Fastest cars of the 80's

[burntrice087]

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

[Jimster]

1.) Ferrari F40
2.) Porsche 959
3.) Ferrari 288 GTO
4.) Lamborghini Countach
5.) Porsche 930 911 Turbo

[kman10587]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by kman10587

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.

[kman10587]

Yeah I know, but it's nothing compared to a big V8.

[Polygon]

Originally Posted by kman10587

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.

[kman10587]

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]

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]

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.

[christophv]

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

cu

[crayzayjay]

Cizeta Moroder. V16 baby