Fastest cars of the 80's
burntrice087
10-09-2004, 05:35 PM
what do you think were the fastest cars of the 80's..here are my guesses
1.Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z/Corvette
2.Buick Regal Grand National (t-type,GNX)
3.Mustang GT 5.0
4.Porsche 944(turbo)
5.Mazda RX-7
1.Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z/Corvette
2.Buick Regal Grand National (t-type,GNX)
3.Mustang GT 5.0
4.Porsche 944(turbo)
5.Mazda RX-7
Jimster
10-09-2004, 06:31 PM
1.) Ferrari F40
2.) Porsche 959
3.) Ferrari 288 GTO
4.) Lamborghini Countach
5.) Porsche 930 911 Turbo
2.) Porsche 959
3.) Ferrari 288 GTO
4.) Lamborghini Countach
5.) Porsche 930 911 Turbo
kman10587
10-09-2004, 06:57 PM
Obviously, high-end European cars are the fastest. As far as lower-end models go, I'd say the Corvette, the Grand National, and the RX-7 Turbo II are tops.
genjy
10-09-2004, 08:03 PM
The Grand National was definitely fast. It was pretty fast right out of the box and it could be made insanely fast with some modification.
kman10587
10-09-2004, 08:09 PM
Yep, it was definitely the drag car of the 80's. A good cheap track car would be something like the RX-7 Turbo II, or a Mustang 5.0 w/ aftermarket suspension.
burntrice087
10-09-2004, 08:43 PM
shiznit...i meant lower-end american muscle baby!!!...Kinda sad that most V8's back then had 140-170HP..how the hell did u guys cope with those wimpy v8's.....Yeah man iam talking about 350's yo with damn 220HP...in dem top-trim Camaros.....kinda sad too that those Shelby Omni's with turbo-4 bangers were chewin them up.......Automotive dark ages i tell ya!!!...My stepdad had a Regal GN T-type...reportly he said it did low-13's with a Turbocharged V-6 am i right???
kman10587
10-09-2004, 10:05 PM
Uh, the Mustang GT got 225 horsepower in 1987. And unlike turbo-fours of that era, it had the torque to back it up -- 300 lb-ft of it. Combine that with a curb weight of just over 2800 lbs., a huge aftermarket, and rear-wheel-drive, and I'd hardly call it wimpy. And yeah, the turbo Regals can hit low 13's bone stock. And we all know that turbo cars usually don't stay bone stock for long.
Polygon
10-09-2004, 11:27 PM
And unlike turbo-fours of that era, it had the torque to back it up.
Oh really?
The Turbo II and Turbo IV common block used in 1989 and 1990 produced 210 ft/lbs of torque. Not bad for a four banger.
Oh really?
The Turbo II and Turbo IV common block used in 1989 and 1990 produced 210 ft/lbs of torque. Not bad for a four banger.
kman10587
10-10-2004, 01:07 AM
Yeah I know, but it's nothing compared to a big V8. :)
Polygon
10-10-2004, 01:32 AM
Yeah I know, but it's nothing compared to a big V8. :)
Yeah, but that's only 80 less ft/lbs from an engine less than half the Mustangs size. I won't argue there is no replacement for displacement. I'm just saying don't write off all the four bangers as having no torque. There are people that make upwards of 500 ft/lbs on the stock block and internals on these cars.
Yeah, but that's only 80 less ft/lbs from an engine less than half the Mustangs size. I won't argue there is no replacement for displacement. I'm just saying don't write off all the four bangers as having no torque. There are people that make upwards of 500 ft/lbs on the stock block and internals on these cars.
kman10587
10-10-2004, 02:15 AM
I'm not saying that turbo engines aren't more efficient, I'm just saying that the GT engine makes more torque -- as well it should, seeing as how it's more than twice the size of Chrysler's turbo 2.2.
christophv
10-10-2004, 11:51 AM
how about Audi Quattro Sport, Ford RS200, RS Cosworth, Nissan R32 Skyline GT-R, Renault GTA Turbo, Aston Martin V8, Mitsubishi Starion, Galant VR4, BMW M1, De Tomaso Pantera, Ferrari Testarossa, 288 GTO, 365, Maserati Khamsin, Jaguar XJ-S, Lancia Delta Integrale, Lotus Esprit and VW Corrado :)
drdisque
10-10-2004, 01:01 PM
well, the Pantera wasn't from the 80's and only the Aston Martin, Starion, Galant, Feraris, Jaguar, Lotus and corrado were sold in the US.
