And to think, that was "just" the Grand National, not even the wilder yet GNX. That's still pretty mind-blowing over 30 yrs later. One of my dream cars!
@@DejaView Dennis my neighbor has one. Good news he literally bought it new, it's been in muscle shoals Alabama it's whole life. No rust original paint. Bad news it's been a daily driver and it's at the stage of restore it or park it. Me being a new car dealer he said he would sell it or trade it for something newer with air. I know it's a original grand national GDX cause of his title and paperwork from Ray Miller Buick GMC. I just don't want it but I will say that it having ALOT of miles the ole girl stills runs strong and gets ALOT of attention at the gas station
***** GN performance was HIGHLY affected by the weather..Back in 1987, I had a 1969 Olds 442..All stock with the 325hp 400, Turbo400 trans and 3.23 posi. It ran consistent 14.5's at 96mph at a sea level track. 0-60 was always 6.2 seconds. I drove that car for 100,000 miles in 4 years and ran against countless modern (80's) muscle. In the summer time, Buick GN's were pretty easy prey for my 442, But in the cold winter air, they could stay right next to me. I also think a lot of kids whop owned them might have been using regular gas which might have caused the computer to knock back boost and ignition timing. Monte SS's were not in the same league..They could hang with me through about 30-40mph and then my Olds would just walk away. Same with any then current F body. Mustangs of 87-90 with the 5 speed were competitive But I could win 90% of the time because of a missed gear or a bad launch. I really miss those days!
I'd never sell my '87 GN. At this point it is flawless and runs 11's in the 1/4mi,yet is mild mannered on the street for running errands. All stock looking on the outside. (Except for the 275-50--15 drag radials out back)
When you hear those 0 to 60 times now, you chuckle, but that my friends was the darkest period of GMs life, that's why all you see on the road now are foreign cars, only a V6 Grand National could hold its head up
Funny how Buick was never viewed as GM's "performance" division yet there was always a fast Buick around. Go back prior to WW II. Could order Roadmaster OHV inline 8 with dual carbs & more HP than Caddy V8 of the day with slightly less weight. 1955 Century, while not a match for top speed of new Chrysler 300, was Motor Trends Mags 1st to break 10 sec barrier for 0-60 even equipped with Dynaflow trans (2nd gen version w/1.6 reduction gears built into the converter hub & switch-pitch stator, but still shifted manually adding another 1.82 reduction ratio) & once the Riv got Super Turbine 400 (THM 400) in 64 it could pretty much "slice & dice" a T-bird any way shape or form! And then.... Came the 421 & 455 torque monsters of the later 60's. Given that history, getting the "go ahead" to build the GNX shouldn't really come as too much of a surprise!
Valve springs, an intake manifold gasket, intercooler, pretty much bolt ons that increase the engine life increases HP its like that the true HP made from this 3.8 V6 Turbo is above 400hp.
Too bad the G-bodies didnt make it to the 90's. They could have been a hell of a platform for modern GM V-8 engines and drivetrains. Imagine a modern version of a Monte Carlo or Olds Starfire or pontiac 2+2. Sigh.
Only reason the G-bodies stayed around in the first place is that GM hadn't paid off the tooling cost. Even after the FWD A-bodies were introduced to replace them, they stuck around to make their money back. Then another few years later, a second replacement was finally made in the W-bodies
@@tamapalagi so true it's just a platform they couldn't put alot of horsepower in them anyway because of emissions and stuff plus price would go up a monte as with a ls engine really kills it
@@Liam8488 I was in high school when the A-bodies came out and late teens when the W-body came along. The only reason those cars sold was because there was nothing else to buy. The A bodies were PURE garbage and the W-bodies were a transport from point A to B, nothing more, and reliability in the W-body was as hit and miss as a dart game at a bar at 2 A.M.
The saddest part was the Grand Prix 2+2........absolutely obscene to saddle that gorgeous body with an engine like that. Would love to find one and put in a proper engine.
And not to properly production-engineer that roofline with a hatchback. Do that and give them a full reskin and it would've carried them until the market for big coupes evaporated in the late '90s.
