Give me the '87 Buick Regal Grand National. It's a true Buick and not a badge engineered Opel that has no charm when it comes to styling. :frown:
1987 Buick Regal Grand National vs. 2011 Buick Regal CXL Turbo
Not at All Alike...Except for the Name and the Turbos
By John Pearley Huffman, Contributor | Published Jan 3, 2011
(http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/buick/regal/1987/ct/1987_buick_regal_group_ct_1119102_717.jpg)
With its 2011 Regal Turbo, Buick has either revived a storied name for a deserving new machine or is spitting on its own heritage. After all, the original Regal Turbos ? those big, full-frame, rear-drive, two-door coupes produced between the 1978 and 1987 model years ? have been sustaining Buick enthusiasm almost singlehandedly for more than 30 years. If it weren't for the Grand National, alpha dog of Regal Turbos, most enthusiasts would have forgotten about Buick a long time ago.
Of course, the 1987 Grand National and 2011 Regal Turbo sedan don't emerge from the same branch of Buick's family tree. The old GN is an anomaly: the only Buick of its turbocharged V6 kind, biased toward high performance and always intended as a specialized product with relatively low-volume sales.
In contrast, the new Regal Turbo is a mainstream, front-drive Buick, from the leading edge of its glimmering waterfall grille to the super shiny tri-shield emblem on its tail. It's the front-drive four-door sedan with which Buick intends to steal sales from cars like the Acura TSX and Lexus ES 350. Maybe even swipe up some Accord and Camry buyers.
All that doesn't mean this comparison is unfair. After all, when you can only have one piece of fruit it's reasonable to ask whether you prefer an apple or an orange.
High Eye Impact
The Grand National's sharp-edged sheet metal first appeared 30 years ago as the 1981 Regal. Back then it was merely a successful updating of the downsized Regal coupe introduced as a '78 model. It was just another GM midsize coupe that, under the skin, was pretty much identical to the Chevrolet Monte Carlo, Pontiac Grand Prix and Oldsmobile Cutlass. There were millions of them.
But today, long after most of its brother big coupes have been recycled into Korean rebar, there are few cars left on the road that look like the old Regal. And nothing at all is left in production like the fortified Regal known as the Grand National, which first went on sale as a 1984 model. When Rafael Basquez's '87 GN showed up for Inside Line's test, it arrived looking like something that somehow had survived its species' extinction event. A complete dinosaur.
You know, a dinosaur like the Velociraptor or T. rex. From its shovel nose to its rear deck spoiler, this is a car that speaks to the darkness and lust for power in our souls. The black Grand National carries the same sort of charismatic menace that inspires lonely women to write unsolicited marriage proposals to convicted mass murderers.
In contrast, the new 2011 Buick Regal CXL Turbo is, well, a pretty sedan. With gracefully arched lines that run from snout to rump, fenders that swell over 18-inch wheels and a dashing character line running down from the windshield and back to the rear bumper, the new Regal is antiseptically clean in the way that many new cars are today.
If the Grand National is arrogant and aggressive, the new Regal Turbo is tidy, sensible, handsome and elegant.
Not So Different After All
The old Grand National and new Regal are, however, deceptively close to each other in size. The wheelbases, for example are virtually identical; the old car's gap runs 108.1 inches while the new car puts 107.8 inches between the front and rear wheels. And while the new Regal looks slim, Buick lists its overall width at 73.1 inches. The old GN, broad-shouldered beast it appears to be, is listed at only 71.6 inches wide. And at 58.4 inches tall, the new car towers over the old one that stands at just 54.5 inches.
The curb weights are even close. The Grand National came in at a relatively svelte 3,509 pounds (57 percent of it on the front wheels) while the new Regal hit the scale at a not-svelte 3,765 pounds (58.8 percent on the front wheels).
However the old car, at 200.6 inches long overall, stretches out a full 10.4 inches longer than the new Regal. And virtually all of that extra length can be seen in the Grand National's front and rear overhangs.
Maybe this comparison isn't so applelike to orange-esque after all. OK, yeah, it still is.
