Converted To Turbo LS. Does it hurt value?

Wahoo said:
Stock for stock I'm pretty sure it was faster than an 87 GN.

12.89 stock in the quarter

http://www.stangbangers.com/01_Bullitt_Article2.htm
Click to expand...
With the technology from that time...of course something is going to be faster. That's still dog slow compared to the 60's factory race cars.
1962 Pontiac 421 Super Duty 12.20
1966 427 Cobra 12.22...it went 0-100-0 in 12.4 secs.
Those are actual off the showroom floor numbers.
My fathers factory lightweight 64 HEMI car went 11.30's after the secondary weights were removed from the carbs, the timing was cranked up, and pinion angle was set...and that was July of 64.
 
I guess it depends on your definition of value. Grinning while driving is the value I go for.

Plus, it is your car. Do what you want. I always say beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I beholding the keys :D

LOVE the interior (y)
 
The terrible thought that comes to my mind is - what would I do with these 4 rooms full of parts. :D
And were you to place a LS1 part in my hands - I wouldn't know it from a pile of rocks.
The thing I like the most about the regular LC2 (now I don't know crappola about Stage II) - is they are so easy to work on and actually quite simple.
A little like old school, less the FI, the Turbo etc.
I love the fact that after messing around with them for 25 plus years - I can look at a part or a place on the car - and know exactly what it is or where it goes.

But - as I always say - that is the true hidden beauty of a G body
They are so adaptable.
One of a kind almost.
 
I can only speak for myself. I would not even consider buying a GN/Ttype with any V8 swap. I remember being a small kid @ 1990 and my Mom making fun of guys who where swapping "tuned-port" 350's in GN's. I remember her saying "whats the point of owning a Grand National if your going to change the most unique part of the car".
 
You can drop a turbo LS into this baby and nobody will care...lol
ImageUploadedByTurboBuick Mobile1391340545.688394.jpg
 
coach said:
With the technology from that time...of course something is going to be faster. That's still dog slow compared to the 60's factory race cars.
1962 Pontiac 421 Super Duty 12.20
1966 427 Cobra 12.22...it went 0-100-0 in 12.4 secs.
Those are actual off the showroom floor numbers.
My fathers factory lightweight 64 HEMI car went 11.30's after the secondary weights were removed from the carbs, the timing was cranked up, and pinion angle was set...and that was July of 64.
Click to expand...

Times are different, and now we compare regular production models to factory race cars...... Thats ok though because technology has only been gettin better and better. We have production cars with more horsepower than ever before.

You think we had a horsepower war in the 70's... We have been having the best one the last 10 years!!! Gotta love it!

Here's today's factory race car... 8 Second quarter mile.... Sorry fellas, its LS powered!!!

http://www.torquenews.com/106/2012-copo-camaro-production-3-runs-stock-8-second-quarter-mile-video

I love grand nationals, wish I had the money to afford buying an '86/87 but instead I could afford my '85 T-type. Its my modern muscle car project. It needs to be painted and needs some maintenance. I was interested in them before I even knew what an LS1 was. That interest was sparked by their reputation of being fast.

Unfortunately in my time I haven't seen many grand nationals in my area, so when I was finally old enough to buy a sports car, I got a 2000 Trans Am WS6 6speed car. And if you people have never had an LS1 F-body before, then maybe you just don't understand and never will understand why its so special, and why people use them in everything.

Its not my fault technology is so much better today that its not considered to be such an unbeatable car today. Now all the new pony cars are in the 12's stock.
 
Last edited:
You totally missed the point. They had the capability in the 60's to go way faster...but they didn't have the safety. They easily coulda made 10 sec cars to sell, but you have 2 major issues. First...the average person would not be able to drive them. Second...the maintenance and warranties would never apply.
My Max Wedge car has a sticker in the glove box telling you it was for "supervised acceleration trials only"
" It is sold AS IS...no warranty applies"
They haven't made a car with those kinds of statements in over 40 years. Our GN's were prob the closest they have got on any family sedan since.
 
coach said:
You totally missed the point. They had the capability in the 60's to go way faster...but they didn't have the safety. They easily coulda made 10 sec cars to sell, but you have 2 major issues. First...the average person would not be able to drive them. Second...the maintenance and warranties would never apply.
My Max Wedge car has a sticker in the glove box telling you it was for "supervised acceleration trials only"
" It is sold AS IS...no warranty applies"
They haven't made a car with those kinds of statements in over 40 years. Our GN's were prob the closest they have got on any family sedan since.
Click to expand...

I wasnt really thinking about the safety aspect, I believe it was probably the tires that held them back.

Now why are you saying the GN is the closest car to that. Didnt they only go high 13's from the factory? Did hey really come wih warnings? The thing that made the GN so special was the lack of performance cars during that time period. Also the fact it was a small turbo 6 cylinder which was the newest technology.

Kinda why the LS1 is so special, because in 1998 a mustang GT had a 270hp 4.6L. And the fbodys had a 5.7L that GM said made 305-335hp in the fbodys.... But it was really the same engine the corvette had and produced 345hp in all the cars.

Hell the fbodys dyno'd more to the wheels because the corvette had IRS.
 