Why did they call it 2+2? That was a name Datsun in used for their 2 seater 280Z Coupe with jump seats in back. The GP was a large car with full seating capacities ...dumbness
I had an 84 SS white, it was a dog and I never won many races. Barely beat a 3.1 5spd fwd chevy of some kind. I about had to kick his ass bc he kept laughing when I would bark 2nd gear and pull about a foot on him. Anyway, once I had a LT1 Camaro, I thought that would have been such a sweet car with a LT1.
@@ztwntyn8 Don't worry, I was driving my dad's 88 Civic DX to Blockbuster just 1/2 a block past a traffic light. Some fool in a 78-79 Camaro decided he wanted to get frisky at the light. So, when the light turned green, he opened up and peeled all the way through the intersection, while I peeled 1st - 4th (surprised that little stock could do that). I was already at my destination before he was halfway out of the intersection. He was all show and no go. I loved the Monte Carlo SS, and especially the El Camino SS. I just wished they had gotten a power plant they deserved.
GM needed to take the gloves off and drop the TPI in them starting in 86. Give the Corvette and F-Body one year in the sun and then give them to the G-Body. The only real reason I can think they didnt was that no one really knew when the G-Body was going to end. Development of their FWD replacements kept getting delayed and sales of the G-Body were picking back up due to falling gas prices and the fear that the end was neigh, so GM kept kicking the can down the road. I have to think if GM really knew they were going to make it to 1988, they would have dropped the TPI in back in 1986.
+Thomas Whitmore Haha, grew up with these cars and I remember thinking how fast they were. Still neat, but not gonna be winning any stoplight races with one of these beauties today.
They neutral-drop these cars frequently on this show on acceleration runs if you watch and listen closely even to get these lame times. Who neutral-drops a test car?
i absolutely love it...monte carlo ss..high output 305. 180hp and 225ft lbs tq.."absolutely breathtaking" performance...16.6 sec 1/4 mile at 81 mph..wow kids..better hold on for dear life.
GN was the ultimate stealth firebreather. nobody expected this from Buick at the time. too bad they were so rare, and if you could find a dealer with one, you got worked on markup. My friend`s father got one but paid over 40g, which was almost 3X price of regular G bodies of the day.
@@ralfbond258No, we got our Grand National at sticker, $17,000. The GNX, which only 547 of them were made were marked up from their sticker price of $29,000 to $40,000. I know when we bought our Grand National at Crown Buick in Palos Heights, Illinois in 1987, they had a GNX which was a $17,000 Grand National, the GNX option package was an $11,000 option, so the car with delivery charges stickered at $29,000. They would not sell it for less than $40,000. Nobody paid $40,000 for a Grand National. A GNX, yes, but not a Grand National.
The Regal was sooooo good looking. ONe of Buick's all time greats - up with the '63 Riviera IMO. I would've sworn the early '83 HO and 442 307 was rated at 180hp. Need to check that out.
I remember the GM 305 4 bbls from the 80s, they actually felt pretty quick, friends used to rent them flip the breather over and we would just roar at the sound coming from that Rochester ,1984 cutlass 4 dr was one of the rentals.. again they felt quicker then the times suggest.. good times..
I lusted after these cars, especially the Monte Carlo SS, in the late 80s. I did not buy a new car until just this last September. It is a stock Challenger SXT and managed 0-60 mph in just 6.1 seconds. Still would not mind finding one in good shape if just for nostagia.
Or for about 10,000 less you could buy a Mustang LX Coupe throw some gears on it and run door to door and have much better quality doing it (not to mention the ability to go around corners, somewhat) Actually even with 3.08s they were running sub 14 second quarter miles. I never understood why the GN got so much attention?
I think when my Sienna was new it would have been closer to 7 sec. (Base CE model without all the luxo stuff) When I 1st got it it was a trick to learn to do a moderately quick take off without squealing the tires. Several times, prior to the 100,000 mile mark, squealed em for what seemed like half a block, (probably wasn't) from a rolling start. Near scared the living daylights out of a friend when I took off down an on ramp when I thought I had a guy trying to pass on the inside shoulder. Also found out quite by accident how fast it does 70-100 without even a downshift, (same motor in German version of Avalon without electronic speed limiter used in USA supposedly clocked 158 MPH) & it could really "torque-steer" U that U wrestled with it to stay on course! In the 60's my dad always had big Chryslers with 383's. I don't think they could hold a candle to it. And it's not just hi-rev HP either. I can take off at a light & run with the majority of traffic without running it over 2000 RPM. Plenty torquey too! So much for 80's V8's v/s the modern minivan
I couldn't believe he was bragging about the Monte's "muscular" 170 hp 305 V8. If Chevy was in it to win it, making this a REAL SS, they would've dropped the fuel injected 5.7 V8 in it, even as an option. No other engines were offered. NOT a real SS that lives up to the name.
