The junkyards will be a treasure trove of tiny cameras and LCD displays.

That poor car.

I guess they were fast, but the stock ones never beat my Stage 1. Off the line sure... every time, but my wreck would bloody spin 'em before the line in the top end.

Always loved those cars though. I keep an eye out, and if i ever find a decent one with a broken engine i might grab it. These cars NEEEED a V8 and a stick. I was envisioning a Caddy 500 and a T56... now that i've fallen out ov love with the Buick 455. Sinister looking cars.

I like the gn. One of my favorite cars. There was a Buick dealer where I grew up that kept One in the showroom, it was still there a few years ago. I thought it was a gnx but may have been a regular gn. I was looking at them a year or 2 ago and the prices seemed very fair. Looked again last week and any that I saw were way more than I'd pay.

A magazine in 1986-87 wrote the Grand National could be drag raced with the trans in "drive" and it would run mid 14s. Sounds slow now but this was 1987 where mid/high 15s was screaming for a brand new car!! Its additional testament to the 3.8 V6 and its potential to do it all.

Top Mustangs and Camaros were mid/high-14 seconds back then. C&D went 13.8, if I recall correctly, and jaws dropped.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. have never seen one break out of the 14's. I have two buddies with them and while they are decent performers for their time-period, I've seen Turbo Dodges hand them their ass. My little Shelby will run right with my friends' GN. He'll usually get me by a nose because I have to shift while he doesn't. Big heavy boats that are still underpowered.


To me, they'll always be the cars my teachers drove in Grade School/High School. Granny's Grocery Getters.

Must be a location thing. There was no shortage of fast ones here. I think it's more rare to see a stock one around here.

I used to ride in my friends Buick T-Type. Cool car back in the day. He still has it and i believe it is a PRETTY rare color of like banana yellow???

Time capsules are great no matter the marque. To have a factory wrapped one is over the to. Being the owner of 5 original paint and basically stock vehicles ('03, '99, '71, '70, and '68) I can assure you the classics, and even the 99 generate a lot of interest. Most recently I added the 71 jeep (cj5 renegade II) a low mileage single family owned that had been a garage kept original sitting unused the most recent 20 some years. I went to the early cj board in hopes to locate an original oil pressure gauge (unobtanium) and what I posted garnered interest that I was incouraged to post dozens of pics of factory details (others restoring similar vehicles).
For anyone living in the era of increasing smog regulations the buicks and gmc sycone were two that seemed to stand out from the other offerings of the big three. The syclone (a truck) stood out in my mind, one haunted the streets of my hometown regularly shaming a lot of cars late at night.

Your STOCK Shelby, can run with a STOCK grand national?

The Grand National is fond to me because of how much it angered the chevy guys and turned their bowtie bias upside down. This was the 1980s and being fond of anything other than a chevy was grounds for a fist fight. Chevy guys were LIVID that a Buick "Regal" (The 1987) was so fast.

"Road & Track magazine in 1988 test drove a 5.0 liter TPI V8 IROC-Z equipped with a 5-speed manual and obtained a 0-60 mph time of 6.9 seconds and a quarter mile time of 15.4 seconds at 91.5 mph."

The Buick was a second faster in the quarter than the IROC and had much more on tap. I like it when the norm is upset. Much the way the 1st gen Viper caused a ruckus with Corvette owners and corvette biased magazine editors beginning in 1992. (Or to a lesser extent the 1992 dakota with the new 230hp 318 Magnum stomping the Chevy 454 SS in the 1/4)

I never had that impression. For one thing, the 5.0 Mustang was consistently faster than the Camaro, and even the introduction of the 350 for the IROC was barely enough to stave the Mustang.

No, the Camaro was not the norm.

It was with the Corvette that the Buick really showed who was boss. It was close, but the Buick won out....and it was a lot cheaper too.

Grand National - 3400 lb
1982 4.1l NA V6 - 125 hp - 27.2 lb/hp
1982 3.8l Turbo V6 - 175 hp - 19.4 lb/hp
1983 3.8l Turbo V6 - 190 hp - 17.9 lb/hp
1984 3.8l Turbo V6 - 200 hp - 17.0 lb/hp
1986-87 3.8l Turbo Intercooled V6 - 235 hp - 14.5 lb/hp

GNX - 3400 lb
1987 3.8l Turbo Intercooled V6 - 276 hp - 12.3 lb/hp

GLHS - 2295 lb
1986 (Omni) 2.2l Turbo Intecooled I4 - 175 hp - 13.1 lb/hp
1987 (Charger) 2.2l Turbo Intecooled I4 - 175 hp - 13.1 lb/hp

Daytona ShelbyZ - 2690 lb
1987-88 2.2l Turbo Intecooled I4 - 175 hp - 15.4 lb/hp

So yes, it's believable that a stock Shelby Dodge would be faster than a Grand National. Based on these numbers it's surprising there isn't more of a following for turbo Dodges.

Thanks for that.
And yeah, my friends' is an '84 or '85. It's quick, don't get me wrong I'm not knocking the car. What I am questioning is the fanboys who'll whip out their genitals and fawn all over these cars like they are the end-all, be-all of automotive exuberance.
If my friend were on here, he'd admit the same thing. It is a very cool daily driver but not a giant killer by any stretch. It's just something different that you don't see everyday.

They are cool cars, but they really are not that fast and in my mind, don't deserve the reputation that precedes them.

It's quite the opposite for the Turbo Dodges. They ARE genuinely quick rides (when you consider they've only got 4-cylinders) and yet, don't get anywhere near the recognition they deserve.

Even more impressive, and only 2 years after the Grand National, the 1989 Spirit R/T. At 2,901 lbs and 224 hp that gives it a power to weight ratio of 12.95 lb/hp.

I think the only reason the Grand National is more revered than the turbo Dodges is that it was still rear wheel drive. To most car guys this means that it's closer in form to a muscle car. Never mind that most years it produced little more than a stock 318ci 2 barrel.

Saying it's believable that a GLHS would be faster than a GN is like saying a 340 Dart Swinger would be faster than a solid-lifter 396 Chevelle. Is the A-body a giant-killer, capable of wreaking havoc on the Chevelle? Sure. But, all things being equal, it ain't faster than the L78.

The numbers don't lie. It may be hard to believe because you don't want to believe it, but I saw a lot of turbo Dodges put "muscle cars" to shame back in the day. Especially after a computer upgrade to increase the boost pressure. A $135 stage 1 computer would put that GLHS at 205 hp with a power to weight ratio of 11.2 lb/hp.

In 1986 Hot Rod magazine did an article to show how impressive the GLHS really was.
https://www.carmemories.com/cgi-bin/viewexperience.cgi?experience_id=113

Gn looks way better than any fwd turbo dodge

That's a matter of opinion. Personally I think the 1987-88 Daytona ShelbyZ is a heck of a lot better looking car than the blacked out grandma mobile.

Based on the numbers, Mopar was cranking out some pretty impressive cars in the 1980s. Their line of front wheel drive performance cars was ground breaking. It's too bad they don't get the respect the deserve.

The Darth Vader paint job makes those cars look tougher than they really are. If they were sandstone beige the interest in those cars would be waaayy less.