If you're worried about value, I will say this.
If I were in the market for a TR after I saw that the motor had been. swapped to an LS.
I wouldn't even consider it.
Not sure how may people go out looking for a TR with an LS, probably the same ones that think it's a Monte Carlo.
So, I would price it like a base Monte Carlo with an LS swap.
You've change the interior Which looks great by the way, but takes away from the originality. Also takes away from the value.
I can only tell you what I was looking for when I was in search of a GN and that was not it. If your car was worth say 12k. I would paid 14k for an original TR in same or worse shape.
Let's say 20 years from now TR's are scarce and some one bought this one to restore. The value would be very low because it would take a few dollars to get it back to original.
 
Also in 1970 they had the most powerful big block cars out, that normal people had available to them, they were all underrated for insurance reasons, and I'm sure they were a hand full to drive, but they were still made?

So in the 60's they could of had the power to go 10's from the factory but I think the tires held them back more so than they detuned the hp.
 
Wahoo said:
I wasnt really thinking about the safety aspect, I believe it was probably the tires that held them back.

Now why are you saying the GN is the closest car to that. Didnt they only go high 13's from the factory? Did hey really come wih warnings? The thing that made the GN so special was the lack of performance cars during that time period. Also the fact it was a small turbo 6 cylinder which was the newest technology.

Kinda why the LS1 is so special, because in 1998 a mustang GT had a 270hp 4.6L. And the fbodys had a 5.7L that GM said made 305-335hp in the fbodys.... But it was really the same engine the corvette had and produced 345hp in all the cars.

Hell the fbodys dyno'd more to the wheels because the corvette had IRS.
Click to expand...
Well I do not know how old you are or what your known history is on early 60's factory racecars, but they were cheap. I have 3...a 62 409, a 64 Maxxie, and a 65 Plymouth 426 4 speed 2 door post.
My 409 car had easy 475 horse, but over 500 ftlbs of torque...it weighed 3300lbs. Has a complete cardboard interior, NO SEATBELTS, NO REVERSE lights, and small drum breaks with a single master cylinder.
My Maxxie has the same. The 65 has a lap belt, but nothing else.
They all are very fast and totally unsafe to unleash on the general public.
The reason they were underrated for insurance was the lack of safety features. All three are lighter then a GN.
 
coach said:
Well I do not know how old you are or what your known history is on early 60's factory racecars, but they were cheap. I have 3...a 62 409, a 64 Maxxie, and a 65 Plymouth 426 4 speed 2 door post.
My 409 car had easy 475 horse, but over 500 ftlbs of torque...it weighed 3300lbs. Has a complete cardboard interior, NO SEATBELTS, NO REVERSE lights, and small drum breaks with a single master cylinder.
My Maxxie has the same. The 65 has a lap belt, but nothing else.
They all are very fast and totally unsafe to unleash on the general public.
The reason they were underrated for insurance was the lack of safety features. All three are lighter then a GN.
Click to expand...
I'm 27, I don't know much about the 60's cars, but I am forgetting that they didnt even have seat belts. That's insane! Very cool cars!

But how do you compare those cars to the GN?
 
OP, the value will only have an affect to the person looking for the lc2 platform. The older you get, the more you value history.
 
Last edited:
Any car can and will be special in there own right but what makes a turbo regal is the dam motor...for better or worse...just wish factory special cara would be left alone by the younger generation and that's sad coming coming from me cause I'm 24 but at least I get it....just wish this retarded ls craze wouldn't effect these cars....it's a fad that one day (hopefully) goes away....who the he'll wants to watch racing when there all the same non unique drive train?.....boring as fuck!

Some people don't get it
 
Wow. A lot of differing opinions on this. My thoughts are if I do go LS I'll change nothing that can't be undone. The car will always be in a state where the V6 can be returned to its original home.
 
You at least will do it tastefully sir...this I can tell from your nice interior work :)
 
I believe a few people on this board swapped because they sank a ton of money into there V6 having it built and then it failed prematurely. People on this forum make it seem like its expensive to build these V6's and they say not to do it yourself because they're not like other engines.

When I bought my car the seller basically title jumped it to me, he never registered it. It was very straight and had everything, ran pretty decent other than at wot it had some knock. I really liked the car anyways, and figured worse case senario I can do the worst thing ever (LS1 swap). Well when we decide to sign the title over to me the seller claims he didnt know it was salvage title from '94. The car was on the road from '94 til basically when I bought it.

I checked out the car, its rust free, very straight... Has the good 10bolt. And figure worse case senario I have to part it out or Ls1 swap it.

That's the description of my car.

Its not mint, its not a low mileage car. Instead of letting it rot or go to someone else who puts the actual worse thing you can do (sbc swap/ even LT1). At least not many people do that in this day and age!

Its an '85 T-Type. But it will live on now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
86 Buick Grand National T-Tops Laurel,Ms
Replies
1
Views
469
Rustyregal
R
R
It Was One of Those Days - Pt XII
Replies
9
Views
2K
DaJoker
D
Z
Long but worth the read...Iraq/war situation
Replies
4
Views
1K
6pack
6
Top