Do Grand Nationals get too much credit for the greatness of the G-Body?

[motorheadmike]

The Grand National and GNX was more of an Street car ,And the Monte Carlo SS and the other G bodies got more from racing in NASCAR ,The Malibu a drag racer ,Being one of last full frame cars.

I think you need to bone up on your G-body history.

Brian,

I feel compelled to respond to this. I'm not surprised you were underwhelmed in 2000. I think if you had ridden in the car 8-10 years earlier then you would have been more impressed. Like many on here, I grew up in the era of gutless cars. When I started driving, Dad had an 84 F150 (gutless), his 62 Ford Galaxie (no where near running) and a 63 Ford Galaxie survivor. The 63 had a 352 with a 2-barrel and single exhaust. It was rated at 220 HP. The car felt really good compared to anything else I had driven or ridden in.

Fast forward a few years, circa 1993. I'm driving an 84 S10 Blazer with a 2.8 V-6 and a 5 speed (gutless, but seemed 'sporty' with the stick at the time). My step-dad is driving the hand-me-down family car, an 84 Buick Century with a carbed 2.8 V-6 with an automatic overdrive (even worse than gutless). Dad is driving an 88 Suburban with a 6.2 diesel. Gutless but economical. Mom had a 91 Pontiac Sunbird with the 3.1 V-6. That car felt pretty good. This was the beginning for me of the feeling that cars were coming back. Most of my friends have hand-me-down throw away import cars (those few lucky enough or hard-working enough to have a car). They were all gutless. This is when I first rode in a Grand National. It was an 86-87 because it was a cold air car. I've never been enthusiastic about a V-6. I'm just a V-8 guy. Still, that car really impressed me. I was really surprised at how it ran, especially considering it was 6 or 7 years old by then. I was a little too young when the cold air cars were new to really 'get it' and nobody we knew had one. Riding in Charlie's put them on the radar for me. Would I have been as impressed with Charlie's car if I was comparing it to an LS1 F-body in 2000? I don't think so.

I don't think I would ever buy a GN or a T-Type because I wouldn't really want the V-6 (not knocking it, just not my cup of tea), but I still think they are cool cars and I still think it is impressive how well they ran for the time. I still marvel at the fact that those cars somehow got built in that dark era of American cars.

As someone who owned a 355 powered MCSS and a worked over Turbo Buick (both 12 second cars), and regularly drove a six speed LS1 Camaro in 2002... I can say experience and perspective is everything. Stock the Monte and the Buick were lumps, the Camaro not so much. That Camaro today is a lump without mods.

 

[Michael Watts]

I was around when those cars were new.Along with the Muscle Cars.And have had friends who had modified T-Types And Grand Nationals So I know what they were like .And I have a 1981 El Camino myself.So I what I am talking about.

 

[Gpdreamer]

Negative, I'd like to see prices stay low. I prefer to keep these cars as somewhat of the 'hidden potential' that the majority of car guys tend to overlook. I enjoy cars, I enjoy people who love their vettes, mustangs, camaros, and challengers, etc....., I like the idea that I can come close to their level of performance at a fraction of the cost. I believe other than the specialty cars, the g-body remains an excellent introduction for folks that don't intend to pour a lot of funds into the hobby they love. My dream car remains a 1987 Buick Grand National. Bone stock is fine by me.

I agree with your statement l enjoy all the time l work on my GP, and finding out about this forum has made it more of a big family project. It’s no Grand National, but it’s my Grand Prix.

 

[Ribbedroof]

Brian,

I feel compelled to respond to this. I'm not surprised you were underwhelmed in 2000. I think if you had ridden in the car 8-10 years earlier then you would have been more impressed. Like many on here, I grew up in the era of gutless cars. When I started driving, Dad had an 84 F150 (gutless), his 62 Ford Galaxie (no where near running) and a 63 Ford Galaxie survivor. The 63 had a 352 with a 2-barrel and single exhaust. It was rated at 220 HP. The car felt really good compared to anything else I had driven or ridden in.

