So what did your TR run bone stock?

[4timesT]

No modifications whatsoever.

 

[ITSAV6]

8.81 1/8th stock chip exhaust air box and paper filter, no mods at all.

 

[longball]

bone stock - 1/4 mile best of 14.02 @ 98mph

 

[proptop]

Bone stock with 200,000 miles (1/4 Mile 14.35 @ 95 MPH
Bob

 

[dynoman]

Bone stock except for Weld Super Lites but still with the Eagle GT's , 13.83 @ 99.9 . Light wheels do make a difference but those eagles still sucked .

 

[87GN864]

9.35 at 77 mph in the 1/8th

 

[vacuum 6]

13.99 @ 94.xx

 

[Nick Micale]

No modifications whatsoever.

You will never get a true answer if it is a "Bone stock" unless someone has a time slip from the 80's when the turbo cars were all equipped with Goodyear GT tires which were NEVER able to get any good launch times.

My 1987 T with original tires was a "consistent" low 15 sec. car.

With "track" tires, 14 sec. was the norm for a "no mods" turbo Buick.

Using track tires and an ATR chip with race gas, I was killing the Mustangs, and Camaro's were a joke!

 

[TacticalGN]

Well I can only say that my super low optioned 87 T ran a bunch of 14.0's with 225 radial T/A's. Car had 78k miles and was bone stock (except tires). That was in 1992. I let my good friend make a couple passes in it and he could only muster 14.7's and 14.8's. A LOT depends on traction, launch technique's, etc, etc. Weather and track conditions can also have a huge impact on these cars performance (or lack thereof). Been there, done that........

 

[fast86gn]

Back in '95 I went 14.20 @ 99mph on 16lbs of boost and not the factory set 12lbs. It was about as stock as you could get but I agree with Nick unless its a time slip from 86-87 its hard to tell.

So is everyone's posted stock times on 12lbs of boost?

 

[TacticalGN]

Back in '95 I went 14.20 @ 99mph on 16lbs of boost and not the factory set 12lbs. It was about as stock as you could get but I agree with Nick unless its a time slip from 86-87 its hard to tell.

So is everyone's posted stock times on 12lbs of boost?

Mine was. Sorry, didn't keep my 26 y/o time slips on a car I don't own anymore though. But hey, it is what it is. Like I said, MANY factors decided the outcome on performance.

 

[Norm340]

MotorWeek | Retro Review: 1987 GM Muscle Cars: SS,
166,645 views

 

[Street Lethal]

... and Camaro's were a joke!

Yeah, GM definitely had the wrong people calling the shots back then. The new model '82 Firebird was actually prepping its' way for the Pontiac 301 Turbo, which probably would have been perfected by the late 80's with port injection like the GN's were, but at the last minute they pulled the plug, and the Camaro's, well, between the Iron Duke 4 banger, 2.8 six banger and 305 V8, I have no freaking idea what the heck was going on with them, other than maybe keeping it slower than their flagship, the C4...

Some Iroc's were very nice back in the day, but the DZ 302 days were clearly over...