Also the 80's Espirits were slow beans
XJS is a good idea though, they weren't absurdly priced and were pretty quick stock.
Also the 80's Espirits were slow beans
XJS is a good idea though, they weren't absurdly priced and were pretty quick stock.
christophv
10-11-2004, 12:46 PM
you can get an XJ-S for 4000-6000€ in nice condition here - definitely the cheapest way do drive a 300hp-6litre-V12 :)
the Pantera was built from 1971 to 1990, in the 80s they only sold about 80 vehicles. And there's GT4 version putting down 500hp and I want it so bad :D
cu
the Pantera was built from 1971 to 1990, in the 80s they only sold about 80 vehicles. And there's GT4 version putting down 500hp and I want it so bad :D
cu
crayzayjay
10-11-2004, 01:50 PM
Cizeta Moroder. V16 baby :D
christophv
10-11-2004, 02:02 PM
yeah, I thought of Cizeta too but they're just too ugly :icon16:
c'mon, those lights are a crime
http://www.autosea.by.ru/Zagigalka/AUTOmost/most_dear/ase_lamb_cizeta_moroder_v16t.jpg
c'mon, those lights are a crime
http://www.autosea.by.ru/Zagigalka/AUTOmost/most_dear/ase_lamb_cizeta_moroder_v16t.jpg
crayzayjay
10-11-2004, 05:30 PM
The thread doesnt specify looks. It only mentions speed. And i have two words for you:
"Vee", "Sixteen" ;) :lol:
"Vee", "Sixteen" ;) :lol:
Hypsi87
10-11-2004, 06:33 PM
what do you think were the fastest cars of the 80's..here are my guesses
1.Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z/Corvette
2.Buick Regal Grand National (t-type,GNX)
3.Mustang GT 5.0
4.Porsche 944(turbo)
5.Mazda RX-7
How did you get the Camaro/ vette as the fastest cars??? The IROC was accually was the slowest of the camaros. It was heavier with all the options it had. They where luckey to break into the 14's The GN's could run 13.9's and better all day long.
Hands down the Turbo Buick powerd cars (GN/T-type/GNX/Turbo Trans Am) where the fastest of the 80's. Hell the GN had better 0 to 60 times than most ferreris of the day. Also, I am talking about cars you could buy, not cars that where hand made and sat on a showroom floor for 10 years because noone had the money to buy one untill they saved that long for it.
Also the GLHS/IROC shelby daytona's/and the Spirit R/T's would lay the spank down on the 5.0/Camaro crowed all day long. The GLHS would give the GN's runs for their money. Im pretty sure that the only reason it did not (stock) was because of the whole FWD factor.
As for the big v-8 having the torque to back it up.... First of all my engine is 231 CID. the 5.0 is 302. 302-231=71CID. 231CID+16PSI= 462CID effective. 462-302=160CID. Does not seem so big now. My car runs 24-27 PSI and puts down 442 HP and 590 ft-lbs of torque. Turbo cars are torque monstors.
Just to let people know, I tend to think of power and speed as a function of the qtr mile times and MPH. Also I don't like it when people disregard a engine because it is turbocharged or sprayed or whatever. Power is power, I am a power junkie and I say if it makes the numbers and runs the times then it is good in my book. As for the standing up for the GN, who can blame me???? :)
1.Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z/Corvette
2.Buick Regal Grand National (t-type,GNX)
3.Mustang GT 5.0
4.Porsche 944(turbo)
5.Mazda RX-7
How did you get the Camaro/ vette as the fastest cars??? The IROC was accually was the slowest of the camaros. It was heavier with all the options it had. They where luckey to break into the 14's The GN's could run 13.9's and better all day long.
