Late '80's/Early '90's 5.0

[LS1Z2800]

I'm new to the board but have a quick question about GN's & turbo buicks. I got a guy on my job who bought an '88 5.0 brand new back then who claimed to have ran a 13.9@100 "bone stock" and raced an '87 GN that was supposedly modded who ran a 14.0@96. I told him he was full of it and that "bone stock" to "bone stock" the GN's & turbo buicks were faster than the late '80's & early model mustang 5.0. Do you guys know of any archived magazines with these test results so I can prove him wrong. Once he sees the results in black and white only then will he believe. BTW I do think its pretty silly that two grown men would argue. LOL

 

[Project TNX]

Your buddy is a bonehead. I can write that down and scan it for proof.

 

[alittlev6]

I'm new to the board but have a quick question about GN's & turbo buicks. I got a guy on my job who bought an '88 5.0 brand new back then who claimed to have ran a 13.9@100 "bone stock" and raced an '87 GN that was supposedly modded who ran a 14.0@96. I told him he was full of it and that "bone stock" to "bone stock" the GN's & turbo buicks were faster than the late '80's & early model mustang 5.0. Do you guys know of any archived magazines with these test results so I can prove him wrong. Once he sees the results in black and white only then will he believe. BTW I do think its pretty silly that two grown men would argue. LOL

tell your budy stop confusing the regular v6/v8 regals to our turbo regals, same body designs,world of a difference engines!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!i bet the regular regal gave him a run!!! byt the way!

 

[Jerryl]

Tell your buddy to show up at the track with a stock 5.0
I am sure there are a few stock TR's in his area who would enjoy the challenge.

 

[1dmbth]

5.0=pos

 

[josh watson]

The

Grand national/turbo t were the fastest combo in the late 80's a factory 88 gt is a 14.8-15 sec. car.....a 5.0lx (5speed) is a 14.5-14.8 car Your buddy is full of sh** I run w/ the mustang crowd on occasion.......The grand national in 87 was faster than the vette(87).......(don't ask a vette owner though)

 

[DCVING 6]

I doubt it if it was an 88, but if it were a 91ish notchback with a 5 speed it *might* have done a 13.9 bone stock on some good tires. The notchbacks are LIGHT!!!

 

[Grumpy]

I have watched lots of stockish Mustangs run in the 13's back then

 

[UNGN]

The '87-88 speed density cars could run 13's with a little traction, but the transmissions were made of glass. They were quicker stock than the later MAF cars.

I personally witnessed a stock appearing speed density car run 12.9's at 103 with gears and slicks and a 5000 RPM clutch drop. Only real mods were K&N and short belt and disconnected exhaust.

When all of the 5.0 guys around here broke their cars they switched over to T/R's (before the flood of cheap 5.0 aftermarket parts)

 

[UNGN]

I doubt it if it was an 88, but if it were a 91ish notchback with a 5 speed it *might* have done a 13.9 bone stock on some good tires. The notchbacks are LIGHT!!!

The 87-88's were quicker AND lighter than a similar '91.

No airbag, lighter front end, no backseat shoulder belts, etc.

Speed density made more HP stock than MAF, too. When you'd ice down the intake on a cold day, those things would fly.

 

[UNGN]

I'm new to the board but have a quick question about GN's & turbo buicks. I got a guy on my job who bought an '88 5.0 brand new back then who claimed to have ran a 13.9@100 "bone stock" and raced an '87 GN that was supposedly modded who ran a 14.0@96. I told him he was full of it and that "bone stock" to "bone stock" the GN's & turbo buicks were faster than the late '80's & early model mustang 5.0. Do you guys know of any archived magazines with these test results so I can prove him wrong. Once he sees the results in black and white only then will he believe. BTW I do think its pretty silly that two grown men would argue. LOL

This sounds like a pretty reasonable story to me.

Ever a mildly built T/R is only going to run 14.00 @ 96 if the owner is running pump gas and the car is in OD and not drive.

My stock '89 mustang ran 8.9's (8.89 best) with the top down in the 1/8 mile on bald 225/60 gatorbacks I'd buy at the Super Shops for $5 each, with the only mod being a short belt I'd put on in the staging lanes.

This equals a 13.9 in the 1/4.

Any racing story involves 2 individual cars/drivers and not all cars/drivers of that make.

My T-type ran 11.53@118. When you open the hood, you see the stock Aircleaner box, Stock intercooler and stock appearing turbo. Sure the car is VERY stock, but when I bought the car, it barely ran 14's (of course the guy I bought it from bragged how "Fast" it was)

If someone with a actual stock T/R thinks they are going to run 11.50s because my car did, they are going to have to takes theirs to the track and prove it to me.

 

[turbofish38]

I have watched lots of stockish Mustangs run in the 13's back then

Same here. And a 14 flat would be doing good for a stock TR. It was hard to keep the Eagle GTs from spinning off the line. IIRC there was a magic combination for the five-O. No AC in a speed denisity notchback got you a set of 3.55s I do believe. Just like the TR there were a lot of no-bucks tricks you could use to trim a couple of tenths off the ET.

 

[Turbo6Smackdown]

For some reason, i keep hearing, that the 89 mustang, was the fastest of that little era. was this true? was there something special about the 89's at all? or was this just rumor.

And for a stock mustang beating a stock gn? good luck. do what jerryl said. tell your buddy to find a stock mustang, and show up to the track. theres a tr in the area im sure, that would show him otherwise.

