GN1270,
OK, I re-read your posts and am now clear.
What you're saying is that turbo 3.8s had specific pistons. But it used the crank out of the 4.1L.

So the stroke on the 3.8 and 4.1 is the same but the bore is larger on the 4.1.

I first read it as if you were saying the pistons and crank were out of the 4.1.

"Crank does not determine bore size."
Who said it did?



So what about the 3800 in the Camaro, Firebird, and Monaro CV6?
Are those engine's block castings a lightweight version of the older 3.8? Where did they remove material?

 

if you brought back the GN or GNX at least it would have to be at least a mid 12 second car to live up to its legacy. I mean sure the Vette guys will be pissed that a Buick is faster but hey, thats how it was in '86-'87. We'd have to be looking at a Turbo'd V-6 thats pushing 450hp and a tag of $40k+. My pops has a '86 GN 11.60 @ 122

 

TTA's have same intercooler as the GNX.

 

About a year ago or so, I had the same idea as the first post. I even emailed Buick about it. I told them since Pontiac was bringing the Monaro as a GTO, why couldn't Buick do the same and call it a Grand National. About a week later, I got a response. I can't remember it all, but to sum it up, it said - Thanks for the interest, and we highly value Buick customers opinions, but we don't build cars for the performance crowd (Something like that)

After that email, I sent a letter to GM High Tech Performance stating the same. They even put it in the mag!! They too said that Buick would probably never do it.

To those who said the GN would have to be fast right out of the gate, I ask why?? If you remember, the 231 V6 started being turboed in the late 70's. It sure wasn't the fastest then, but what the hell was the fastest in the late 70's - early 80's . The first GN's were the hotair turbo cars and only ran in the 15's.

I think they should have a turbo though. I'm sure the Buick engineers can figure that out along with making the Series ? 3800 stronger. I'd think they'd have to have at least 280 - 300 hp to compete with the cars being built today. I think that'd be enough to start with. To those who tweak the GN's, they know how easy it is to make a stock 14.0 GN run high 12's with minor mods/money!!

The only way that it will even be close to a reality is for us to talk about it and generate interest. Remember, the squeaky wheel gets greased or something like that

Keep talking it up guys, and maybe, just maybe there'll be a new GN in the showroom someday!!

btw, sorry so long, I just get long winded when it comes to my passion!!

 

And I think they were honest , at least.

Really... is a performance coupe goiung to help Buick? It'd likely be low volume, so it, in of itself, isn't going to be a huge thing revenue-wise.... and the people it brings into the Buick showroom... I don't think they are super likely to be interested in anything else they offer... so you'd be attracting the wrong crowd, IMO... That's why the Monaro went to Pontiac!

 

First: The Grand National was never a mid 12 second car. They ran upper 13s to low 14s.

Second: If you pop's GN ran 11.6@122 mph, it most definately wasn't stock.

Finally: Just because the GN was quicker from 0-60 than the Corvette (Corvette would hand the GN it's lunch after a quarter mile), doesn't mean it can or should be quicker than a Corvette today.

We surely live in a very twisted world when someone demands a 5 passenger midsize coupe runs quicker than 4 1/2 second 0-60 sprints and low 12 second quarters at over 116mph (current Corvettes) or else they become offended and consider it "slow".

 

I think he was saying that relative to its peers, a GN today should run mid-12s to be in the same pecking order as its forebear. And I'm sure he wasn't trying to say his pop's GN was stock.

Your last two points are dead on. Back in the mid-80s the various GM divisions were still somewhat individual so you could see how they might be able to squeak out the odd car that stepped on another division's toes. But now that Powertrain serves all, and the divisions are just marketing offices, I doubt that would happen again.

 

I agree with R377. The GN can NEVER happen again because the powertrains all come from GM Powertrain. There's no way to "slip" a GN engine/tranny development by anybody.

That said, the next GN ought to be a VE chassis with either the Northstar 4.0/4.6 or the new inline series 5/6 cylinder engines, Boosted by either turbo/s or twin screw Lysholm SC and intercooled.

Pack a 4L65E-HD behind it and an 8.5" 10 bolt with IRS.

Definitely keep the sheetmetal angular and any color you like as long as it's black.

A perfect foil to the GTO. High Tech Boosted power from Buick or Classic Muscle power from Pontiac. Just like it was back in 87.

 

The standard Vette will prolly have 400hp and run low 12's, so mid 12's out oif a GN isn't asking much and would get my nod.

HU, Not sure how much the 3800 block can handle, I don't think anyone has gotten past the internals to test it.

TTA, Not sure if they are the exact same IC, but if your TTA engine was better, you weighed 200lbs less than a GNX, have better aerodynamics than a GNX, run 2#'s more boost than a GNX, How come the TTA isn't faster than a GNX? From my calculations, you should be running at least .5 seconds faster than a GNX. Fact is, a stock GN motor and a TTA motor's Dyno #'s are extremely close. I think someone mentioned that the TTA had a 20hp advantage and that comes from the fact that you run stock ,2 more #'s of boost on the same motor. The rest that makes a TTA faster is what I mentioned above, less weight, and better aerodynamics. You don't have a motor equal to a GNX in the TTA. Give a turn on the wastegate and give the GN 2 more #'s of boost and you will see identical dyno #'s.

Like I said before, the supercharged 3800 in a Regal is being done, can't just make it RWD and expect to pick up over a second in the 1/4, that in itself would be a feat, but i'm sure everyone here can identify with is that people like to modify their cars and make them faster, so there would also have to be potential to go faster.

 

There would be a notable drop in times putting the same engine in a RWD car from FWD due to weight transfer under acceleration to the drive wheels vs off of the drive wheels.

No idea if it would be a full second, but it would be pretty noteworthy.

 

I don't think that makes a ton of difference on street cars. My best 60 ft is around 2.1 seconds on street tires, and I've seen GTPs pull off similar 60s. The difference would get more noticable with more powerful cars, but for the average 13-second cars I think it would make about .3 seconds difference at most, probably less.

 

It wouldn't help at all HP wise, and the weight transfer would be negated by the added weight (rotating weight for that matter) of a driveshaft and rear end.

 

One difference between GNX and TTA's is gearing. 3.42 vs. 3.27.

Don't know what a GNX weighs but most TTA's weigh ~3400 without driver.

 

not true, turbo and chip and I think exhaust were differnt. GNX's were loaded GN's with a big heavy beefed up rear suspension so they weighed more than a loaded GN and my GN weighed 3600#'s w/out driver. I'd say a GNX weighed at least that since they were all hard top cars. Now take into account that the GNX ran on 2 less #'s of boost and aerodynamically was a brick compared to the TTA. I've never heard of anyone Dynoing a GNX but I would guess it would be a good shot higher than a TTA.

 

I've been thinking they should do this for some time now.