87 Gn ( Real HP)

[snomachman]

What is the actual HP of this engine. The book from Buick says 245 hp with 355ftlbs of torque. I remember seeing a show on this but they under rated this engine back in 87 because of car insurance issues. Has anybody dyno'd a stock block?

Sno-

 

[Squid4life]

You might be more specific and say "COMPLETELY STOCK ENGINE" as the stock block has been in the 9's in some cars!!! :biggrin:

 

[snomachman]

Complete stock off the lot Sno-

 

[VadersV6]

I think the word was it was realistically about 275hp and 400lb ft.

 

[terryjh6]

to add to this ??

what's the diff in the 86' hp @ 235 vs. the 87' @245 Thanks Terry

 

[acoen]

Who knows? Buick one up'd (guess you could say five up'd) the Corvette in both consecutive years by 5 hp in each model year. The Corvette in '86 produced 230 hp so Buick published 235 hp, the same story for the '87 model year. As for actual hp differences between the years....no real comparible difference. I would say there is little to no difference between the years as far as hp goes. There were said to be some changes incorporated in '87 to improve start and warm up.

 

[turbofish38]

what's the diff in the 86' hp @ 235 vs. the 87' @245 Thanks Terry

Those figures are purely on paper. No real differences in the years.

In all of my years on researching the "myths" of the TR I have found no basis on the reason that the car was underated was due to insurance purposes or the Corvette was the designated king. From what I can confirm it was purely a figure written in ink to get a transmission for this car. The only transmission economically viable for the TR was the THM200-4R. Hydramatic division said they could only build it for a 330 lb ft of torque rating. Buick lied and said the motor made 330 thinking they could either, tweak the transmission for a higher rating or de-tune the engine. As it turns out they did a little of both. Simple logic and reason will easily debunk the Corvette and insurance myths.
Is a 200HP car cheaper to insure than a 235HP car? No, once an insurance company classifies a model as hi-perf than the amount of power is a moot point.
Okay,the April 86 cover of HOTROD reads V-6 beats Corvette. Yes, I bet those Corvette engineers were miffed by that statement and along with the fact that the G-body was going to be around for another model year. They had a whole model year to even up the odds and they did nothing! Oh yes, the TT Calloway did come out in 87 to counter the GNX but that was not a factory effort. You can go back through history and find quite of few years where the Vette was upstaged in the HP department. In the 80's the Corvette was a "halo" model. 99% of Corvette buyers were more interested in living the "Corvette lifestyle" than being the fastest kid on the block. According to the top Corvette engineers"the Grand National was never a threat".

 

[strikeeagle]

Duttweiler wrote stock GNs were "actually 280" HP.

I believe the Fish is correct in that the fact GN was quicker (and rated at 5 more HP) than Corvette was a much bigger deal to GN owners than anyone else.

TH-wise, recall the 87 was rated at 355 LB-FT.

The 87 was actually a little quicker than the 86. Mostly due to the poor aerodynamics of the fugly 86 grille.

strike