E.T. for a completely stock 87 GN.

[Brer Rabbit]

Got a friend with a completely stock 20k mile 87 GN. Im interested to find out exactly how fast these cars are bone stock. If anyone has done this yet please jump in. Please remember Im talking bone stock, I mean no chips, no K&N air filter, no drag radials, no nuttin.

 

[BRAD_PADGETT]

14.3 qtr

 

[Project TNX]

14.3 qtr

That's the exact time I was going to say.

Our stock times have really become an urban legend as time has gone by.

 

[Grumpy]

14.3 qtr

ya hit that on the head

 

[blckgnx]

14.9 to 15.00 92mph 1/4

 

[Quick6'n'-K.C.]

215/65/15s on my dads WE4 and we went 14.1 bone stock first time to the track at night.
Following week went back with a hotwire to the stock pump and upped the fuel pressure with a 11mm socket and hammer
13.8 on the those old tires. Kelly chargers???

Thats with the stock airbox,stock 90K cat,exhaust,downpipe, wires,chip, ect.

It was cold out, and i was able to get the car into the 1.90s since the track was prepped and leaving on 4 psi the car would hook.

The car should be at around 98 mph stock stock stock with nothing done or better.
How much carbon is built up?
Tell him to follow my white cars setup:wink:
BW

 

[Turbo6Smackdown]

13.8? thats crazy. I didnt know our cars would go that fast in stock trim.

 

[Mile High Turbo]

My t-type ran a 13.87 in south FL. Only non-stock were the bags of ice before the run on the intake and up-pipe.

 

[Quick6'n'-K.C.]

13.8? thats crazy. I didnt know our cars would go that fast in stock trim.

900 feet above sea level here in KC

BW

 

[forcefed3.8's]

My 85 ran 14.3's@95 all stock except for the removal of the air cleaner. With the stock filter, it ran 14.7's@92. The intercooled cars should trap around 98mph.

 

[Brer Rabbit]

thats a great response guys.

I cant wait to test this car. Super clean car, and the best thing is the owner is dead set on keeping it stock. Too bad I'm gonna have to wait til spring but at least I know where it should be. By the way, what is the factory setting for boost?

 

[83ttypecooled]

intercooler vs.

Hi,
Sorry, but unless you gutted the car for all it was worth, I can't believe an '85 could run 14.3,stockl An intercooler makes all the difference. If you ran downhill, maybe. I don't mean to be insulting, this is just a question of accuracy. I think that the 86 and 87 cars were capable of mid 14s in stock trim, and that the 84 and 85 cars averaged low to mid 15s stock. I know my TTA can pull a high 13 on a hot day, and it is stock,and it is supposed to have 50 more HP.
Keep in mind that the competition was far behind in those days. A GT Mustang ran 15 flat, and Camaros and Firebirds with 5.7L V8s ran very high 14s. I have the mag tests to prove it! Only the Turbo Buicks were faster.
I hope this is enlightening, as rose colored glasses sometimes tint reality.

 

[forcefed3.8's]

Car weighed around 3750 with me in it. I just found the timeslips last week. It had a stock chip and 14lbs of boost. It was a cold day in March, I let the car cool between runs and iced the intake down. I also ran one 13.98@95.5 the next weekend on a 5lbs launch with a 1.84 60'. I was joking around, and didn't think it would hook on 215/65 BFG TA's and no posi. The car had 130,000 miles on it. On Buick Raceday at Norwalk in 2000 I had a gutted cat, BGC street chip, 160 stat, 94/110 octane mix and 17psi and was running 13.5's@99 on drag radials. I ended up running 12.5's@106 through a stock exhaust with a gutted cat and no muffler, 21lbs of boost, and a custom race chip with alot of timing. I added a 9" K&N, adjustable fpr, valve springs, and a shimmed Syclone fuel pump with a hot wire. I made a templete to match the headers to the heads, and pinned the headers on the heads so there was no overlap, and ported the headers where the primaries go into the "log". Without the valvesprings, it ran 13.0's@102 to 103. I raced the car every Wednesday night and Saturday for 2 years to get it where it was. It just ran good. The hot air set up was very inconsistent. If the coolant temp was above 180, the car went nowhere. I have some slips that were only 14.9's@90 on hot days in the same trim that went 14.3's in the cold. I was a kid in High School with nothing better to do, and a friend that had a chip burner. Those were the days. Sorry for the hyjack.