Power to the Peoples
Back in the '70s Buick imagined a turbocharged future where all its V8s would vanish in favor of turbocharged V6s. Even station wagons, cabs and pillow-upholstered Electras would have blower sixes under their hoods. Didn't happen. Frankly, when the first turbo 3.8-liter V6s showed up for the 1978 model year ? making all of 165 horsepower when equipped with a four-barrel carburetor ? there was every reason to think Buick was delusional.
"It's the plain old '87 that planted the Grand National's roots deep down into the soil of the Great Forest of Awesomeness."
Ultimately, though, it was the addition of sequential fuel injection for the 1984 model year that tamed the Buick turbo V6's manners and unleashed its beast. Sequential fuel injection (SFI) was advanced stuff back then, and Buick was proud enough of it to announce its presence on the GN's hood ? that's the "SFI" part of the badge on the hood bulge. With far more precise fuel metering than a carburetor, the SFI system allowed Buick's engineers to precisely map the fuel delivery to the V6 to get the most from the big Garrett turbo heaving air into it.
Even with the SFI system, however, output only reached 200 hp. So Buick added an intercooler for 1986 that bumped the horsepower number to 235 and then 245 for 1987. Sure, the limited-production GNX with its larger turbo is even more powerful at 276 hp, but it's the plain old '87 that planted the Grand National's roots deep down into the soil of the Great Forest of Awesomeness.
Still, the 3.8-liter V6 under all the GN's turbo plumbing was a pretty primitive beast. With its iron block, iron heads, pushrods and two valves per cylinder it could, during 1987, only lump out 150 hp in naturally aspirated form.
Today's Turbocharged Regal
In contrast, the new Regal's Ecotec four is vastly more modern and capable. Both the head and block are aluminum, the dual overhead cams operate four valves per cylinder, and, even better than sequential fuel injection, it incorporates direct injection which sprays fuel straight into each combustion chamber. And of course it's intercooled.
At 220 hp, the new Regal Turbo's engine is making just about 110 hp for each of it 2 liters. The math on the Grand National says that it only gets about 64.5 hp per liter from its turbo V6.
The old Buick may have it on its younger brother for total power, but the new one is far more efficient. And that shows up in the fuel economy numbers. Using 2008 testing standards, the EPA rates the 1987 Regal Grand National with its four-speed automatic transmission at 15 mpg in the city and 23 mpg on the highway running on premium fuel. GM estimates the 2011 Regal CXL Turbo, with its six-speed automatic, will achieve 18 mpg on the EPA city cycle and 29 mpg on the highway (premium fuel recommended but not required).
Not the Good Old Days
As gorgeous and thrilling as Basquez's Grand National is from 30 feet away, up close it's still a late-'80s GM product. That means the big frameless side windows rattle in the tinny doors, there are big gaps between the body panels and not everything in the interior actually fits. This car was not built during GM's golden age for assembly quality.
Contrast that with the German-assembled Regal. The paint is lustrous, every piece fits tight and when the doors shut it sounds like a 30-pound dictionary hitting a solid oak table in the Library of Congress.
Maybe there's some nostalgia kicks to be had in the old Grand National's interior design. But when it comes to comfort, the new car blows it away. The new Regal's seats are much better shaped, the steering wheel has a nice substantial heft and all the instrumentation is easy to scan and read. The Grand National's seats were mushy back in 1987 and are no better now. And for a car this potent, that it has a speedometer that only reaches 85 mph is (still) so very silly.
Of course, the new Regal suffers from elephantitis of the A-pillars and the base of the windshield may as well be in another county. And for every button in the Grand National there are probably three in the new Regal. But that's the price we pay for having dozens of airbags and an acre-foot of entertainment technology aboard.
Still Wicked
It takes some technique to launch the Grand National. Hold down the brake, load up the torque converter, let the boost build and the car rips up something good. Back when this GN was new, most tests had it running the quarter-mile in the mid-to-high 13-second range, with 0-60 coming in a few ticks under 5.0 seconds. But those tests were often abusive: throttle braking until the car was screaming and the boost was maximized. After all, back then, if the car broke, Buick could always build another one.
Rafael Basquez's GN had over 49,000 miles on its odometer and almost 24 years of seasoning when Inside Line got hold of it. It waltzed to 60 mph in 5.8 seconds and ran the quarter in 14.3 seconds at 96.1 mph. We weren't going to thump on it any harder in deference to the fact that Basquez seemed like a nice guy who didn't deserve to be stranded for our amusement.
