Originally Posted By DUFFMAN
Originally Posted By Spaceman Spiff
Originally Posted By RamblerMan
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.


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.

No longer taking $h!t from anyone!