I'm curious if a stock GSX would race a stock GNX, who would win? It seems as though the GSX is a 15 sec car at best, but the GNX is between 10-14 sec. Why are those GNXs so fast?
:error: :error: I'm not sure where you get your information, but I believe there are a few people on this board that will disagree with that statement.
1/4 mile Wasn't the '70 Stage 1 GSX (and GS's for that matter) about a mid 13's car on the original polyglass tires??? I seem to remember seeing that in some magazine from long ago.
Data I just found a site that lists 13.38 @ 105.5 from the 1/70 issue of Motor Trend for the GS Stage 1. The same site lists the GNX at 13.43 @103, it doesn't cite the source, however. It looks like a virtual tie to me, given slight changes in atmospheric conditions could create variations in a single car much greater than that listed between these two fine cars. Here's the link: http://www.musclecarclub.com/
Yep, it'd be a tie... or close to it. GNX's are fast because of a very well designed engine and forced induction... nothing wrong with that, though :grin:
I'm going to put my money on the GSX. Afterall, bias-ply tires suck and we all know the low end power of the buick. hooking probably didn't happen on a regular basis.
Re: Data Thanks for the info. I read a magazine ( I can't remember which one), but it compared the two vehicles. It pretty much makes the older cars look slow and weak. I was just making sure because the info seemed bias.
Re: Data that's exactly right BUT the 1970 GSX Stage 1 tested by Motor Trend in 1970 had skinny, fibreglass belted tires on it- wider radials were not available. I have seen other mags test it at the same speed but at a 13.8 second quarter. Almost none of the magazines I can find list the rear end used for either, but my source here says that the 13.38@105.5 mph run done by the '70 had the 3.64:1 ratio rear, tested by Motor Trend in Jan, 1970
The man said "stock", that meansthe GS gets to run on the polyglas tires. If adjustments can be made, the GNX wins, because it doesn't take much to crank the boost.:bglasses:
Chris: if you want really fast old iron, you need to look at cars with some radical rear end ratios, and cars that were for sale as thinly disguised race cars. for example: 1963 Dodge Ramcharger, 426 wedge, 12.00 seconds at 117 mph, 4.56:1 rear gear (Muscle Car review, 1987) 1964 Dodge 330/440 Polara, 426 Hemi, 11.40 seconds at 125 mph, unidentified rear end- gotta be similar to the 4.56:1 (Muscle Car review, can't find the year) 1963 Plymouth Belvedere/Satellite, 426 wedge, 12.69 seconds at 111.97 mph, undisclosed rear, probably a 3.91:1 (Hot Rod, Jan 1963) 1968 Hurst/Olds, 455, 12.97 seconds at 108.17mph, 3.91:1 rear end (Car Craft, no month or date given) remember that these all had tires of the era: slippery, skinny bias plys
I think on their stock tires both cars are severly traction limited Bolt on some 10" slicks on both cars and then ??? Personally Id love to see the GSX ahead, but I dont think that would be the outcome
As I recall some old magazine articles that I have around here, in a box of MANY, that some "STOCK" '70 GSX's WERE capable of 12's in 1/4. However, a "STOCK" GNX (or ANY Grand National) that does "10"?uzzled: I DOUBT IT! Also, I need to find the article now, since this has been an "unanswered" question, but I know I have a "test article" of GSX vs. GNX, and the result (without having the article in front of me), is that THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR CUBIC INCHES!:bglasses: The "little" V6, no matter how much it TRIED, COULDN'T outrun (or even keep up) with the GSX!:laugh: (No, I'm not partial to V8 Buicks! Really. :laugh: ) A V6 is STILL a V6!o No: :grin:
hey guys i'm wondering whats the fastest gn and gs out there past and present or other buicks at the tracks thanks tony
Dim memory seems to tell me that Buick sorta-kinda sponsored two Stage II cars in dragracing in the early '70s
Not exactly the same but if you have not seen this it is interesting. http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/collector_cars/1997/8/showdown_muscle_cars/
Very cool article... as much as I love V8's, Turbo Buicks have always been way up there on my list. I'd rather pay 5-7k for a Turbo Buick that could get me 20-25mpg than 20-25k for a new car that'd be decently quick and get me 20-25mpg, thats for sure.
