Geeto67

I can't search for it now at work, but there is video out there of the same driver hot shooing a 1965 barracuda during the Goodwood revival in 2007. just as awesome.

So that's Oliver Bryant, an English pro racer, instructor, and driver for hire. The car is a GT 350 but I don't know of it is a real one or a replica. Either way he kept that 289 screaming. Was that a Lola t70 he passes at the beginning?

no, you don't.

Seems logical except that Buick had been powering the Regal and Lesabre with the same 231 6cyl block, a turbo, and a 4bbl carb since 1978. Did it work? yes, those early turbo cars worked well if you didn't touch them and changed the oil frequently (every $3K). but you couldn't tune them or modify them. They made decent power, 160-200hp depending on year as compared with the 105hp the NA 231 made that same year, but the moment you fiddled with anything the engine ran lean at the upper range. They also got crap gas mileage. It didn't need the FI to run, but it needed it to aspire to better than the V8 cars (180hp from a 350 chevy in 1978). Also remember this, in 1978 the only other turbo car on the market in the US was the Mercedes Turbo Diesel, and the Saab 99 turbo. yes the low compression was needed to run the turbo, but just by building the car GM tried new things. the GN was one of the first GM cars to use ceramic coatings. It was one of the first turbo cars to use an intercooler. When you think about turbo predecessors there are really only 3 that stand out: the 1962 olds turbo, the corvair 180 turbos, the 1980 turbo trans am. All were horrible flops for one reason or another. This worked. Here is what the Buick GN did: it proved GM could build a "modern" technologically advanced car in-spite of itself. the problem is that after the GN, GM went back to being old GM for the rest of the 1980's and most of the 1990s and didn't really figure out why the GN was a legend in its own time or how it could apply it to their whole product line. That doesn't mean they didn't do interesting things, the LT5 comes to mind, but how much more fun could the 1990's have been with LT5 powered caprices or Turbo 4 cylinder z24 cavaliers. Seriously the cobalt SS is a car that could have easily been built by GM a decade earlier if they had gotten their heads out of their ass. you know who did get it? Mopar. If it weren't for the chassis being just absolute crap, the daytona turbo and dodge Omni GHL were tremendously forward thinking cars. Ford kind of got it too turning their Thunderbird turbo coupe into the "super coupe" with a supercharger but that car was always in the mustang's shadow.

I suppose you could if you were halfway decent at fabrication and could build a subframe to take the honda FWD platform. Or you could just buy a nice Fiero for $2K and do a Quad4 swap and save yourself $50K.

Sequential Fuel Injection and distibutorless ignition in 1984 for starters. Think about that, a GN with a turbo v6 with port injection FI and a distributorless ignition would be sitting in the same showroom as a carb'ed 305 powered buick electra wagon and possibly (if the dealer was a chevy dealer as well) a "cross fire injection" corvette and a banked fire analog MPFI camaro. The block itself isn't really anything special. It's the same 231cu in block Buck had been using for ages, but with lower compression rotating assembly. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, the buick 225 and dauntless engines from the same v6 family were known as overbuilt unkillable lumps that powered many jeeps to glory in the 70's. The Heads are t-type/ GN specific as well. What made the GN engine great was it combined one of the most stout bottom ends with a turbo, and a system that you could tune via computer rather than mechanical adjustments. It made an honest SAE Net 245hp and 355 ft/lbs of torque in a time when the traditional v8 with emissions equipment struggled to make 200hp and keep running reliably. Plus you could crank the boost up and it wouldn't scatter parts all over the street. And it got about 25mpg. The made roughly 30,000 grand nationals. that's not a small amount by any strech. Keep in mind a new grand national was about $18,000 new in the 1980's. That's not cheap. An Iroc Z with options was about the same price and a fully loaded Monte Carlo SS was $3K cheaper. $18K in 1987 is about $39K in today's money. to put this in perspective, they sold more Grand Nationals from 1984-1987 than Subaru sold WRX Sti cars in america from 2004-2006.

