Did the GN really crank out 245 hp?

[Razor]

Originally posted by GNSCOTT
thats why i gave the average, and i think its fair to say the average for a TTA is 13.4. I;'ve also driven in a TTA and it FELT faster than my WS6 and ran a 13.8. Older more unstable cars feel faster because the ride is so much more rougher, Take a 14 sec. pass in a 66 GTO and it feels like your breaking the sound barrier.

I think its a stretch to say the TTA on average ran 13.1. Put 2 stockers on a dyno with 16.5#'s and i'll bet they are both right around 300 rwhp.

Do you think a GN would run the same #'s with a transplanted TTA motor?? I bet if ya turn the boost down to the stock 13.5#'s it doesn't pick up a thing.

So your question Scott is if the heads and IC worth any performance increase?

Becuase you say "IF" ya run em at 16.5#'s..this is a bad thing since most of this thread has been comparing stock to stock. And a stock GN at 13 PSI wont hold a candle to a stock TTA at 16.5 PSI. The extra 3.5 PSI rite out of the box..coupled with other little do-dads..there is no match.."stock" vs "stock".. "IF" is a wonderful term..what "if" we attached a gemini rocket to the roof of a GN..

Would both motors generate comparable HP in controlled conditions under same PSI, same ECM's, same exhuasts, etc... probably close..but unfortunately..they were never the same..similar..we wont get into the cross drilled cranks and different pistons that were also part of the package making a good thing "better"

Its just a better mousetrap

 

[86brick]

Wow you TTA guys sound a lot like the Supra boys!!!

The '89 TTA is God's chariot

 

[Razor]

Originally posted by 86brick


The '89 TTA is God's chariot

Well if ya say so

 

[cool 84]

The TTA pistons were not for performance nor was the crank. The pistons had a larger dish because the heads had a smaller chamber.

If we're talking bone stock no one argues the TTA is faster than the GN. TTA vs GNX comes down to driver.

I'm also a believer that at the same boost level a regular GN would be a good match for a stock TTA. I think the TTA would win but it should be close. I've been in both stock and the TTA no doubtedly feels faster. Now if we're talking the hotair GN vs TTA, the GN would win for sure. Just ask TTA89 .

 

[BM Computer Src]

Who's GN only put out 13.5 lbs stock??? Come on!! If yours was only pushing that much you should have had it checked!!

15 psi is Stock for a GN...

 

[Lee_Burough]

Sound like supra boys?....Guilty as charged

Lets keep working on GNSCOTT, we're breaking him down....

I'll admit, there is merit to GNSCOTT's assertion that the "engine" is not drastically different in the TTA. But, it really goes farther than the engine blocks, pistons, cranks, rods, and heads.

Its more than the engine. Its a list of refinements to the total package that increases output.

I make the case that it is a combination of a dozen "little" things allowing the TTA to make about 7-10% more power than the 86-87 GN. That total package included a slightly cooler air charge, more fuel pressure, more boost, and (just as important as the increased boost), slightly better air flow through the heads and markedly improved exhaust system.


The defense rests

 

[junkyard t]

gn and tta

Only different between the 2 was the tta had a higher boost chip 16# compare to 14 GN. Also the tta had 16 inch rims with wider tires than the 15 inch 215x65. same engine.

 

[TTA197]

I'll agree with LBurou & TTA1233

I've owned both an '87 GN and now an '89 TTA. There is a noticeable power/performance difference in the TTA. I'll never forget the first time I test drove the TTA, all I could say is WOW! Keep in mind the my '87 GN was completely stock with the exception of the valve cover breathers. So stock for stock the TTA owns it. I will say the TTA is one rattling bitch with very poor workmanship. Just my .02 .Nicholas.

 

[TTA89]

Originally posted by cool 84
Now if we're talking the hotair GN vs TTA, the GN would win for sure. Just ask TTA89 .

Yes I am still reading but refuse to respond anymore as I won't be able to get the GN guys to admit that the TTA is gods chariot

 

[pat83t]

Originally posted by TT/A1233
The factory performance on average of a TTA vs. the GN in stock form puts the Pontiac about 1 second quicker in the 1/4 mile. There's a 200lb. difference between the cars and a bit of aerodynamics. Together doesn't come close to adding up to a full second difference in 1320 feet.

