: 1987 Regal Grand National v. 2011 Regal CXL Turbo.



I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-20-11, 10:52 PM
http://www.insideline.com/buick/regal/2011/1987-buick-regal-grand-national-vs-2011-buick-regal-cxl-turbo.html


Thought this was interesting. The CXL is really slow, way more so than I thought. So much so, that a Regal LS or Park Avenue with the naturally aspirated series II 3800 is quicker, and anything with the supercharged will blow by it like it's not even trying.

Stingroo
01-20-11, 10:56 PM
That's not the GS though. I'd imagine it would have more power?

hueterm
01-20-11, 11:15 PM
That rocks. GNs are so awesome. Are you sure a NA 3800 will blow away the new Regal? 8 seconds to 60 seems awful aggressive for those...

Stingroo
01-20-11, 11:19 PM
I'd wager that a Series II could do it. The Olds 88 we had over the summer was quite quick (and actually sounded decent around 6k RPM.. I miss that car a lot.) :(

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-20-11, 11:35 PM
I read somewhere that the NA 3800s in the W-Bodies did 0-60 in the 7.8-8.0 second range, and a 16.0-16.2 second 1/4 mile.

Check out the 1997 Buick Regal LS, or the 1995 Buick Regal GS.
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60_Quarter_Mile_Times/B_0-60times.html

Aron9000
01-21-11, 01:55 AM
I will attest that the 3.8 V6 in my 1991 Regal was plenty torquey and felt decently quick around town. On the highway it tended to fall flat on its face, but for its day it was pretty darn quick. It made pretty cool sounds for a v6 as well.

As for the new Regal, its pretty sad that they aren't blowing the doors off of 30 year old v6 technology in the previous Regals. I mean decently quick in the four door commuter car is a 15.5-15.0 quarter mile now days. "Fast" in that catergory is anything under a 14.5 et.

Playdrv4me
01-21-11, 03:06 AM
http://www.insideline.com/buick/regal/2011/1987-buick-regal-grand-national-vs-2011-buick-regal-cxl-turbo.html


Thought this was interesting. The CXL is really slow, way more so than I thought. So much so, that a Regal LS or Park Avenue with the naturally aspirated series II 3800 is quicker, and anything with the supercharged will blow by it like it's not even trying.

In other words, this (http://www.allpar.com/model/spiritrt.html) would mop the floor with the Regal...

http://www.allpar.com/images/dodge/spirit/spirit-rt.jpg

Ouch.

ben.gators
01-21-11, 03:42 AM
I feel so bad for Buick... Buick used to be my favorite model....

drewsdeville
01-21-11, 09:03 AM
That's not the GS though. I'd imagine it would have more power?

This.

For whatever reasons, they chose to do this comparison on the regular CXL rather than waiting for the GS to make a showing. While it may not be "unfair" as the article puts it, the whole thing really doesn't mean anything and is nothing less than moronic. I'm sure any of us could have predicted a similar outcome; this article really doesn't say anything we didn't already know.

At least compare two cars who's design had performance influence. This would be like comparing a 1987 Brougham to a 2011 Cobalt for interior comfort. You can compare them, but why? We already know which is more comfortable: the one that was built with comfort specifically in mind.

Hopefully, they redo this when the GS comes out. With both cars being designed with similar intentions in mind, it might be a little more interesting.

I know that the 3.8 lived on for quite a number of years, but in reference to the "this won't even beat an 8 second 3800 N/A", there's no way my '88 Delta could even come close to an 8 second 0-60, even in it's prime years. It was thirstier than this 2.0 turbo as well.

Stingroo
01-21-11, 09:08 AM
I think they were referring to the later Series II models. I don't have many memories of driving a Series I 3800 (I was 14 when we sold my mom's '92 PA.. and the one we have now is far from 100% condition). I can say I distinctly remember the Olds feeling faster (and much more stable and sure of itself too...)

But yeah. I'll hold out for a GS comparison - but no matter what I'd still take the GN. Everything's better in black (or orange :thumbsup:)

Florian
01-21-11, 01:37 PM
are you surprised?

F

Rolex
01-21-11, 05:18 PM
I used to drool over those GNs when I was in high school. I think their boxy styling and black finish is still dang sexy. It's a cherry on top that those little cars can still whip most of the modern day muscle offerings. Very cool. IU've give my left eye for a cherry 87' GNX. :drool:

V-Eight
01-21-11, 05:40 PM
I used to drool over those GNs when I was in high school. I think their boxy styling and black finish is still dang sexy. It's a cherry on top that those little cars can still whip most of the modern day muscle offerings. Very cool. IU've give my left eye for a cherry 87' GNX. :drool:

:yeah:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-21-11, 06:36 PM
I know that the 3.8 lived on for quite a number of years, but in reference to the "this won't even beat an 8 second 3800 N/A", there's no way my '88 Delta could even come close to an 8 second 0-60, even in it's prime years. It was thirstier than this 2.0 turbo as well.

