The lc2 engine in the turbo regal was an engineering marvel and shouldn't be compared to any dinosaur naturally aspirated engine from the 60's. The untapped performance potential is greater than just about anything ever produced while maintaining the original layout and without addition of other major power adders.
Is the grand national a muscle car
- Thread starter tzque
- Start date
Welcome!
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
whitehot84
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2001
- Messages
- 6,097
In my mind, what there is left of it, the GN was the last of the muscle cars. I've seen shows where they only allowed cars up to '79. My answer was "pull the one you think can beat me out on the street". We will see which is the real muscle car. No takers of course.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2003
- Messages
- 9,724
according to nhra the turbo v6 is a big block
when you consider its basically a 500+ cubic inch motor under boost
.. so yeah its muscle car
when you consider its basically a 500+ cubic inch motor under boost
.. so yeah its muscle car
My answer to this question: yes and no.
Yes because it's a rear wheel drive mid sized car with a powerful engine.....such as what all the real muscle cars (GTO, 442, Chevelle SS, GSX, GS 455) were. It even has the triangulated 4 link like all of the above cars I mentioned, had.
But no, because all of the true muscle cars were powered by V8's reserved for the bigger models.
A turbo Buick engine is only a V6, and it was not an engine reserved for the bigger models....it was a base/economy engine that was revived due to the fuel crisis of the 1970's.
Yes because it's a rear wheel drive mid sized car with a powerful engine.....such as what all the real muscle cars (GTO, 442, Chevelle SS, GSX, GS 455) were. It even has the triangulated 4 link like all of the above cars I mentioned, had.
But no, because all of the true muscle cars were powered by V8's reserved for the bigger models.
A turbo Buick engine is only a V6, and it was not an engine reserved for the bigger models....it was a base/economy engine that was revived due to the fuel crisis of the 1970's.
BGNeXtreem
Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2012
- Messages
- 192
My car does have a lot of muscle and it's a car my simple minded answer would be yeah it's a car with muscle and will outrun 90 percent of those so called muscle cars of the 60, 70,80 hell all the way to present day so yes I have a muscle car 
Mark Parks
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Messages
- 533
I've owned 2 BB 428 Mustangs,7 BB Chevelles,and 3 BB 455 Buick GS's. My 86 GN will smoke any of them. The GN is DEFINITELY a muscle car!!!!!!!! NOT opinion just fact!!!!!!!!!!!
BGNeXtreem
Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2012
- Messages
- 192
I'll add this to ponder it's 16:1 when the boost hits if I'm not a 100 percent accurate on this forgive me but if it isn't that high of compression it's Dam close so how can a car that has compression so high be considered anything but a muscle car. Nuff said this is just my opinion as other have said there's
Pronto
No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2002
- Messages
- 16,788
I've hurt the feeling of many a "muscle car". To me the era of muscle cars ended in 1979 with the last Pontiac 400 engined T/A. I see the TB as a modern muscle car b/c of the electronic fuel injection. My stock off the showroom floor 6 cyl Nissan Altima is just as fast as many stock off the showroom floor "muscle cars" were. Just goes to show you how much better modern engineering is.
The turbo Buicks are the last American muscle car. Your TA is a pony car.
My vote is yes it is a "Modern Muscle car"
I see lots of you guys saying your GN will smoke any of the 60's and 70's muscle cars....yes maybe modded out but not necessarily in stock form! Also I dont think the speed of the car has anything to do with it! I had a 68 Goat with a healthy 455 and a 4 speed it ran real good and was an experience in itself to drive. Yeah my GN would spank it bad but that does not matter.....it is apples and oranges to compare. My '69 vette is not a muscle car it is a sports car by classification but it is completely a completely different car. A v8 lots of compression big cam shaft and a 4 speed yes it is very fast but I just can not compare the two.
This can be argued all day.....but my opinion the 60-70's big bodied big powered cars are "Muscle" the GN's are "Modern Muscle"
and no I do not consider the new stangs or Challengers muscle cars
I see lots of you guys saying your GN will smoke any of the 60's and 70's muscle cars....yes maybe modded out but not necessarily in stock form! Also I dont think the speed of the car has anything to do with it! I had a 68 Goat with a healthy 455 and a 4 speed it ran real good and was an experience in itself to drive. Yeah my GN would spank it bad but that does not matter.....it is apples and oranges to compare. My '69 vette is not a muscle car it is a sports car by classification but it is completely a completely different car. A v8 lots of compression big cam shaft and a 4 speed yes it is very fast but I just can not compare the two.
