re: How cool is this? For Sale: 1987 Buick GNX With Just 8 (Yes, Eight) Original Miles

So basically a Monte Carlo SS?

quote:

---

Assuming the car came from the factory with 5 miles on it, and you drove it 200 feet to service it and get it back into the showroom every 3 months, it would take 20 years to get to 8 miles. If the car had 2 miles on it from the factory, we're talking 40 years to rack up 8 miles a couple hundred feet at a time.

---

I'd have to think this. I bought my current straight from factory, and only had 3 miles on it.

quote:

---

Honestly it is worse for the mechanicals of a car for it to sit for decades instead of being driven occasionally. I bet it would need work before being driven much now.

---

The people that do this and document the miles usually are proactive about everything.

My bro in law has a ‘72 Lincoln mark with 175 miles on it. They bought it several years back but it’s stored in a bubble in a heated/ac barn. Battery is removed, Slightly lifted on jacks, no fuel, carb drained, etc...

quote:

---

Did they actually do development or license out their name to development?

---

All 547 were shipped to McLaren for modification to the GNX specs. Buick had given them the 3.8l turbo engine the prior year for a joint project on this car. McLaren developed a bigger turbo, a new ECU, different suspension and other components.

The GNX was faster to 60 and in the quarter mile than a Ferrari F40 and the Corvette.

Fast is an understatement. Rode shotgun in a Lotus Esprit vs a friend of mine in his GN, street race back in '87. Top five on the dumbest thing I did in highschool list.

quote:

---

The GNX was faster to 60 and in the quarter mile than a Ferrari F40

---

The GNX was quick in its day but let's not get carried away. A stock GNX would have been about 1 sec slower to 60 than an F40 which had a significant advantage in power to weight. They did take modification well but stock you are talking about a car roughly as quick as an E46 M3.

quote:

---

I've seen multiple sources cite a quarter mile time for the GNX that was .3 seconds faster than the F40.

---

A car 600 pounds heavier with half the HP and less torque as well. I bet your source showed the GNX @ 12.7 113. This is an actual track time, not the slower "official" GM times, the problem is it is being compared to "official" Ferrari times not actual track times. The real magazine track times for the F40 were roughly 11.8/125 and the advantage would start to really spread out after that.

Quick yes but still fat and had nothing like the HP of the F40, just two different levels of performance stock. Now, up the boost, tighten up the transmission and put a higher RPM stall converter on the GNX and the field gets much more level.

quote:

---

My brother had one of those 80's Regals with the turbo V-6's.

---

Dad had one too. They'd scoot for their day, but the GNX was a whole different beast. It's like comparing a plowhorse to a thoroughbred. Sure, they both can run fast, but there's no comparison really.

quote:

---

Ehhh.... most all the tests I recall from back then showed the GNX wasn't all that much quicker than a regular GN.

---

Really more legend than reality, there were so few GNX built that most people only "heard" about them. They only made about 40 more HP and 30 more pound-feet of torque but they were good for about 1 sec faster in the 1/4. A big chunk of that was due to the rear suspension changes including the torque arm that made for better weight transfer and better 60ft times. The Grand Nationals were (and still are to an extent) cult drag cars mainly because they responded so well to increased boost.

quote:

---

but look at the overhangs on that thing

---

Breaks the timing beams sooner so for a drag car overhang is good. I think the spindle to the front bumper (you didn't see beam tripper then) was a max of 45" at that time.