which is the fastest?

[only"T"intown]

Someone educate me. Which is faster in the 1/4 in completely stock form: 87 gn, 89 TTA, or 93 Syclone. 2nd question; which can be built to go faster with just using bolt on's with the stock long block? Just Curious.......

 

[loki993]

im throwing a guess out for the first one. i think the tta would probally be the fastest, but i just checked carsats and this is what it says:

1987 GN: 13.9 0-60 4.9
1989 TTA: 14.2 0-60 5.1
1991 syclone ( didnt have a 93) : 14.1 0-60 5.3
so according to that the GNs the fastest.

as for which one can be built to go faster with just bolt ons, i say the GN. second for the TTA. but the TTAs are more rare and harder to find than a GN, GNs are hard enough to find. i probally see 5-10 gn/t types for sale for every one TTA i see, if that. as for the syclone, well a few sy/ty guys will probally come along and chime in, ive heard once you start making any kind of power with them things start breaking. it becomes more that a bolt on affair very quickly.

 

[only"T"intown]

91 may have been the only year for the syclone, I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure the Typhoon went through 93 though.

 

[TURBOPOWERED68]

i would GUESS mod for mod the sy/ty because of the cubes.
just my guess.
but the stock trans on the sy/ty's is the first week link.

 

[no-nos]

i think the tta, if correct had as much hp as the gnx,

 

[TTA850]

1987 GN: 13.9 0-60 4.9
1989 TTA: 14.2 0-60 5.1
1991 syclone ( didnt have a 93) : 14.1 0-60 5.3
so according to that the GNs the fastest.

I dunno what GN's run bone stock but last year I was part of a GMHTP stock shootout and here were the results:

1987 GNX: 13.32 @ 102 w/2.09 60ft, 0-60 5.41
1993 Typhoon: 13.45 @ 99 w/ 1.86 60ft, 0-60 4.90
1989 TTA: 13.71 @ 97 w/2.01 60ft, 0-60 5.37

They didnt have a GN there, and my car had a few issues(usually runs 100-102mph which should have put me right with the GNX). There were two other typhoons and a syclone there that ran 13.87 @ 95, 14.14 @ 96, and 14.24 @ 93 respectively.

Modified the GN and TTA should run neck and neck untill you change heads, in which case really good alum heads are available for the GN while no heads are available for the TTA I dont know enough about the sy/ty to make an accurate comment about modified ones.

Steve

 

[jurassic five 7]

If i remember correctly, there was an article with the TTA Vs GNX. The TTA was like about the same as the GNX. Being how they used the same intercooler.

Here is the results from the article I was talking about.

 

[rtviper]

The syclone was for two years 91,92 and the typhoon was 92,93 and If a typhoon ran 13.45 it was not stock. The syclone when it came out was a mid 13s truck. I would think the tta would be quickest then the gn and typhoon about even depending on the driver and track. I just sold a 93 typhoon bone stock and low miles that was a 14.1 truck. The gn would easily give the best increase with mods

 

[Quiky One]

TTA was by far the fastest stock. They didnt run 14.1 stock...GN'S are the easiest to mod by the pure volume of vendors. You cant get a lot of parts for the TTA. The Typhoons engine bay is very crowded. Not that good to mod. The extra 300cc doesnt really make a difference.

Jason

 

[TTA850]

If a typhoon ran 13.45 it was not stock.

Bone stock with 5500-6000 miles if I remember correctly. Just cause yours ran 14.1 doesnt mean they all did

 

[rtviper]

I am not just using my truck as a referance but any test I have ever seen and every truck at the track that is stock. The Syclone was capable of some mid 13s in tests I have seen and it weights about 3 to 400 lbs less then the typhoon. The only test I ever saw that recorded a 13.9 for a Typhoon was done in the rain and cool weather and the 13.9 was faster then they could obain when dry and warmer. My Typhoon literature that I received when I bought theTyphoon new, claimed a 0-60 time of 5.4. Is it possible? anything is. Is it likely? no
Kenne Bell was one of the 1st to start tuning the Sy/Ty trucks. He had a Syclone that ran mid 13s stock and claims the Typhoon was at least .5 seconds and 5 mph slower then the Syclone because of the extra weight and restrictive exhaust.

 

[Razor]

The TTA is an all around better car than the GN. The only downside is it sits lower to the ground, drives rougher due to suspension, And practically has no back seats. Remember these cars were 30+K when new.

Aside from that.. instrumentation, handling, aerodynamics, etc.. hands down the TTA will hunt.. especially at speeds past 120 MPH.

Note.. the TTA is the fastest production F-body ever built.. due to not having a top end limiter.. think 172MPH was the number.

Car responds tremendously to mods.. I've seen way faster numbers out of a TTA with less.