You must have missed the part where I said the "naturally aspirated series II 3800". Big difference in power there. 195-205hp v. 165 in your '88. I seem to remember Rick running his '89 Delta Eighty Eight at a local 1/4 mile track and coming up with like a 16.8, which wasn't too bad for 1988.

Aron9000
01-22-11, 12:57 AM
You must have missed the part where I said the "naturally aspirated series II 3800". Big difference in power there. 195-205hp v. 165 in your '88. I seem to remember Rick running his '89 Delta Eighty Eight at a local 1/4 mile track and coming up with like a 16.8, which wasn't too bad for 1988.

I think my 91 Regal was rated at 170hp. I'd imagine a mid 16 second quarter mile doable, since this was the lightest car they sold with the 3800. Pretty silly when the new Regal does it in 16.1, still a few ticks faster but the road test said the car would not leave the line with any sort of haste, something my old car was pretty good at.

My point is we got all this fancy turbocharged, DOCH, aluminum wonder 4 cylinder under the hood and its a DOG AND THIRSTY. 18 city/29 highway, my old car was rated at 17 city/26 highway, ran on regular gas, the new Regal is premium.

Anyways, I just think this is the wrong application for this turbo 4 motor, its in a car that is way too heavy and makes it a turd. If they would only put in the turbo 4 from a Cobalt SS, that was 2.4L displacement, 260hp, 260lb-ft torque, and those cars would straight up fly(13 second quarter mile et)

EDIT: I'd also imagine a tune alone on this turbocharged Regal would make it drive like a totally different car. Up the boost slightly to get another 50 hp, remove torque management, change the shift points, and you'd probably knock a second off your quarter mile et. It would probably drive like it was supposed to from the factoyr.

gdwriter
01-22-11, 10:28 PM
My point is we got all this fancy turbocharged, DOCH, aluminum wonder 4 cylinder under the hood and its a DOG AND THIRSTY. 18 city/29 highway, my old car was rated at 17 city/26 highway, ran on regular gas, the new Regal is premium.Hell, I can get mileage as good on regular with my Seville. And it's certainly not a dog when I hoon on it.

orconn
01-23-11, 02:39 PM
When I drove my wife's 1997 Buick Regal LS (naturally aspirated, but otherwise with all the goodies of the GS) on a trip to Illinois from Virginia and back over both two lane mountain roads in West Virginia and freeways in the flat lands I got 34 mmiles per gallon on the interstate sections and 30 mpg overall. In daily use around congested Northern Virginia (NOVA) the car turned in 18 mpg on a regular basis. With the 3.8 V-6 non turbocharged the car certainly had adequate acceleration for all types of driving encountered on the trip and certainly for every day driving around NOVA.

My 1995 Seville STS turn in MPG od 28 on the open road all the time and 16 to 18 in day to day driving around Richmond. Compared to the figures I am seeing for the new generation of I-4s and V-6s I am not impressed with their fuel efficiency. I realize that these new cars are significantly heavier that the '90's generation cars and I am afraid the weight issue will continue to plague the new cars were are offered.

Aron9000
01-24-11, 12:49 AM
When I drove my wife's 1997 Buick Regal LS (naturally aspirated, but otherwise with all the goodies of the GS) on a trip to Illinois from Virginia and back over both two lane mountain roads in West Virginia and freeways in the flat lands I got 34 mmiles per gallon on the interstate sections and 30 mpg overall. In daily use around congested Northern Virginia (NOVA) the car turned in 18 mpg on a regular basis. With the 3.8 V-6 non turbocharged the car certainly had adequate acceleration for all types of driving encountered on the trip and certainly for every day driving around NOVA.

My 1995 Seville STS turn in MPG od 28 on the open road all the time and 16 to 18 in day to day driving around Richmond. Compared to the figures I am seeing for the new generation of I-4s and V-6s I am not impressed with their fuel efficiency. I realize that these new cars are significantly heavier that the '90's generation cars and I am afraid the weight issue will continue to plague the new cars were are offered.

That is the big issue right now is weight. Kind of sad how the Regal from 14 years ago has better mpg's, acceleration, and its the same size car. I googled the weights, 1997~3472lb+, 2011 3671lbs. So not THAT much of a difference, but none the less it is 200lbs more.

Anyways, I hope GM introduces a honest to goodness performance variant, as right now this looks like the old GM with the Catera, good idea, not well executed.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-24-11, 11:15 PM
Wow! I didn't know the new Regal was heavier than mine, which is especially weird considering mine is longer, wider and with a much larger iron V6.

hueterm
01-25-11, 01:03 PM
Isn't the new Camaro like 4000 lbs?

orconn
01-25-11, 01:13 PM
Isn't the new Camaro like 4000 lbs?

Yeah, that's why it has to have 400 hp just to get some groceries and not embarass its' owner at the local burger joint!

DouglasJRizzo
01-25-11, 08:33 PM
Every GN/GNX I've ever come across was a clattering wreck. I think that as time goes by, there will be fewer and fewer prime examples. I've been behind them watching the familiar blue haze waft from the pipes. Too bad, I really liked those things when they were new. Much better than the Monte SS/GrandPrix2+2/Olds442 cars. IMHO anyway..