Though, a magazine articles times, dont really prove much, cuz those are VERY experienced drivers. I want to see YOU in a gn, and your buddy driving this stock mustang. But, i do know, that with very minor tweaking, one of those notches can be dam fast. but then again, with minor tweaking, a gn can be even faster yet...

 

[UNGN]

For some reason, i keep hearing, that the 89 mustang, was the fastest of that little era. was this true? was there something special about the 89's at all? or was this just rumor.

And for a stock mustang beating a stock gn? good luck. do what jerryl said. tell your buddy to find a stock mustang, and show up to the track. theres a tr in the area im sure, that would show him otherwise.

Though, a magazine articles times, dont really prove much, cuz those are VERY experienced drivers. I want to see YOU in a gn, and your buddy driving this stock mustang. But, i do know, that with very minor tweaking, one of those notches can be dam fast. but then again, with minor tweaking, a gn can be even faster yet...

I had an '89 and can say for certain the '87-88 cars were slightly faster stock.

One of my co workers had a stock GN, but he never went to the track. Of course my stock mustang would waste him. I even beat him once in the 1/8th with my club cab dodge dakota.

What makes a T/R special is how it will respond to slight mods like a K&N, a chip, free flowing exhaust and octane and not what they run stock.

The same free/cheap mods that will put an 80's/90's 5.0 into the 13's will put a T/R into the 12's.

 

[LS1Z2800]

So what I'm getting out of this so far is that a both a "bone stock" GN and late model "bone stock" 5.0 are basically equally matched then?

 

[UNGN]

So what I'm getting out of this so far is that a both a "bone stock" GN and late model "bone stock" 5.0 are basically equally matched then?

Yes. especially if the mustang driver is good and the GN driver isn't.


But if they are both equal, and the T/R owner pops in a chip or 5 other minor tweaks (like a paper clip in Diagnostic port to lock the converter, or unbolts the catflange or puts on a cone K&N), the race is over with the T/R winning.

 

[RUQWKNF]

I can attest to what UNGN is saying. I've personally witnessed many 87-88 non MAF cars run in the high 13's with the free mods and traction. However, most people had no clue about the free mods, not too mention knew how to really bang the gears on a stang back then. And the T5's were pretty weak when you'd beat on them repeatedly with slicks. Also, ambient air temps would play a big factor with both cars. Both cars (Buick/Stang) were very closely matched bone stock, typically it would be the 86 model Turbo Buicks that would win out on the streets compaired to heavier 87 models (not talking about WE4s) due to being lighter with aluminum bumper backings and T-Types having aluminum wheels. What was fun was picking on every V8 car on the street when the outside temps dropped. Also, back in the day, 93 octane fuel was formulated differently and you could get away with slightly higher boost levels that you can with todays watered down 93. Both cars would run high 13's with free mods and traction very easily. Boy the fun we used to have back in the day. These were my high school days (87-90) and back then, there were easily 12-15 Mustangs at my school that kids drove with only two, yes 2 Grand Nationals. Needless to say it only took one street encounter with BLK OUT, my buddy Ken's 87 GN to hush the Mustang crowd. Unfortunately, as the years past, the Mustangs caught on quick and it was only inevitable that they bolted on turbo kits and perfected the aftermarket EMS systems, but like we always used to say, "You can't polish a turd."
Those were the good ole days.

Patrick

P.S. I'm still a die hard Buick guy.

 

[Turbo6Smackdown]

there were stock 80's mustangs runnin high 13's? thats faster than the late 80's vettes... is that right?? wow. wonder what happened, cuz theyre slow as dogsh*t nowadays....

 

[corsair231]

This sounds like a pretty reasonable story to me.


Any racing story involves 2 individual cars/drivers and not all cars/drivers of that make.

Exactly.

In the late 80's early 90's every one of my friends stock Mustangs that I met in battle on the street fell victim to my T. There were some 5 spds that came very close (the autos didn't seem to be nearly as fast). When I put my car on the track it would run 14.25 @ 94 which I think is probably pretty typical. At the track some of the same stangs with slicks would ease ahead with a better launch and a traction advantage over my stock tires.

Point being, I think average turbo Regal to average 5.0, all things being equal, the Regal was usually faster. Once mods came into the picture then all bets were off. Plus, there are always the fluke cars. For some reason, be it the day they were built or minor assembly differences, not every car of a certain make has identical performance. I remember seeing one magazine test where a stock Dakota with a 5.2 was outrunning stock mustangs which probably should not have happened but it did. Your friend may have just had a particularly strong running stang verses a Monday T. :biggrin:

 

[turbojimmy]

I had an '88 GT with a 5-speed. I'd say stock-for-stock it was as quick as the GN, maybe a bit slower because the GT convertible was a little heavier and had taller gears (the first thing I did was put 3.55s in it).

Ultimately I supercharged it and had done the usual bolt-on mods. A lot of people say the transmissions were fragile but I never broke one, just smoked a lot of clutches (I think I did take out the 3rd gear synchros too). Anyway, one day I ran into a GN on an entrance ramp to the highway and he ran away from me like I was driving a Yugo. Not soon after that I stumbled across my GN at the salvage yard and the rest is history.

It's still cool to see a nicely maintained Fox body on the road. My biggest frustration with the Mustang was traction, which is also what made me fall in lust with the GN.

Jim