I don't think we disagree at all.Iin 1984 it was the engine that made it amazing - I don't think anybody was getting into a GN and mistaking it for a jaguar inside by the panel fit and materials. I guess what I was trying to say was that even for ALL of GM's terribleness buick still managed to shine in spite of it.

how many people have actually driven a grand national? They are not great cars. For the time they were a breath of fresh air and a really solid shot across the bow of the japanese that they were not the only ones that could do turbo small motors and make power, but that was mostly due to the time and place....there are 2016 crossovers that are faster now. Its just a really great engine in a mediocre G-body chassis. The thing about G-bodies is that for a long time they were way cheaper than muscle cars but still had a lot of the old A-body muscle car tech, so they were familiar to drag guys who got priced out of chevelles. The fit and finish on every single one is terrible, the interiors are largely that awful mouse fur GM covered everything with in the 1980's, they handle like small boat in a large storm and they stop like a mile of icy road. But you can put everything from a turbo six to a BBC in one, gut the interior, and throw it down the 1/4 mile like a rocket powered lawn dart. This new buick? I like it. I know buick has that rep as the chariot of the geriatric but you know why old people bought buicks long after they stopped being good? because they remember when buick built things like the wildcat 445 with 445ft/lbs of torque - a car that didn't move the road so much as turned the earth around it's stationary position. They really are the sleeper cell of GM that cranks out interesting cars in between the Ihop pancake brown lesabres and FWD centurys. Think about it: The 1970 GS455 Stage 1 is regarded as one of the, if not the, fastest musclecar of the era and anybody who has been to a F.A.S.T class race can attest to them giving the hemi's a run for the money. The 1960-70's riviera were paragons of design for their time and are now considered timeless classics, esp the early 60's cars and the 70's boattail rivs. The supercharged 3800 Riviera of the 1990's carried on that tradition as well with styling stolem from 50's italian sports cars and an interior from the bridge of the starship enterprise. When pontiac was making a fuss with it's GTP, Buick had the regal GS which was every inch as fast, had a shorter wheelbase and handled better, and was 4 times less gaudy. Even now they are one of the few GM brands that still offers a stick shift, 250hp midsize sedan that isn't an overpriced cadillac v-series car (the 2014 Regal GS). If the new Buick concept is finally getting you to notice Buick, congratulations - you are now in on a secret that some of us have known for years, buicks are awesome.

the only one I can't figure out is the bubble canopy one on the lower left row (some sort of cadillac concept?). Although I do see you have a 1966 fairlane in blue with black stripes peeking out of the upper right corner of the frame.

well it isn't like they could sell girl scout cookies....could they? Freedom Fudgies?

only sedans. I guess the guy with kids who desperately wants an automatic ecoboost stang could conceivably settle for this but that doesn't strike me as a primary market strategy.

entry level 3 series is a 320i. That's a turbo 4 cyl making 180hp in a rear drive config (and still available in a stick). Step up to the XI and right away you are at $36K with that same 180hp turbo 4. the cheapest comparable HP bmw is the 340i at 320 hp but again RWD and now is $45K (and still available with a manual). Maybe you will get 1 or 2 strays cross shopping a bmw 320i in auto and seeing the fusion as a better value but honestly most people who buy bottom rung bmws are buying for prestige or fit and finish (man those german interiors are nice!!!) and not really rally car AWD hoonage. so what are the 300hp cars at the below $40Kprice tag? - Dodge Charger R/T - Chevrolet Impala - Hyundai Genesis 3.8L - Volvo S60 - and??? The closest thing I can think of is the volvo s60. 325hp and $34K price tag (AWD is a $1500 option taking it to $35.5K). Is volvo really a threat to ford?

Edit: I read too fast and missed where the Flex was slower than the rav4. I am a tard. The only reason to buy a flex in my opinion is how it looks (coo as shit in two tone red/white or blue/white). If I wanted a surf wagon that peels I would look for a used magnum R/T with a roof rack. That's interesting. I hear 325hp and AWD in a midsize sedan and I think there is a pretty good domestic alternative to the STi or the Legacy GT (which I know they don't make anymore), but if it can't get out of it's own way then what is the point? I mean what is a person cross shopping that would cause them to consider a 325hp AWD fusion?

this....so much this. Although I am pretty sure 707 hp would make the wrangler so dangerous to the average driver that just by touching the door handle the unworthy would instantly explode. Kind of like a messy vehicle version of Thor's hammer, Mjolnir. Actually I would settle for a v-8 wrangler unlimited from FCA instead of an aftermarket conversion that tacks on another $20K to an already overpriced $40K jeep. http://cdn.meme.am/instances/53315816.jpg now where is my Hellcat Town and Country?