Almost everyone took those 305's out and put built 350's 383's or small block 400's in these cars. Then they were really muscle cars. Even my dad (who is not a car guy) was advised back then to replace the 305 with a 350 in his 79 camaro which he did and it woke that car up!!
@@bingobango170 really do you that's what it is. The blue collar workers trying to get paid a decent wage. Or do you think it could be the billions in profits the manufacturer makes. $45 hr is less then 100k a year. How much money do you think your worth?
I know. the 80s g bodies should have lived into the 90s and beyond. getting the new LT1 drivetrain the later the LS engines. imagine a monte ss with a 400 hp LS 6.0 and a choice of 6 speed stick or auto!
Double 0 Vader That GM made all its cars front drive garbage back then means they didn't hire people based on talent or creativity. Why they didn't lead the world in technology and looks was inexcusable. They were the largest in the world yet you wouldn't know it. Imagine if GM had been like apple is today. Anyhow. I guess my point is hire people who contribute something. A sixty year old pencil pusher wasn't the best choice.
It's also a shame that they didn't put more into those cars back then. The Monte Carlo SS, Cutlass 442, and Grand Prix 2+2 should all have had the IROC's optional 350.
I owned a 86 Trans Am, my brother had a 87 Grand National, and my baby brother had a 87 Mustang... Grand National winner hands down but Mustangs with gears would give it a decent run. Grand National was ahead of its time plus other cars weren't that fast. I would live to own a GN today and I've owned four Trans Ams. Still have one today as a matter of fact, a cammed LT1.
I was a teen in the 80’s and me and my friends owned these cars. Th GN’s were hard to find for a street race during the hot summer months but as soon as the cool dense air of the fall came around in New England out came the GN’s and Turbo Ts. These things were night and day when it got cool out. The turbo 6’s were easily beatable with a 5.0L with a short belt, gears and exhaust during the warmer months.
@@qbertguy I hear you, I agree that it was definitely a problem the GN was faster and didn't sit well with Chevrolet division and General Motors brass.
My buddy bought a sweet 72 Skylark in 1987 from some dude who had a new 87 GN. He drove it home from the dealer and parked it in the garage. Like 17mi on it.
It really wasn't. I had a Riv with the same motor. No intercooler or wastegate, GM relied on the back pressure from a single exhaust to control the turbo boost! But, with an open exhaust they made 300 net hp back when an L82 Corvette made 185-200 hp. And they seldom blew and the SC rarely needed anything but a bearing swap.
My buddy Mike has an Aero-Coupe Monte. After he blew up the 305, we did probably one of the earliest LS swaps (back in 02) thanks to his dad owning a salvage yard. We took the 5.3 out of an 02 Tahoe with 12k on the clock, we made motor mount adapters out of plate steel,then he got one of the first ls carb kits with distributor, then we made a bracket to relocate the alternator and another belt to drive the accessories, then he got some long tube headers for a 99 Camaro which were modified with the blue wrench and bfh. We got the 200 4R to work by machining an adapter for the tc snout. We also didn’t know how easy cam swaps are on LS engines back then so we left that alone. All in it took about 6 months, a boatload of hrs, and more money than you’d spend today for a complete swap kit lol.
Back in the 90’s I had an 87 Buick Regal Limited with the Oldsmobile V8. Very nice car to drive and fairly quick too! Transmission wasn’t that great though. I miss that one, wish I hadn’t let it go.
The Aerocoupe looks like the kind of car you’d see on one of the myriad buddy cop/PI shows of the early/mid-‘80s. Meanwhile, I’d expect to see a more traditional hardened detective with a revolver and an unashed cigarette in a GN or a GNX.
@5:47 to give them time to build up the braun of front wheel drive replacements. Hearing those words back then was like sticking a knife in performance enthusiasts.
