That's exactly what I'm running on my GN.
If I had it to do over again I'd go with 50's. It seems as though no one bitches about 50's, but lots of folks bitch about 009's - fat bottom, lean top, tip in stumble, poor mileage.
However, if $$$ are an issue, the 009's are dirt cheap - the 50's are maybe $100 more.
I have an RA chip set for the 009's (93, 100, 108). With the 93 the car is way fat on the bottom. If I continued on the RA course, I'd probably want to take some FP out (I run 43 PSI static, as per RA).
I bought a ME for the car and will be plugging it in soon. I'm looking forward to it, as I'm hoping I can make the car run a lot better with it. The car spools like crap, as you'd expect with a fat bottom.
BTW, the car ran 12.01 @ 118+, getting out of it, last year at BG, in the heat, with a C-R-A-P 60 foot (the stock D5 sux with a 52), so 009's are far from wimpy.