if this is true then this is funny as hell.

didn't know. Shows you how much I care about automatics. Ford will figure it out. BMW fell on its face with the SMG tranny, and Porsche's "tiptronic" was a joke for a long time. Even VWs DSG had teething problems in the jetta and CC. This is the cost of new technology - sometimes you have to get kicked in the teeth before you make it reliable.

forgot that ford that I like is the Flex, not the fusion. Came in here to see a hot rodded modern long roof surf wagon from ford. find a $40K rental car with a slush box instead. sigh. How come none of the American car companies offer a DSG like auto? 325hp and AWD sounds pretty awesome if we weren't talking about a torque converter and a slushbox.

depends on how wild you want to go. factory five says this on their website: The factory five forums have a lot of discussions about this and there has been a lot of discussion about it in light of increase in the price of parts, etc...someone said not too long ago on there that it costs $85K to do one "right" to a high level of finish and that alone was discussed into the ground. I haven't built one, but I had a friend who was working on one. Don't know if he finished before we lost touch. The most expensive single part not included in the kit is going to be the transaxle. If you are going for a mild engine like a stock ls1 5.7L from a 4th gen camaro or C5 vette then maybe you can get away a used condition Porsche 911 G50 (keep in mind that the G50 is the most desirable gearbox for air-cooled 911s and the price of them has gone up recently). However if you are going to go big, you need something like a Ricardo Ford GT transaxle, or a mendeola unit which is going to be between $8K and 10K by itself. Considering a crate E-rod 6.2 LS3 is somewhere near $8K its not hard to see someone spending $25K on drivetrain alone if they were committed to high HP and all new parts. buying used and not caring about iron vs aluminum blocks probably brings the cost down significantly but that carries it's own external costs. The good news is that resale seems to be pretty strong on them. the last two I saw for sale were listed at $84K and $93K respectively (in hemmings) and were both high HP cars with a high level of finish (one was LS7 powered).

So I wonder if the stock tubular space frame is enough of a roll cage or did he have to add any bracing for them to allow him to run in the 10s without kicking him out.

Didn't you have control arm and ball joint issues recently?

I think it's the dashboard. The challenger dash up until this year was a flat panel with a couple of white faced gauges recessed into it. Not the most pleasing to the eye. The mustang is way better because it has that vintage 60's font that is impossible to read at a glance but depending on the trim and the year it isn't that great to look at either unless you have a really interesting trim panel running down the dash face. The center pod always looks rental car spec if you have one. The camaro dash though - the ZL1 for sure looks great but that's as high end as it gets. Even in base spec those square pods and the center controls are just visually more interesting.

Really sad to hear of this today: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/arts/music/david-bowie-dies-at-69.html?_r=0 I don['t know about you guys but "the rise and fall of Ziggy Stardust and the spiders from mars" has been running soundtrack in my life since I was a teenager. If there was someone I thought could outlive Keith Richards it would have been David Bowie.

you could look for a 335xi sedan with a stick. not as rare as you think but still pretty rare. Most of the AWD stick 335s are coupes. 2010 MY and older should be in your price range. My mother has an 06 325xi with a stick and I can tell you that the car has been fairly reliable. She got it with 18K on the clock and it has about 70K on it now and it has been mostly trouble free. The one big issue she has had with it has been the dual mass flywheel and clutch. Apparently in 5% of the stick E90 cars the dual mass flywheel will go bad and the flywheel from BMW was $2K alone. she had a belt tensioner go bad as well but that was a minor issue. I've driven the car a lot including a road trip to boston a couple of years ago and the only thing I didn't like was how notchy the shifter is and how springy the clutch is. The shifter feels like you are breaking something going into every gear (it's tight) and the clutch is just a by product of the dual mass flywheel. my E30, E34s, and 2002tii were all positive without all the tension the bmw has. my mother says she prefers it so it is a matter of taste. I don't know what issues the 335 turbo motors have so may want to look into that. I think there was something about the turbos going bad and they are cast into the manifold and not cheap/easy to replace. have a look at this: http://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/657001757/overview/