In contrast, there's really no way to launch the new Regal Turbo with any authority. No matter what we did, it sort of shambled off the line like a college student on the way to an 8 a.m. class. But the engine wakes up as it passes 4 grand on the tachometer and the result is OK acceleration ? 8.4 seconds from zero to 60 mph with the traction control off and 16.2 seconds in the quarter-mile at 89.7 mph. Leaving the traction control on barely modified that performance, with the quarter-mile elapsed time dropping to 16.1 seconds but the 0-60 time and trap speed staying the same.
In everyday trawling, the new Regal is simply an easier car with which to live than the GN. Its part-throttle power delivery is seamless and the six cogs in its automatic transaxle mean good around-town responsiveness and low engine speeds during highway cruises. The Grand National's four-speed automatic is a slick-shifting piece even by today's standards, but it simply doesn't have the range or impeccable computerized logic of the new Regal's box.
Handling the Past
Basquez's GN rides on P235/60R15 front and P255/60R15 rear BFGoodrich Radial T/A tires mounted on the stock, stamped-steel wheels. Now these are fine tires to mount on a classic muscle machine being displayed on a lawn, but on pavement about the best that can be said about them is that they're more or less round.
They're also significantly larger than the P215/65R15 Goodyear Eagle GTs that came as standard equipment on the Grand National.
On the skid pad the Grand National felt woozy, with the tires flexing and rebounding. Corrections weren't easy either, since the recirculating-ball power steering is slow, numb and connected to a front end wearing 24-year-old bushings. Put into that context, the GN's 0.77g orbit is heroic.
The slalom wasn't a happy place for the GN either. Plagued by the same steering limitations that hobbled it on the skid pad, it could only muster a 59.2-mph average speed through the transitional handling challenge.
The P245/40R19 Goodyear Eagle RS-A all-season tires on the new Regal Turbo are not exactly exotic rubber, but they are more technologically advanced and their lower profile means far less sidewall flex. With good grip (if not a lot of steering feel) and only mild understeer, the new Regal casually knocked out a 0.84g skid pad performance with the stability control system turned off and 0.80g with it on. The slalom numbers ? 65.8 mph with stability control off and 64.0 mph with it on ? aren't world-beating, but solid.
Braking also came down in favor of the new Buick, with the Turbo Regal using its four ABS-equipped discs to stop in 121 feet from 60 mph. The Grand National needed 144 feet to get to a stop thank to its rear drums and lack of ABS.
It's Not Over Yet
There's no doubt in our minds that we would rather be seen driving the Grand National over the new Regal Turbo. The old car is still an audacious piece of work, a machine that revels in its own ego. It makes interesting noises, you can feel it building speed and there's nothing like the sensation of the turbo hitting. This car has long ago proven that it's unforgettable.
Yeah, the new Regal Turbo is a vastly better commuting companion. It's more comfortable and more efficient, but it also lacks character. There's no noticeable exhaust note, no thrills to be had and the Ecotec isn't the smoothest-running four on Earth.
Thankfully, Buick hasn't played all of its cards just yet. A Regal GS is on its way and it has a much better chance of reestablishing the passion that has so many of us enamored of the turbocharged Regals of yesteryear. Buick promises that the GS, with its 255-hp version of the turbocharged Ecotec, will scat to 60 mph in under 7 seconds and deliver a driving experience that's "powerful and spirited." Sounds good: Deliver ours in black. And make sure it has the swagger of its badass grandfather, the Grand National.
Link: http://www.insideline.com/buick/regal/2011/1987-buick-regal-grand-national-vs-2011-buick-regal-cxl-turbo.html
(http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/buick/regal/1987/ct/1987_buick_regal_group_ct_1119104_717.jpg)
(http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/buick/regal/1987/ct/1987_buick_regal_actf34_ct_1119103_717.jpg)
(http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/buick/regal/1987/ct/1987_buick_regal_fint_ct_1119101_717.jpg)
(http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/buick/regal/2011/ct/2011_buick_regal_actf34_ct_1119104_717.jpg)
(http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/buick/regal/2011/ct/2011_buick_regal_fint_ct_1119101_717.jpg)
kosmo69 says:
06:44 PM, 01/03/2011
"8 sec to 60 is unacceptable. I would never buy a car that cant do it at least 7 sec."