Let's think about this. In 1987 190-200 horsepower WAS a lot. 16 second 1/4 mile WAS fast. Not every muscle car ever built turned 13's in the 1/4. What did a Corolla do in 87? These cars don't get enough respect. By the way, I own one . And no, it's not that fast. But does anyone care about an 87 Corolla? Probably not much. I was at a show yesterday with my 87 SS. T tops are still a hit. People care about these cars 30 years later.
+Mike Slomski G bodies were great cars...until you needed to brake hard on a bumpy road, take a sharp curve or drive on a surface the slightest bit damp. Because if you did, the tail would come around on you pretty much instantly and without much warning. The weird '70-80's GM brake pedal feel didn't help much, either: initially firm then it's like stepping on a wet sponge, accompanied by random wheel lock. I know, I grew up around these cars when they were new. The V8 models were torquey though and generally fun to drive if you avoided the aforementioned scenarios. They would also outrun a Saab 900 Turbo from a stop and pull some wicked burnouts. :-) As for your Corolla comparison, it's quite flawed. If you want to do a proper comparison a Supra or MR2 would be more appropriate since those were the Toyota rear-drive "sporty coupes" of the day. In that regard you would find 1987 MR2's quite collectable and valuable as well as certain Supras...both of those cars already had independent rear suspensions and FAR more competent handling than the G cars. Also, the Supra Turbo of the day had 230hp (50 hp more than the most powerful G body V8) and although it weighed about as much as a G body (~3,5000 lbs), it could do 0-60 in 6.4 sec and hit 145mph top speed, which was quicker than all but a Grand National and faster than all of them. With the automatic-controlled shocks left in "comfort" mode it would offer a comparably smooth ride, especially over rough roads. Now, a proper comparison to the Corolla would be the Chevette/T1000 or Cavallier, neither of which were remembered fondly by anyone who had to drive one. Not to mention the Corolla is still around while the others are just a footnote in automotive history...
+Karo French Sorry to inform you but *NO* G body was ever available with anti-lock brakes (ABS). In fact, through 1987 (last year of the rear drive G bodies) very few cars at all had ABS brakes and even fewer came from GM. Most of the GM cars that did receive ABS were newer front-wheel drive designs (notable exception was the Corvette). Even Camaros and Firebirds did not have available ABS systems at the time. The later "W body" replacements introduced in 1988 *did* offer optional ABS on some models, but it was the inferior GM-designed "ABS VI," which was so horrible it almost single-handedly gave all ABS a bad-rep through association. GM reserved the best ABS systems, which were of Teves or Bosch design, to the high-end cars like the 'Vette, Cadillacs, Park Avenues, Riverias, 98s, etc. I will agree the G bodies do have a classic 80's design that remains distinctive and clean. Personally I think the Grand Prix, especially 1984-87, had the best looking exterior and interior, followed by the Regal. I saw an 80's El Camino with a Regal front clip and dash swapped on it and it didn't look all that out of place.
GM needed to take the gloves off and drop the TPI in them starting in 86. Give the Corvette and F-Body one year in the sun and then give them to the G-Body. The only real reason I can think they didnt was that no one really knew when the G-Body was going to end. Development of their FWD replacements kept getting delayed and sales of the G-Body were picking back up due to falling gas prices and the fear that the end was neigh, so GM kept kicking the can down the road. I have to think if GM really knew they were going to make it to 1988, they would have dropped the TPI in back in 1986.
@@jasonray2774 I really think they should've scotched the whole GM10 program after it had been on the shelf for so long through Roger Smith's misbegotten reorg and robotization program. Give the FWD A-bodies a more thorough reskin - scotch the coupe and put the money to making the sedan look more integrated and even refresh the wagon a bit more than they did - and use the Pontiac 2+2 roofline, properly production-engineered with the bubbleback an opening hatch, across all the G coupes. Then start over on the all-new midsize sedan and minivan for the mid-90s, keep the old RWD coupes for as long as they still sell.
as far as I was concerned chevy,s SS days came and went back in the 70,s and same with hurst olds, but buick brought something magical to the table 3.8 litre permformance unheard in the past but for a company whose V6 technology dates back to david buick himself Credit Buick engineers for the power,the engine was heading
@@TwentytenS4B8 Yep. I can run 10.6 consistently and a 10.25 on cool 60 degree nights. I am sure if I put 24 lbs of boost on a LS it would be quicker But I love the screaming banshee sound of my V6.