does it have to be a v8 American car? Thinking something like a low mile Subaru Legacy GT with a stick would be a better daily all rounder. something like this: http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/5394916943.html If it has to be v8 american stick then 06-07 CTSv or try tracking down one of the 700 G8 GXPs made in stick. You could also go looking for a used PPV Caprice as I am starting to see them come to market. no stick so it is comparable to G8 GT but less mileage for the money.: http://detroit.craigslist.org/okl/cto/5346589613.html having driven 6 and 8 variants of the mustang, camaro, and challenger if I had to pick one of those to daily drive with a stick I would pick the challenger. It is far and away the most useable of the bunch as a regular car. not a big fan of the chrysler interiors but it beats the 1980's limo trim of the camaro and some of the visibility issues. also Dat pistol Grip shifter doe. It sounds like you want to keep it GM and I kind of get it coming from a GM family myself but really you are only hurting yourself by not considering other, more fun, more useable cars.

Clay, you know I have no love for the 4cyl wrangler, I do have to defend it a little bit here because you are kind of exhibiting what's wrong with jeep people in general. The original 4cyl YJ wranglers and TJ wrangles that use the old AMC 2.5L 4 cylinder are kind of a hazard in the sense that they make 105hp and 130 ft/lbs (121hp peak in 2002) and are usually under-geared and mated to the awful ax5 or automatic trans. A speed demon or a fuel miser they are not. But then again neither was the original jeep with it's willys Go devil engine cranking out 60hp and 100 ft/lbs. A CJ2A will barely hold 50 mph, but the thing will climb a near vertical sand dune. They were farm equipment, municipal vehicles, delivery vehicles, plows, but in stock trim a highway safe vehicle they never were. The old CJ's are venerated, the 4cyl wranglers despised, yet the 4cyl 2.5L wrangler is every bit as capable or more so as any old stock jeep, even those that carried our grandpas in WWII. The problem was that by 1984 when AMC designed the 150ci 4 cyl it still believed there was a market for people who wanted jeeps like that: cheap simple to operate and maintain vehicular swiss army knives. The problem was that by this time jeep people wanted something cheap they could put a lift on and big tires and just generally dick around with in mud holes. They had no use for a power take off, or a winch, and they didn't want a truck that you could leave outside with no top and doors (plenty of old CJs for that), and they wanted to daily drive it. The best use for a 2.5 4 cylinder wrangler is to keep it totally stock and use it like you would use an old flat fender: deliver food, plow driveways, run local errands. But go troll craigslist and I dare you to find one unmodified 4 cyl wrangler that doesn't have stupid tires and a lift or isn't being parted out. the 2.4 chrysler powered TJs are not as much as a hazard as the 2.5L YJs and TJs but it is still a semi slow vehicle. Everyone expects jeeps to be fast accelerating because of the six cyl and the gearing or because of V-8 swaps. Stripped down I think one of these TJs probably weighs under 3000 lbs and it makes 150hp. A 1993 honda accord makes about the same power (150hp) and weighs about the same (approx 2900lbs) and while nobody is claiming the accord is a speed demon either nobody is saying it's unsafe. Anyway you slice it 4 cyl jeeps are right lane highway fixtures, it's funny that people seem to think they need to be left lane passing everybody in a wrangler that's jacked to the sky and has the aerodynamics of a barn door. 4 wheel parts put $20K worth of stuff (probably at a wholesale cost of $10K) as a marketing tool to sell people who own jeeps a bunch of crap they don't need. I am sure the advertising generated revenue will more than justify the cost, a fact driven home to me my own desire to search out the nearest 4wd parts store (it's in cleveland if anyone is interested). whether you like it or agree with it or not most of the older jeeps being worked on out there are 4 cylinders, and there are people who like them (not me and not you but they have their place). Nothing wrong with catering to that audience a little bit, it's a "dream truck" most underdog 4 cyl guys will never get to in their own project - let them have their day. Honestly another lifted rubicon or v8 swapped wrangler project is kind of a yawn fest anyway, been done to death. TL;DR version: Jeep people are stupid, people expect too much of 4 cyl wranglers, DED tube sock project was kind of different and neat and not just another cookie cutter marketing tool despite being built to be a marketing tool, and haters gotta hate.