What the fuck? :nutty:
An eight second car is "slow", but a seven second is acceptable because of a one second difference? Where does this moron drive everyday? A fucking racetrack? :wtf:
Eight seconds is slow for a car that is 35-40K and claims to be the top trim of a "Sport" sedan.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 04, 2011, 03:22:57 PM
Eight seconds is slow for a car that is 35-40K and claims to be the top trim of a "Sport" sedan.
and with that price tag you can get a much faster and larger Taurus SHO or Charger R/T
Even if someone gave me a Grand National, I'm not sure I'd want to drive it. What a terrible looking car. The G-body may be one of the worst cars of the past 25 years.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 04, 2011, 03:50:24 PM
Even if someone gave me a Grand National, I'm not sure I'd want to drive it. What a terrible looking car. The G-body may be one of the worst cars of the past 25 years.
I don't think so.
It's not a particularly good handling car, but they're an easy chassis to make into a drag monster. My brother has one.
My uncle had a Grand National, and it's one of the few things that came out of the 80's that I'd love to have.
In the midst of all those ugly 80s POS boxes, the GN actually has some style and flair. That said, I think the new Regal is an absolute stunner. I don't know what Chris is so disgusted with, the Insignia has won numerous design awards.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 04, 2011, 03:22:57 PM
Eight seconds is slow for a car that is 35-40K and claims to be the top trim of a "Sport" sedan.
The comment from that guy wasn't really aimed at the two Buicks here. I think he was just ranting that he'd personally never buy an eight second 0-60 car, but a seven second car is ok.
I want to know why a miserable one second difference is the deal breaker for him. He reminds me of those people who are like
"I'll take the fjkdjffkdfjk because it does 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and that POS mjfgrigfol does it in 4.6 seconds!" :facepalm:
Quote from: Tave on January 04, 2011, 06:57:18 PM
In the midst of all those ugly 80s POS boxes, the GN actually has some style and flair. That said, I think the new Regal is an absolute stunner. I don't know what Chris is so disgusted with, the Insignia has won numerous design awards.
I'm not disgusted with the Opel Insignia, but you need to see it from my point of view. Prior to the Insignia, Opel here had bland, boring and ugly designs that were eyesores to see and look at. The Insignia is truly a breath of fresh air in terms of styling and I like it: it looks good. The badge engineered Buick CXL also looks good.
BUT...
To me, THIS is a real Buick.
(http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images-2/1978-4-door-Buick-Electra.jpg)
Or this:
(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/12/2009/09/500x_67LeSabre-Frt_RH_high-500px.jpg)
I like these things from a styling point of view. So in this case the Regal Grand National is the automatic winner for me in terms of styling. I've never seen one here but I see tons of Opel Insignias here everyday. :ohyeah:
Come on man atleast find pics of cars with decent paint. As for the Grand National it is one of the few GM cars I would want.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on January 04, 2011, 07:07:18 PM
Come on man atleast find pics of cars with decent paint. As for the Grand National it is one of the few GM cars I would want.
This better? :lol:
(http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-1960-1969/1967-Buick-LeSabre-Green-Convt-1280x960-sy.jpg)
Yeah that's better.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on January 04, 2011, 07:04:02 PM
The Insignia is truly a breath of fresh air in terms of styling and I like it: it looks good. The badge engineered Buick CXL also looks good.
Then why did you say it "has no charm when it comes to styling?"
Boat tail Riv has style.
(http://www.oldcarmanualproject.com/brochures/1971Riviera/71BuickRiviera.jpg)
I'd rock The Grand National/GNX. It's one of the coolest American cars of the 80s.
Interesting... while doing some research, I learned that Buick also built a LeSabre Grand National. Only 117 made it off the assembly line.
(http://www.zamiska.net/bltregistry/LGN04.JPG)
Really? I remember the T-Type rear and front wheel drive Le Sabres but not a GN version.
Quote from: Rockraven on January 04, 2011, 08:51:16 PM
Interesting... while doing some research, I learned that Buick also built a LeSabre Grand National. Only 117 made it off the assembly line.
