I bet there are more than a few parked under car covers in garages next to '78 Corvette Pace Cars! That's another car where there seems to be no end to the number that turn up with low miles, or in some cases almost no miles, because someone bought it to store away new as an "investment".

I remember the last time I raced my 69 383 GTS I had the GN out of the hole by a bunch, then in the traps I heard this "wooshing" noise and that black streak flying by me. I ran a 14.91 and he a 13.96. Made up a whole second in the traps!

One GNX was traded in during Cash for Clunkers, if I remember correctly.

that would have been a crazy move on the individual and the dealership to run it under cash for clunkers.. but the dealership could have just done a regualar trade in and give them the 3500-4500 the customer was expecting, and the dealership could turn around and sold it for major profit.

Time capsule-type GNX's have done very well price-wise, unlike the 78 pace car, the "last" convertible El Dorado, etc.

Not to go off topic, but I THINK there was strict rules that threatened severe penalties for any dealership that didn't follow through with the insane C4C---not that it didn't happen and it was probably near impossible to catch a dealer doing it.
Good god C4C was one of the dumbest acts in modern times.

I always wanted a black one.....

I don't think Ive ever seen a GNX that had any miles on it.

Grand Nationals were THE car of the 80s. A lot of guys bought them and put them away as investments and I don't think Ive ever seen a GNX that had any miles on it.

I've always wondered how the condition really is on the low mile time capsules. I know the interior, paint, and such are in excellent condition. But what about dry rot on the rubber items, fluids breaking down or going bad, and other things. I would guess if kept out of sunlight, the rubber may be fine, but fluids go bad after so many years don't they? Wouldn't parts that need lubricated go bad after a while?

I've always wondered how the condition really is on the low mile time capsules. I know the interior, paint, and such are in excellent condition. But what about dry rot on the rubber items, fluids breaking down or going bad, and other things. I would guess if kept out of sunlight, the rubber may be fine, but fluids go bad after so many years don't they? Wouldn't parts that need lubricated go bad after a while?

I agree on the new stuff being potentially difficult to keep going in the future. Way too much wiring and plastic parts that will degrade and need replaced as well. My parents have a Durango that is on computer #3 now. At some point the parts supply for those will dry up and to the junkyard they will go.

I know of a GNX with less than a mile on the Odometer. current owner ( at least I think he still has it ) gave strict orders when it arrived.
do not drive it outside of off the transport to the customer pickup area.
he picked it up with enclosed trailer and it has not seen light of day since

Ive not seen or heard anything from the guy in several years. But have my doubts he sold the car. at least not yet

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Gn looks way better than any fwd turbo dodge

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

Post 1/4 mile times. Not power to weight ratio.
A chip, exhaust, and a better air intake, and an 86/87 GN would go very low 12’s all day. A

I roughly tried to figure approx how many real street runs I put on my three 86-87 gn-s when new and easily I came up with over 2k runs easily.

Yep, there was alot of warranty work done but we started to mod them the day we got them home and other then the cat system we had to swap back on the dealers loved it.

In our group of fifty or so that would race at least five nights a week, approx racking up 200 miles a night my 86 that ran true 12.6-12.9s with simple mods and m@h racemaster cheater tires. 0-60 times were in the 4.5,4.6-4.7, probably could of done better but the m@h tires would slide the fronts with anymore then 6-7 pounds of boost. on nights it was -5 out they would be rockets.

You got to remember that most strong mopars that were street racers were in the 12-s and it was semi rare to find a real fast one.

The turbo dodges were never a threat but there wasnt many around either.

We were not racing the wrong cars, we raced all comers that were not bracket cars that came in on a trailer.

Only a good modded 5.0 or a 85/86 stick vette was a worry and the vette guys, even the ones that could drive right could only hang close.

No they were not 10-11 second cars but for the time period and the couple years they were new and fresh they were the hot ticket. Day in day out like todays modern cars you could go run after run over and over, the older junk could not.

But they were a fun car in a fun time period.

Whatever opinions folks have are all valid, but on this topic I was there day in day out and know how the other cars ran. My modded 86 only got beat on the streets by actual street cars when I messed up the launch, too low of boost or too much and smoked the tires off. We simply would not run against race cars that came on on a trailer.

The turbo mopars ran well but not well enough at that time, a modded conquest tsi was the better mopar/import based runner.

Todays cars are way faster and I question if they are really that dangerous as easy as they drive/perform.

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.

Of course they don't – the GN was faster, but the GLHS was capable of beating it, just like what I said but you seemed to miss.

And talking about modified cars spanking cars you have no idea how they were modified (or not)? Not a good way to make a point.

A stock GN running 14.7 is a slow GN.

Proof? There's several tests going high-13s to low-14.

Or should I find proof of a car with a chip like you did?

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

This is the post that started the debate. The numbers I listed show that this is very possible.

I don't know why you're so offended that the GLHS was just as fast as a Grand National?

you listed power to weight ratios.... not track times...
according to power to weight ratios, a 3900lb Hemi B body should have run 12.20's@110....

No one is offended except the Mopar guy trying to stuff the square peg into the round hole.

The GLHS, while a fun car, is not in the same league as the GN. It's all about reality.

No one is offended except the Mopar guy trying to stuff the square peg into the round hole.

The GLHS, while a fun car, is not in the same league as the GN. It's all about reality.

Didn't the 1989 Turbo Trans Am use a slightly hotter version of the Buick Turbo V6?

High 14s?

http://www.gtasourcepage.com/8920thTACDReview.html