OK, I know I don't count, being a carb'd slug and all but last year at Turbo Thunder III at the local track, there are many witnesses that can tell you that when my friend rode passenger for a run I was almost a full second slower. (He weighs in at about 230lbs.) After kicking him out of the car I ran .8 of a second faster. We even tested this theory by putting him in and out of the car several times just to see if that was what shaved the time off.
I would give specific times but don't want to embarass my self. (Lets just say: Anybody got a sundial handy?)

 

[sr71gn]

this thread began with someone asking about the hp of a stock gn then tt/a1223 interjected his theory that the tta had a more powerful motor with this comment

>No way the engine has 425 ft/lbs torque factory. My TTA dynoed 320hp and 399 ft/lbs torque with a chip, downpipe and no cat. Keep in mind the TTA engines had more factory power than GN engines. Not to mention more boost, different heads, headers, pistons, intercooler and a few other little doo-dads to up power over the 1987 version of the LC2 engine<


there is no argument here that the stock tta is faster than a stock gn, but the argument is whether the tta has a more poerful engine

gnscott seems to be merely using common sense with his arguments about the engines probably being equal - i agree totally with his reasoning

 

[JOHNDEEREGN]

I have had enough of this s***

I only merely speculated the GN and TTa had 425 Tq from the factory. Who the heck knows, maybe its way lower. Everyone here has great intentions on throwing in there >02 cents worth, and it is all valid "opinions".

They are both beautiful cars that haul azz, look good, and are fun for us to talk about, so lets all agree to disagree and move on.

At least until someone posts some ACTUAL stock dyno numbers up we are all just blowing smoke anyway

I personally have driven both cars. Only 3 Gns in my life and 1 TTA. (Yes I know, each and every turbo cars varies in performance depending on many variables)
The TTA felt MUCH faster! Was it as much faster that it felt. Probabaly not. But it just felt a LOT QUICKER. Probably wasnt a 1/2 second to 1 second quicker in the 1/4 mile, or a few tenths to 60 in actual numbers. But it just felt quicker and thats what impresses people about these cars. As we ll know both cars impress. Heck, my 79 tenth anni Trans Am feels darn fast two, that is untill you climb in to the GN or 20th TTA

Have a great Monday!

 

[Vendor Defendor]

Originally posted by BM Computer Src
Who's GN only put out 13.5 lbs stock??? Come on!! If yours was only pushing that much you should have had it checked!!

15 psi is Stock for a GN...

why dont you post that dyno sheet of that stock GN that you have? well not completely stock didnt you say you were running 16psi of boost? if you have the time to post it i can do it for you, i saved that to show it off to my friends...

-Neil

 

[GNSCOTT]

Would both motors generate comparable HP in controlled conditions under same PSI, same ECM's, same exhuasts, etc... probably close..but unfortunately..they were never the same..similar..we wont get into the cross drilled cranks and different pistons that were also part of the package making a good thing "better"

No one is saying to change a single component on either engine, just to up the boost on the GN to 16.5#'s and on both mototrs you will have the same HP. In other words, if you turn the boost down in you TTA to 13.5#'s the TTA would have only ran 13.7, throw 200#'s of ballast in the trunk and I bet it would then run a 13.9, and put a big sqare box over the front nose and I'll bet the TTA would run a 14.0 in the 1/4. Pontiac can talkj about how they had King Midas touch each engine, it looks real good on sales brochures, but again for the reasons listed it is MHO D ) that is where the extra power is from.

I also want everyone to understand that I love TTA's, and I will have one after my stage project is done. My opinions are just my , I beleive well thought out, reasons why the TTA is 6 -10ths faster than a GN from the factory, not because I don't like, admire, respect the TTA. I've owned 3 3rd gen f-bodies, and 2 4th gen, and would have traded any of them for a TTA, and finally I think this thread is nothing like one on the Supra boards. No one has said either car sucks, no personal mud has even remotely been flung, just a good healthy debate. OK..who's got the burgers?