(http://www.zamiska.net/bltregistry/LGN04.JPG)
LeSabre GN was made for Nascar regulations. (New rear quarter window design for aero reasons)
I saw a LeSabre GN at Barret Jackson last year, don't think it sold for much.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on January 04, 2011, 07:00:39 PM
The comment from that guy wasn't really aimed at the two Buicks here. I think he was just ranting that he'd personally never buy an eight second 0-60 car, but a seven second car is ok.
I want to know why a miserable one second difference is the deal breaker for him. He reminds me of those people who are like "I'll take the fjkdjffkdfjk because it does 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and that POS mjfgrigfol does it in 4.6 seconds!" :facepalm:
Obviously you know that people don't care about actual performance in 0-60 runs. It's more about what that single second delta represents in terms of passing performance and an overall feeling of power/capability/enjoyment from the engine.
If GM is targeting a consumer that is willing to pay a premium for an engine because they enjoy the feeling of acceleration and wasting money, then
they should deliver on the metrics that are expected of a high performance vehicle. If they don't, it'll flop. You can't blame consumers for acting rationally based on the data given to them, and maximizing their value of their money.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 04, 2011, 08:50:39 PM
I'd rock The Grand National/GNX. It's one of the coolest American cars of the 80s.
Completely; one of the few high points in a very sad decade.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 04, 2011, 03:50:24 PM
Even if someone gave me a Grand National, I'm not sure I'd want to drive it. What a terrible looking car. The G-body may be one of the worst cars of the past 25 years.
Tsk. The Grand National is painfully brilliant.
Quote from: Tave on January 04, 2011, 07:19:46 PM
Then why did you say it "has no charm when it comes to styling?"
Because compared to the lovely Buicks from the 1950s to the late 1980s it just doesn't compare IMO.
Quote from: Laconian on January 04, 2011, 10:59:35 PM
Obviously you know that people don't care about actual performance in 0-60 runs. It's more about what that single second delta represents in terms of passing performance and an overall feeling of power/capability/enjoyment from the engine.
If GM is targeting a consumer that is willing to pay a premium for an engine because they enjoy the feeling of acceleration and wasting money, then they should deliver on the metrics that are expected of a high performance vehicle. If they don't, it'll flop. You can't blame consumers for acting rationally based on the data given to them, and maximizing their value of their money.
Isn't Buick still targeted towards older buyers? This type of performance should be sufficient for them. It's not neck-snapping but it's not bad either. :huh:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on January 05, 2011, 12:57:32 PM
Isn't Buick still targeted towards older buyers? This type of performance should be sufficient for them. It's not neck-snapping but it's not bad either. :huh:
The new old people are baby boomers (born between WWII and Vietnam), and their standard of what they want in a car is a lot more taut and less floaty than the generation that preceded them.
Even so, the floatier Buick luxury car is the Lacrosse....and it's still quite taut in comparison to buicks of Old. Also, the non sporty V6 Lacrosse is quicker than the "sport" Regal, and the Regal and Lacrosse start at the same price. (4CYL Lacrosse, at least)
Quote from: 2o6 on January 05, 2011, 01:18:41 PM
The new old people are baby boomers (born between WWII and Vietnam), and their standard of what they want in a car is a lot more taut and less floaty than the generation that preceded them.
Even so, the floatier Buick luxury car is the Lacrosse....and it's still quite taut in comparison to buicks of Old. Also, the non sporty V6 Lacrosse is quicker than the "sport" Regal, and the Regal and Lacrosse start at the same price. (4CYL Lacrosse, at least)
:ohyeah:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on January 05, 2011, 12:57:32 PM
Isn't Buick still targeted towards older buyers? This type of performance should be sufficient for them. It's not neck-snapping but it's not bad either. :huh:
I think Buick is actually trying to get younger people into its cars. Its customer base is in the collective twilight of its life. My dad is 61 and he wouldn't be caught dead in a GM car.
And we've been through this 100000000x times. Dude you quoted is an ENTHUSIAST so naturally he will have higher performance demands than Joe Blow. And Americans like + need bigger motors because of the nature of our driving, our fatter asses + higher payloads and our shitty highway entry systems. Seriously its 2011, can you just let it go?
