reads mid 11s. Hello??? I've been on this board since it started, many many years ago because I too was a thirdgrader, I mean thirdgenner, but you have bit off a bit more than you can chew. Please try and get your facts straight and if you want to run, then take the 4 hour drive up to Boston and I'll run you for ***** and giggles. It seems to me that you are outnumbered even on your own board. Everyone here knows you talk trash and don't have your facts straight. Post some time slips instead of kills in your sig.

 

I was participating in the previous post of 89 IROC vs. GN. I backed out because it was getting childish due to Convert's reponses but I feel the need to jump in here.

This is how to tell Convert knows GN's are faster. He continues to resort to name calling and schoolyard crap between these 2 threads. I have posted postives and negatives about F-bodies and Buicks and somehow he still argues with me. I have owned a 4th gen 4 body, which is no doubt faster than the 89 IROC 350. And yet, that was still not as fast as my GN.

Listen Convert. When you post some time slips to prove how fast your car is than don't bother trying to convince us GN owners and lovers you are faster. Any body can make up stories for their signiture to include the likes of a GN. Why don't you come to the track this year and race a GN yourself and see what you can do. Would you be willing to race car for car. Don't just say yes because you intend on not showing up either. Would you REALLY do it. OH WAIT, I have to go add a victim to my sig. What shall it be this time. Oh, maybe I will beat a motorcycle on this race fake race.

And just because TPIVETTE is on your side means nothing. He is arguing about a car that he doesn't or hasn't owned or driven. (The Calloway Vette). Maybe he should have done some research before he shot his mouth off too. There is a video out there of the GNX beating the Calloway Vette 3 times. Wait, that makes the GN the fastest US production car in 87!

 

Oh man you actually believe this conspiracy too? Oh yeah and dont bother Convert with these Turbo Buick guys because they never give up, and they gain support by making posts at www.turbobuick.com sending shortcuts over here. I know cause it happened to me a long time ago. They Turbo guys kept signing up for thirdgen.org and beating on me. Just give up Convert.

 

never said it was a conspiracy, just looking for facts! i've read soooo many magazine articles saying what i've said. i know i'm right and i just would like others here to wake up and smell the burnt rubber.

 

No but seriously, you're not making anyone wake up, you're just pissing people off. Crap like this: http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/sho...threadid=26936 Like come on. I know what these Turbo Buicks can do stock, my friend has a '86 T-Type, 60,000 miles and I did him in but not with my thirdgen cause I havent had time to mod it, I beat him with my Dad's '68 Nova, I ran 13.8@101 and he ran 14.1@98. Those were best runs of the day. I think if you want respect on this board stop trying to start ****, and maybe challenge some guys to races.

 

Lets be realistic here. Whoever drove a Callaway and tied a GNX in the quarter doesnt know how to drive stick. Do he math : single turbo V6 vs twin turbo V8. Come on. Also, ive seen magazine tests of the Callaway in 87 and they were all in the mid 12s. I have the article. I dont know where you got the info that it ran low 13s. But no amount of arguing will help, cause people dont want to admit the GNX lost. And as for GM killing off the GN because of the Vette, if they cared so much about the Corvettes reputation, why did they even let the GN go into production? Im done here.