 

[Darklord]

I've never driven a TTA but I do know that seat-of-the-pants dynos are awfully inaccurate. My modded 3rd gen 88 Iroc with 350 TPI felt stronger than my almost stock GN when I first bought it in 96. Boy was I surprised when I found out the GN was better than 8 mph quicker in the 1/4. The Camaro was a rattle trap, loud and just brutal but I did enjoy that car. It certainly "felt" faster than the GN. Even my friends thought it would take the TR but it would've gotten raped. The only reason I bring this up is, of course, the TTA and 3rd gen Iroc are essentialy the same car with the exception of the engine.
While I'm sure a TTA is quicker I seriously doubt there's that much of a difference between cars except on the butt dyno. I'd be very interested to see dyno numbers from stock TTAs and GNs compared. Don't know many people who dynoed these cars stock though.

 

[Bob Cosby]

It is amazing how many engines have suddenly become "under-rated" - especially after the well-documented under-rating of the LS1, starting in 98.

Unfortunately, there were no chassis dyno's in 1987 or 1989, and there are precious few truly stock 86/87 TR's or 89 TTA's. This allows for some really crazy theories, assumptions, and just plain silly data to pop up. I don't think anybody would argue that the 89 TTA made more than 210 RWHP (250 flywheel rated - 40 drivetrain loss) - but 300 RWHP? Bone stock? Doubt it.

Ditto the 86/87 TR. 225/245 HP was almost certianly conservative. Just running some basic HP numbers through the numerous available calculators can show this. But again, as time goes by, the "true" numbers seem to get more and more inflated.

I'd REALLY like to see some BONE STOCK numbers from each of these cars. Betcha you'd see ~250 RWHP from the TTA and ~220-230 from the GN - assuming both were in correct running order, and truly stock. Running simple HP calculations will get you close to those numbers, based upon published 1/4 mile ET/MPH numbers and known raceweights.

Regardless....would be really nice to see some truly stock dyno numbers. Anybody?

 

[GNSCOTT]

Unfortunately, there were no chassis dyno's in 1987 or 1989, and there are precious few truly stock 86/87 TR's or 89 TTA's. This allows for some really crazy theories, assumptions, and just plain silly data to pop up. I don't think anybody would argue that the 89 TTA made more than 210 RWHP (250 flywheel rated - 40 drivetrain loss) - but 300 RWHP? Bone stock? Doubt it.

Bob, I can see the TTA having close to 300rwhp, here's why. A TTA ran mid 13's , same as todays LS1 TA's and they Dyno out right around 300rwhp. I still think the GN with 16.5#'s of boost is right there, but with stock boost its closer to 260/270.

 

[Bob Cosby]

Scott....there have been A4 LS1's that have gone 13.0 @ 104-106 MPH in bone stock trim. 98-00 A4 LS1's dyno ~275-280 RWHP (01/02 were mostly 290-300 ish). Keep in mind that M6 LS1's dyno ~15-20 RWHP higher than A4's. I use A4's in this example because all TTA's were A4's (of course).

It is my opinion - which anyone is welcome to disagree with - that a stock LS1 F-body is 2-3 tenths and 3-5 MPH quicker/faster than a stock TTA. From this is where I draw my primary conclusions.

As an FYI, based on my experience and observations from "back in my day", most truly stock GN's ran low 14's @ ~97-98 mph.

 

[TurboDiverArt]

Originally posted by BuickPower3800
Wouldnt a GN still get the jump off the line vs. a TTA?

That's probably a good point. The TTA made more power stock but I think if we are bolting on slicks and racing the GN can hold more boost at the line and probably get a better short time due to the TTA’s rear disk brakes, just a guess. Is it enough to stay in front of the more powerful TTA, who knows.

I think the heads that were on the TTA were not a performance option but for clearance reasons. Weren't they 4.1 heads? I don't think they flow better. I think the spark plug orientation is in a different place, not sure.

 

[86brick]

Originally posted by TurboDiverArt
That's probably a good point. The TTA made more power stock but I think if we are bolting on slicks and racing the GN can hold more boost at the line and probably get a better short time due to the TTA’s rear disk brakes, just a guess. Is it enough to stay in front of the more powerful TTA, who knows.

I think the heads that were on the TTA were not a performance option but for clearance reasons. Weren't they 4.1 heads? I don't think they flow better. I think the spark plug orientation is in a different place, not sure.

Art, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the heads on the TTAs were FWD 3.8 heads.....