Taking a look at that 80's domestic dash makes me happy I never had one.
Quote from: omicron on January 05, 2011, 07:47:51 AM
Tsk. The Grand National is painfully brilliant.
Apparently the man who designed it only had a ruler and didn't know anything about aerodynamics. It's an ugly steel box on a truck frame.
GM, realizing this, decided to slather on the black paint to hide the ugliness of it all. It's a good looking car at night, in the middle of a cornfield, when there's a new moon.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 06, 2011, 04:09:51 PM
Apparently the man who designed it only had a ruler and didn't know anything about aerodynamics. It's an ugly steel box on a truck frame.
GM, realizing this, decided to slather on the black paint to hide the ugliness of it all. It's a good looking car at night, in the middle of a cornfield, when there's a new moon.
In comparison to what?
Quote from: 2o6 on January 06, 2011, 04:10:21 PM
In comparison to what?
Nothing. The ugliness of a G-body is a universal absolute.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 06, 2011, 04:13:02 PM
Nothing. The ugliness of a G-body is a universal absolute.
And people talk about
me.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 06, 2011, 04:13:02 PM
Nothing. The ugliness of a G-body is a universal absolute.
I'm with you on that. The GNX is a lot of things. Good looking is not, however, one of those things.
Quote from: CALL_911 on January 06, 2011, 04:17:01 PM
I'm with you on that. The GNX is a lot of things. Good looking is not, however, one of those things.
IMHO they were damned good looking for cars that were designed in the late
70s! Lets have a look at some of the mainstream designs from Honda,Datsun and Toyota in the late 70s! In 1979 these were good looking cars. It wasn't till '85 (Taurus/Sable) that the "modern" design theme took over.
I'll a GNX over just about any other 80's car. It's good looking for that time period.
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 06, 2011, 05:30:01 PM
I'll a GNX over just about any other 80's car. It's good looking for that time period.
Yes it was! Along with the IROC-Z and the '87 Corvette vert!
The GNX is a pretty ugly car, but as far as 80s cool, it's hard to beat. The question is, how bad do you want to relive high school in New Jersey during the 80s? I think I could do it as a quick exploratory journey but not as a long term DD. Yeech
8.4 seconds is a long time for a car with that much power. My Wolfsburg would leave that thing in the dust.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=23939.msg1452388#msg1452388 date=1294548437
8.4 seconds is a long time for a car with that much power. My Wolfsburg would leave that thing in the dust.
Boom, the challenge has been thrown GM.
I can't believe how many of you don't like the looks of the GNX. WTF is wrong with you people? Yeah, the all-black style is cheesy and many of the details and finishing are from another era, but fundamentally I think the GM G-body coupe is one of the best proportioned cars in recent memory.
Quote from: 93JC on January 08, 2011, 10:14:12 PM
I can't believe how many of you don't like the looks of the GNX. WTF is wrong with you people? Yeah, the all-black style is cheesy and many of the details and finishing are from another era, but fundamentally I think the GM G-body coupe is one of the best proportioned cars in recent memory.
+1
Quote from: 93JC on January 08, 2011, 10:14:12 PM
I can't believe how many of you don't like the looks of the GNX. WTF is wrong with you people? Yeah, the all-black style is cheesy and many of the details and finishing are from another era, but fundamentally I think the GM G-body coupe is one of the best proportioned cars in recent memory.
People are stupid.
Let us observe the brilliance:
(http://www.bangshift.com/assets/images/news/2009/Jun/1-6/Beineke%20GNX%20med%20118%20.jpg)
(http://memimage.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/2727/1801/31815900022_large.jpg)
Quote from: omicron on January 09, 2011, 07:44:29 AM
People are stupid.
Let us observe the brilliance:
(http://memimage.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/2727/1801/31815900022_large.jpg)
:wub:
I wish Buick had made a performance version of this baby! :wub:
(http://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2009/07/17/01/05/1975-buick-lesabre-pic-58697.jpeg)
The problem, Chris, is you don't discriminate between any of the 70s-80s designs. Simply because a car was made by GM, Chrysler, or Ford during the 80s doesn't make it beautiful.
The GNX is good looking, I particularly like the curve of the haunches and the way that line integrates with the front of the car.