Hands down the Turbo Buick powerd cars (GN/T-type/GNX/Turbo Trans Am) where the fastest of the 80's. Hell the GN had better 0 to 60 times than most ferreris of the day. Also, I am talking about cars you could buy, not cars that where hand made and sat on a showroom floor for 10 years because noone had the money to buy one untill they saved that long for it.
Also the GLHS/IROC shelby daytona's/and the Spirit R/T's would lay the spank down on the 5.0/Camaro crowed all day long. The GLHS would give the GN's runs for their money. Im pretty sure that the only reason it did not (stock) was because of the whole FWD factor.
As for the big v-8 having the torque to back it up.... First of all my engine is 231 CID. the 5.0 is 302. 302-231=71CID. 231CID+16PSI= 462CID effective. 462-302=160CID. Does not seem so big now. My car runs 24-27 PSI and puts down 442 HP and 590 ft-lbs of torque. Turbo cars are torque monstors.
Just to let people know, I tend to think of power and speed as a function of the qtr mile times and MPH. Also I don't like it when people disregard a engine because it is turbocharged or sprayed or whatever. Power is power, I am a power junkie and I say if it makes the numbers and runs the times then it is good in my book. As for the standing up for the GN, who can blame me???? :)
finally_retired
10-11-2004, 06:38 PM
RUF 911 = Fastest production car. 208 mph in 1985
As far as non production cars go, thats anybodys guess...
As far as non production cars go, thats anybodys guess...
kman10587
10-11-2004, 08:02 PM
As for the big v-8 having the torque to back it up.... First of all my engine is 231 CID. the 5.0 is 302. 302-231=71CID. 231CID+16PSI= 462CID effective. 462-302=160CID. Does not seem so big now. My car runs 24-27 PSI and puts down 442 HP and 590 ft-lbs of torque. Turbo cars are torque monstors.
Even Polygon himself said that there is no replacement for displacement. I'm not saying that a boosted four can't make a lot of torque; I'm saying that a boosted V8, or even a really well-tuned N/A V8, can do it better.
Even Polygon himself said that there is no replacement for displacement. I'm not saying that a boosted four can't make a lot of torque; I'm saying that a boosted V8, or even a really well-tuned N/A V8, can do it better.
Hypsi87
10-11-2004, 10:51 PM
it still comes down to who makes the power. No what ifs
DVS LT1
10-12-2004, 12:36 PM
Yeah man iam talking about 350's yo with damn 220HP...in dem top-trim Camaros.....
When we were little we used to think my buddy's Dad had the most awesome ride: '87 or '86 Trans Am GTA with performance WS-6 suspension package, jet black, gold rims, T-Tops...
... and you can't forget that "High Output" 350 cubic inch monster that pumped out a whopping 190 horsepower with a four-barrel carb!!! LOL
AAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :eek7:
Fucking thing weighed over 2 tonnes. Good back then for about a solid 17 second ET! :rolleyes:
And ya, the GNX was without a doubt the fastest straight line car built in the 80's (over here). I remember the F40 being the real badass anywhere.
When we were little we used to think my buddy's Dad had the most awesome ride: '87 or '86 Trans Am GTA with performance WS-6 suspension package, jet black, gold rims, T-Tops...
... and you can't forget that "High Output" 350 cubic inch monster that pumped out a whopping 190 horsepower with a four-barrel carb!!! LOL
AAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :eek7:
Fucking thing weighed over 2 tonnes. Good back then for about a solid 17 second ET! :rolleyes:
And ya, the GNX was without a doubt the fastest straight line car built in the 80's (over here). I remember the F40 being the real badass anywhere.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025