This can be argued all day.....but my opinion the 60-70's big bodied big powered cars are "Muscle" the GN's are "Modern Muscle"
and no I do not consider the new stangs or Challengers muscle cars
I concider it a "modern muscle car"...much like the new challengers, mustangs, and camaros. 25 years isn't that long ago in terms of cars. No matter how u look at TR's they've earned their stripes in the performance world...go on YouTube and read comments on GN videos...not many cars have a reputation of being almost "unbeatable".
I may complain about the reliability of these cars from time to time or always taking an opportunity to tell somebody to leave their car stock but I surely and truely know that if it wasn't for the guys modding ,racing ,trashing and (burning the tires off even if I think its a waste) their cars,the favourability and mystique of these cars would've worn off long ago.Keeping the legend alive so to speak.
I, like others here have watched countless video's of TR's and the comments are always in awe. Alot of young people who don't even have a licence yet DREAM of owning one.Theres not very many haters...maybe its just TR guys replying but I don't think so.
jimmymack87gn
Boost Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2011
- Messages
- 136
Even though a TB is a G-body, its what I would call a "lineal descendant' of the GM A-body muscle car (arguably improved) , all are intermediate sized, body on frame with similar suspensions & powerful engines (regardless of cubic inches). So why WOULD IT NOT be a muscle car???
The GN was the first "Modern Musclecar".
The Purpose of a "muscle car" was for a midsized 4+ passenger car to hang with (or beat) Sports cars in a Straight line.
The Definition of it "had to have a V-8", had to have dual exaust, have to have X cubic inches, etc, may have been relavant in 1968, but wasn't relavant any more in 1986, and idiots that clung to that definition saw a lot of Regal tailights in the 1980's and 1990's.
The Purpose of a "muscle car" was for a midsized 4+ passenger car to hang with (or beat) Sports cars in a Straight line.
The Definition of it "had to have a V-8", had to have dual exaust, have to have X cubic inches, etc, may have been relavant in 1968, but wasn't relavant any more in 1986, and idiots that clung to that definition saw a lot of Regal tailights in the 1980's and 1990's.
hit the nail on the head in my opinion. I think it is the last great muscle car built...period. Now it's all jockeying for HP and fuel economy.....wait.....Buick did that already. Proved it works too.
C
coach
Guest
I'll give you the modern muscle car comment. That is true for sure. Its computer controlled and has a ton of electronic sensors. As for a rep on "Unbeatable"...do a little history. 1962 NHRA Winter Nationals... of the last 50 cars in contention for the title...48 were powered by the 409 Chevy. Same with the Dodge Daytonas and Plymouth Superbirds at Daytona...the HEMI was totally unbeatable and forced a rule change in the early 70's. There was no YouTube back then so it wasnt out there.
The GN is easy to mod and get into the 12's but...if you take a 63-64 Max Wedge car from the factory. Remove the secondary weights from both carbs...fool with the timing...lock out the distributor weights...and add the Super Stock springs...and throw away the factory exhaust...you had a low 11, high 10 second car without doing anything to the motor. They came so de-tuned from the factory it wasnt even funny. Imagine if they had half the tire technology we have today?!?!?!
Okay, guys and gals, I read all the replies up to now and I just had to jump in. I went to high school in the late 50'sThe AMX was a 2 seat "Sports Car". The Javelin was a "Pony Car"
and early 60's, so I was there when the Pontiac guys slipped the big v-8 into the Tempest and called it a GTO, and were given credit for starting the muscle car era. There were other cars in the 50's, like the supercharged Studebaker
Hawks, that could also have qualified. Interestingly, I watched a brand-new 64 Tri-power 4-speed 389 GTO, right
off the showroom floor, run mid-15's at the dragstrip. A classic musclecar, right? Would our GN's outrun it? Probably. So to me, like the dictionary said about high performance vehicles, the Turbo Regals definitely qualify
as musclecars. I think that most of the cars guys from my era aren't stuck on the bit about a muscle car having
to be a big-block to qualify for the title, either. Personally, a 69 Z-28 with the high-revving 302 is still a musclecar.
But then that's just my opinion....
Similar threads