That LeSabre, on the other hand, doesn't have much going for it. Specifically, the split C-pillar is poorly done, and the descending body line looks awkward. The grill and headlight assembly is dull. All in all you picked a rather odd, forgettable design to make a point.
Quote from: Tave on January 10, 2011, 01:03:29 PM
The problem, Chris, is you don't discriminate between any of the 70s-80s designs. Simply because a car was made by GM, Chrysler, or Ford during the 80s doesn't make it beautiful.
I like the designs of the American brands from the 70s and 80s (50s and 60s rock as well). It's a personal opinion. :cheers:
Quote from: Tave on January 10, 2011, 01:03:29 PMThat LeSabre, on the other hand, doesn't have much going for it. Specifically, the split C-pillar is poorly done, and the descending body line looks awkward. The grill and headlight assembly is dull. All in all you picked a rather odd, forgettable design to make a point.
You probably are saying this because you see these cars on a daily basis. I don't. When I see a gigantic American landyacht from the '70s here, I totally freak out (in a good way). That Buick LeSabre IMO is friggin sexy. :praise:
Like I said, your tastes are indiscriminate.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 04, 2011, 03:50:24 PM
Even if someone gave me a Grand National, I'm not sure I'd want to drive it. What a terrible looking car. The G-body may be one of the worst cars of the past 25 years.
Not only are you wrong, but you are so wrong that there is no way to describe your wrongnicity.
I.e.;
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/rohowssgt/1405170001_large1.jpg)
And, the author is wrong about one thing; There were two turbo Buicks, there was also a T-Type.
Without Wiki or google I have no idea what the diff was, but I always liked the T-Type just a little bit more.
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/rohowssgt/r261.jpg)
Quote from: sportyaccordy on January 06, 2011, 08:52:20 PM
The GNX is a pretty ugly car, but as far as 80s cool, it's hard to beat. The question is, how bad do you want to relive high school in New Jersey during the 80s? I think I could do it as a quick exploratory journey but not as a long term DD. Yeech
Since you were NOT part of the "high school" anywhere in the 80s, you have zero idea what you are talking about.
The car you
are referring to would be the IROC-Z.
The GN cars were cars so cool only dads drove them. :huh:
Quote from: hounddog on January 17, 2011, 10:10:15 AM
Since you were NOT part of the "high school" anywhere in the 80s, you have zero idea what you are talking about.
The car you are referring to would be the IROC-Z.
The GN cars were cars so cool only dads drove them. :huh:
I think he means reliving high school in the 2000's, since I knew two people withe Grand Nationals at school. :devil: :lol:
if sporty said re-living HS in Georgia in the 90's, then I'd agree completely. If you were a guy, you either drove a pickup truck or a 1980's G-body coupe.
I've always like the look of the Grand National.
I had a short ride in a neighbors before he sold it, that thing was a hoot.
Anyone know the production numbers of GNs vs T-Types? I don't believe I've ever seen a T-Type in person.
Quote from: thecarnut on January 17, 2011, 10:15:18 AM
I think he means reliving high school in the 2000's, since I knew two people withe Grand Nationals at school. :devil: :lol:
Well, if that is the case then I would have to withdraw my statements.
Felt more like he was talking about us older fellows, but I could be wrong.
Quote from: hounddog on January 17, 2011, 02:29:11 PM
Well, if that is the case then I would have to withdraw my statements.
Felt more like he was talking about us older fellows, but I could be wrong.
Nah, I was kidding. I just knew a couple of guys who drove G-bodies at school, and I only finished high school a couple of years ago.
Quote from: thecarnut on January 17, 2011, 03:11:16 PM
Nah, I was kidding. I just knew a couple of guys who drove G-bodies at school, and I only finished high school a couple of years ago.
You live in Cali. Were they donked?
Quote from: the Teuton on January 17, 2011, 03:54:40 PM
You live in Cali. Were they donked?
Nope. I didn't go to school in Compton. :devil: :lol:
Quote from: thecarnut on January 17, 2011, 04:03:34 PM
Nope. I didn't go to school in Compton. :devil: :lol:
No diggity. No doubt.
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 06, 2011, 05:30:01 PM
I'll a GNX over just about any other 80's car. It's good looking for that time period.