Fast forward a few years, circa 1993. I'm driving an 84 S10 Blazer with a 2.8 V-6 and a 5 speed (gutless, but seemed 'sporty' with the stick at the time). My step-dad is driving the hand-me-down family car, an 84 Buick Century with a carbed 2.8 V-6 with an automatic overdrive (even worse than gutless). Dad is driving an 88 Suburban with a 6.2 diesel. Gutless but economical. Mom had a 91 Pontiac Sunbird with the 3.1 V-6. That car felt pretty good. This was the beginning for me of the feeling that cars were coming back. Most of my friends have hand-me-down throw away import cars (those few lucky enough or hard-working enough to have a car). They were all gutless. This is when I first rode in a Grand National. It was an 86-87 because it was a cold air car. I've never been enthusiastic about a V-6. I'm just a V-8 guy. Still, that car really impressed me. I was really surprised at how it ran, especially considering it was 6 or 7 years old by then. I was a little too young when the cold air cars were new to really 'get it' and nobody we knew had one. Riding in Charlie's put them on the radar for me. Would I have been as impressed with Charlie's car if I was comparing it to an LS1 F-body in 2000? I don't think so.

I don't think I would ever buy a GN or a T-Type because I wouldn't really want the V-6 (not knocking it, just not my cup of tea), but I still think they are cool cars and I still think it is impressive how well they ran for the time. I still marvel at the fact that those cars somehow got built in that dark era of American cars.

Jared, I think that's a good point. At the time, I was dailying a 91 Mustang 5.0 with 2.73s, my impression of that GN was that it wasn't all that much better on the seat-o-the pants meter. Of course, I grew up driving BB Chevelles, so there is that.

Ya wanna talk slow... I briefly owned an 87 S Blazer...2.8/auto/4WD. Great for rare snowy days, because you could stomp the pedal with no fear of spinning a tire. Merging onto I35 in decent weather was a bit dicey, you wanted to make sure there was a nice big hole to merge into lest you get run over.

 

[UNGN]

First GN I rode in was June '86. I was working college summers at a car stereo place and just got my 86 every option 5 speed 3.08 geared, red with gray leather 5.0L Mustang GT Convert at the end of April 1986. A guy with a new GN came in for an Amp. We go out to look at his GN and he wanted to check out my Mustang.

He says "check this out" He opens the glove box and at least 10 12.9 second Timeslips from Scribner that he had got the previous weekend. He pops the hood and shows me the NOS nitrous setup that was just in Hot Rod magazine a month or so before. Car was 100% stock, with the NOS kit they sold for GN's that sprayed into a new up pipe you bought at the dealer for $30.+ 8" slicks

If anyone remembers 1986, "pro street" was huge and 12.9 Second 1/4 mile times was the stuff of twin turbo BBC street cars, not 100% off the dealer lot stock V6 cars with a simple bolt on NOS kit.

 

[Pronto-]

All G bodies have the same build, paint and materials issues. The GN is still most bad *ss looking G body of all of them. The thing that separates them is the performance. Even the grand daddy Limited can kick all the other G body's asses. The Buick was by that time not even considered a performance car. For them to come out with a freak that was faster than a Corvette was truly unique. The turbo 6 is very finicky no doubt. Now that fuel injection is the usual, the mystery of working on them has subsided. In the day carb guys were scared of FI. Now mods are much easier. The hot airs are much harder to work on and much slower. Many get converted to intercooled and a ecm from 86/7.

 

[olds307 and 403]

All G bodies have the same build, paint and materials issues. The GN is still most bad *ss looking G body of all of them. The thing that separates them is the performance. Even the grand daddy Limited can kick all the other G body's asses. The Buick was by that time not even considered a performance car. For them to come out with a freak that was faster than a Corvette was truly unique. The turbo 6 is very finicky no doubt. Now that fuel injection is the usual, the mystery of working on them has subsided. In the day carb guys were scared of FI. Now mods are much easier. The hot airs are much harder to work on and much slower. Many get converted to intercooled and a ecm from 86/7.

Buick did that with the Hemi killer GSX Stage 1, one of the fastest of the 70's, GNX, fastest of the 80's. Another car that looked like nothing special on paper. Unless the climate changes at Buick, there will never be another terrorizing vehicle come from that division, ever again.

 

[Pronto-]

There's been talk about the Caddy ATS possibly being reinvented as a GN. If done right it could be interesting.

 

[motorheadmike]

There's been talk about the Caddy ATS possibly being reinvented as a GN. If done right it could be interesting.

Oh goody... another GM badge engineering exercise.

 

[Qdub24]

I definitely hope that rumor remains as just a rumor. Allow the glorious legacies of the Buick GSX & GNX to remain intact in the annals of history.