I had a '72 Cutlass and an '84 Monte Carlo SS convertible (yes you could buy a convertible from the dealer, was custom order but they existed). Anywho when he says the SS could out handle any of the old muscle cars, I have to disagree there, they both actually handled about the same. Both cars had very upright seats that were quite soft and didn't offer much in terms of lateral support, which is probably because they didn't want you turning them. Anywho I wish I still had both cars - but I really wish I had that SS because I've never seen another one - at least not in person. It was a good looking car - but was slow and didn't handle well, but it was comfortable and again, just looked really really good.
I never understood why the Monte Carlo SS had so little horsepower. The 305 was bragged up for having some good stuff in it like a Corvette camshaft yet it only made 180 hp. But I guess in its category (full size coupe) it didn't have much competition since the V8 Thunderbird was always pretty anemic.
The grand national the beast that i feel made the gbodys one hell of a finish for the line i hope anyone who owns any of the models enjoyed them while they can as much as i do when i had one ( 7 ) them
Had the 5.0 HO in my IROC...I was a teen and thought it was so fast...come to find out after my Dad changed the air filter that the secondaries were sticking and barely opening....and was likely that way the entire time I drove it. Great car still though
81 Malibu classic with a mildly tweaked 305, was as far as I got with GM G bodys.. It handed incredibly well, not a drag racer, but great highway cruiser, but because thiers no physical frame in the top portion of the doors, the windows would always pop lose at 70 mph + And the door pins and bushings that haunt every G body.
we've had our 85 monte ss for 25 yrs and love her just as much today as we did when we bought her , adding a 350hp 350 and getting rid of the computer helped lots , remember these chassis were designed in 1963 for the chevelle ,lemans,cutlass and dont forget the skylark , they got a good run from it , they never were meant to turn corners like the mustang, but were better than a mid 70's car , .180hp from a 305 was pretty good considering after the emissions standards set in 1972 killed performance a 350 with 4 barrel carb only could pump out 145 hp in 1976 , only with efi and computer control weve been able to get back to the performance of the 1970's models
It is so optimistic and sad at the end.... (The cars are selling so well, they will keep them through 88, which will give GM time to develop some mean front wheel drive sucessors) That was paraphrased, but it show just how sad the cars became in the 90's.
WoW I don't remember the 2+2 I don't even think I seen one before, Here in CT the state Police had a few MC & GN's vehicles, classic design cars back then.
The Buick GN & T-types are "Bad to the Bone" no other car comes to mind when talking 80"s muscle car. I owned 2 -87 GN's and have plenty of stories of when they first came out. I was very impressed that an 87 GN could spin the tires while moving and whistled. . .no loud engine sound. . .crazy for the day.
Had an 88 Monte SS with a 305, blew that and went to a 350. Had that for 2 years and decided to go 454.. I sold it and REGRET everything.. I miss that T-Top SS..
In the 1/4 mile, the Monte Carlo would be door to door with a Honda Fit. The fond memories that I have of "performance" cars of the 80's, isn't quite what I remembered.
all you youngsters saying ecobox can beat these old v8 are dumber than a umbrella salesman in desert. year for year, honda, toyota, nissan ect. were pushing around 80hp. you might be too young or not born at all but factory cars running 1/4 mile under 18 second back then was good timing. not too long ago, superstreet mag was headlining 13sec civic but 13sec is laughable time now. don't get me wrong, i drive a s13 sr20det now so im not hating. just saying
+Baltimore brawler Except when Honda or Toyota* was pushing "80 hp econobox," GM was pushing 60 hp Chevettes... However Toyota and Nissan were also producing 6-cyls with 160-190hp n/a and 205-230hp in turbo form, stock. These cars practically created the "import tuner" scene in the US, with people soon discovering the intercooled Supra Turbo in particular could be tuned to 450hp on a stock block while possessing a chassis/suspension competent enough to harness it. Heck by 1986 even Honda had a 150-160hp V6 (Legend) and by '91 a 190hp 4cyl (Prelude). *however by 1986 you could buy a US-made Corolla with 108 hp, the FX16.
I rode in a Buick GN....and it was pretty much stock....and it felt like more than 245HP...and it wasn't on a cool day either, that was a 90F+ day. The Buick may be the fastest of the bunch, but I want any of these G-body cars!