You guys do realize the GNX is not the Grand National, but rather, a much more powerful and much more rare version only made during the last production year, right?
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 06, 2011, 05:36:02 PM
Yes it was! Along with the IROC-Z and the '87 Corvette vert!
Idiot
Retards
Out
Cruising
Quote from: hounddog on January 17, 2011, 06:34:56 PM
You guys do realize the GNX is not the Grand National, but rather, a much more powerful and much more rare version only made during the last production year, right?
Yes they do, which is why they talk about it instead of the GN. It's that much cooler.
Quote from: hounddog on January 17, 2011, 06:34:56 PM
You guys do realize the GNX is not the Grand National, but rather, a much more powerful and much more rare version only made during the last production year, right?
Yes.
I've seen one here and there. There are a bunch of Grand Nationals around my hometown. My brother's friend owns one. But I think I've only ever seen one or two GNXs in person.
Quote from: hounddog on January 17, 2011, 06:36:40 PM
Idiot
Retards
Out
Cruising
Would you be saying the same thing if IROC stayed with 911s? :lol:
Quote from: hounddog on January 17, 2011, 06:34:56 PM
You guys do realize the GNX is not the Grand National, but rather, a much more powerful and much more rare version only made during the last production year, right?
Which is why I'd take a GNX, not a wimpy Grand National. :ohyeah:
Quote from: 68_427 on January 17, 2011, 06:39:56 PM
Would you be saying the same thing if IROC stayed with 911s? :lol:
Yes, because of the retards who were rockin them in the 80s.
Spikey headed greasy teenaged douchbag pretenders who mostly bought the automatic.
The only reason there was an IROC Camaro is because the IROC series started using the Camaro. In the 70's the IROC series used 911s.
Yes, I know, 427.
Remember, I was alive then. ;) :lol:
Quote from: 68_427 on January 17, 2011, 07:48:34 PM
The only reason there was an IROC Camaro is because the IROC series started using the Camaro. In the 70's the IROC series used 911s.
Yeah, but those spikey headed greasy teenaged douchbag pretenders (sticking with that, couldn't have said it better myself! Thanks, hounddog :lol:) likely couldn't have afforded the 911, nor wanted a furrin car, so the 911's honor remained intact.
Quote from: hounddog on January 17, 2011, 07:50:51 PM
Yes, I know, 427.
Remember, I was alive then. ;) :lol:
You must be old.
Old-er, yes.
I even remember when they switched to Daytonas for the IROC series.
That was a sad, sad day even if the Daytona Shelby-Z was cool. ish.
I wish that series still existed.
The Shelby-Z?
With Ts it was quite nifty. One of the guys I played at MSU with had a brand new black one with gold racing strips and gold wheels. Sounds cheesy, but it was actually pretty cool looking. Wish I could find a pic of one.
We had more fun in that thing.
I lost a bet by not believing that Dodge made a K-car-based "IROC" model. I lost another bet by not believing there was a version that was more powerful than the early IROC Camaros.
Quote from: Vinsanity on January 17, 2011, 08:13:03 PM
I lost a bet by not believing that Dodge made a K-car-based "IROC" model. I lost another bet by not believing there was a version that was more powerful than the early IROC Camaros.
The Daytona was technically on the G-platform (although that was derived from the K).
Quote from: the Teuton on January 17, 2011, 06:38:36 PM
Yes.
I've seen one here and there. There are a bunch of Grand Nationals around my hometown. My brother's friend owns one. But I think I've only ever seen one or two GNXs in person.
No there aren't.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 17, 2011, 09:35:06 PM
No there aren't.
I see quite a few here in Cleveland. I know two guys that show GNXs at local meets also. The T-Type Turbos are the one I don't see anymore. My mom had a blue '79 back in the early 80s. IIRC They weren't called T-Types then, but they did have a turbo motor.
I must need to open my eyes. There aren't hardly any in Akron.
Quote from: hounddog on January 17, 2011, 07:45:30 PM
Yes, because of the retards who were rockin them in the 80s.
Spikey headed greasy teenaged douchbag pretenders who mostly bought the automatic.
Well if you ordered the biggest engine (350 TPI) it only came with the 4 speed auto.