 

[UNGN]

14.2 @ 95-96 mph with a 2.1 - 2.2 60 ft stock.

If the headers are cracked, expect low 15's.

If the fuel pump is the original 20 year old stock one, its a good idea to swap that out before going to the track. They were marginal when new.

 

[UNGN]

Hi,
Sorry, but unless you gutted the car for all it was worth, I can't believe an '85 could run 14.3,stockl An intercooler makes all the difference. If you ran downhill, maybe. I don't mean to be insulting, this is just a question of accuracy. I think that the 86 and 87 cars were capable of mid 14s in stock trim, and that the 84 and 85 cars averaged low to mid 15s stock. I know my TTA can pull a high 13 on a hot day, and it is stock,and it is supposed to have 50 more HP.
Keep in mind that the competition was far behind in those days. A GT Mustang ran 15 flat, and Camaros and Firebirds with 5.7L V8s ran very high 14s. I have the mag tests to prove it! Only the Turbo Buicks were faster.
I hope this is enlightening, as rose colored glasses sometimes tint reality.

A lot depends on where the track is and the track prep. My '89 mustang convert ran 14.50's right off the dealer lot at a non prepped 900 ft altitude track and I'm pretty sure someone could have cracked the 13's with it at a sea level sticky track.

With a short belt, my mustang used to run right with stock GN's... then the GN owner would pop in the magic chip and run high 13's.

I can see a Hot air cracking the 14's at a sea level track stock. At the same track, an '86-87 would be .75 second faster, though.

 

[TurboTnZ06]

My 87 Turbo T bone stock went 14.1 @ 97

 

[84gnguy]

My stock 87 went a 14.33 @ 96 MPH with a 2.33 60 ft.

 

[Ormand]

Super clean car, and the best thing is the owner is dead set on keeping it stock.

Keeping it "stock" is going to be both risky, and performance limiting. The stock fuel supply system was Ok when the car was new, 20 years ago. But not likely to be up to par now. And the stock chip was good for the fuel that was available 20 years ago, and that kind of fuel is hard to find these days. It would still LOOK stock with a new and better fuel pump, and new chip that takes advantage of things learned over the last 20 years.

 

[Brer Rabbit]

Good point.

Keeping it "stock" is going to be both risky, and performance limiting. The stock fuel supply system was Ok when the car was new, 20 years ago. But not likely to be up to par now. And the stock chip was good for the fuel that was available 20 years ago, and that kind of fuel is hard to find these days. It would still LOOK stock with a new and better fuel pump, and new chip that takes advantage of things learned over the last 20 years.

I will have to look into the fuel system issue on his car, since he has no knowledge of these cars, I would hate to see him grenade the motor, just to get a dead accurate E.T. for a GN. Im sure if he replaced it, he would go with a factory GM replacement.

 

[WIKEDV6]

I would put a scan master or some type of scan tool to make sure everything is on the money for what it is, especially the TPS, O2,mass air and other essential readings. Check the TB for oil and crap sucked through via the breather on the pass side. If needed, use the top engine cleaner then replace the spark plugs. I would also replace the fuel filter too, chances are with only 20K miles it's the original filter which is about twenty years old. I assume the fuel sack is ok but let the scan tool tell you that with the O2 reading.
I will say 13.8 to 14.2. It's going depend on how well he hooks and how he launches the car.

HTH
Prasad