The trucks.. blocks, tranny's, prop shafts, ignition, it goes on and on.. "Issues"

 

[madhat]

trucks=heavy
GNs=eh
TTAs=lightest=fastest easiest

 

[dgoodhue]

Syclone (91 only, beside a couple 92 prototypes) should run 13.3-13.5 stock. Typhoon (92, 93, with a few 91 Prototype) are usually .4 slower, the Typhoon that ran 13.4 at GMHTP is about as quick as they get. I have seen Syclone's run as fast as 13.0 stock, but those aren't the norm.

Of the three car mention, I imagine the Syclone is on average the quickest stock, with the TTA next, then GN. All the TTA I have seen run 100% stock they have all been 13.7-14.0. I have seen some GN break into the 13's stock but I have seen a lot more run low 14's.

 

[Pablo]

The TTA is an all around better car than the GN. The only downside is it sits lower to the ground, drives rougher due to suspension, And practically has no back seats. Remember these cars were 30+K when new.

Those are downsides? My T type is more old man friendly, Wanna trade?

 

[Gary Wells]

The TTA is an all around better car than the GN. The only downside is it sits lower to the ground, drives rougher due to suspension, And practically has no back seats. Remember these cars were 30+K when new.
Aside from that.. instrumentation, handling, aerodynamics, etc.. hands down the TTA will hunt.. especially at speeds past 120 MPH.
Note.. the TTA is the fastest production F-body ever built.. due to not having a top end limiter.. think 172MPH was the number.
Car responds tremendously to mods.. I've seen way faster numbers out of a TTA with less.
The trucks.. blocks, tranny's, prop shafts, ignition, it goes on and on.. "Issues"

----------------------------------
Very good points, Razor, but I think that you are showing more of one side of the coin than the other. I think that they were about $32K or so, $16k for the basic car and $16K for the turbo package. And although their prices (value) seem to be esculating currently, over the years their value has appeared very sketchy. GN values seem to be rise somewhat more steadily.
I did not think that they would do 172, but I knew that the top end was high. Although I like the looks of the car from the outside, I think that they are a little too "Buck Rogers" looking for me on the interior. Comparatively speaking, the going cost of a extremely low mileage TTA in pristine condition about equals a GN of the same condition & mileage, but with a little higher mileage on the two comparasions, the GN seems to hold it's value a little better. And at least I can buy a solid roof in a GN, but with only a handful built as hardtops, I can't even think about a hardtop TTA.
Just some random thoughts, no flaming intended. The radio package in a tta is about the size of a home entertainment center, too.

 

[Razor]

Those are downsides? My T type is more old man friendly, Wanna trade?

Definetely easier on a fat azz

Not trading her in yet.. finally getting her pottie trained

 

[Razor]

----------------------------------
Very good points, Razor, but I think that you are showing more of one side of the coin than the other. I think that they were about $32K or so, $16k for the basic car and $16K for the turbo package. And although their prices (value) seem to be esculating currently, over the years their value has appeared very sketchy. GN values seem to be rise somewhat more steadily.
I did not think that they would do 172, but I knew that the top end was high. Although I like the looks of the car from the outside, I think that they are a little too "Buck Rogers" looking for me on the interior. Comparatively speaking, the going cost of a extremely low mileage TTA in pristine condition about equals a GN of the same condition & mileage, but with a little higher mileage on the two comparasions, the GN seems to hold it's value a little better. And at least I can buy a solid roof in a GN, but with only a handful built as hardtops, I can't even think about a hardtop TTA.
Just some random thoughts, no flaming intended. The radio package in a tta is about the size of a home entertainment center, too.

Gary, the rear gears are 3.27.. with an OD.. ohh yeah. The value drops hard on a TTA when it starts to get cosmetic issues. Seats for example can fetch 2K for a set of leather covers, wings are 500 for a glass one, weather seals, wheel refinishing, brakes are special, rear end parts $$$, etc etc are all way more expensive.

Kinda like a Lincoln.. repairs get so $$$ that value drops hard with mileage.

The Buick is cheaper to source parts and maintain.

You want to see expensive. get a Syclone/Typhoon

 

[loki993]

that car stats site seems to be kinda inaccurate, but its a good place to get a ballpark idea of how fast something is.

as for the TTA vs GN i was under the imprassion that they had the same engine?? i guess not.

my sugestion, find a T with blackout package, maybe a limited if you can handle it, and pump it up. it should be fun, sleeper.

 

[dgoodhue]

as for the TTA vs GN i was under the imprassion that they had the same engine??

TTA differences include little more boost, rear end ratio, heads, IC, pistons, exhaust manifolds, and obviously a different exhuast. The stock output was more than the GN/T-tpye motor