you got to pay to play, and my truck hates the heat too I was runnin 14.1 a few weeks ago the temps were around 90, you got to wait till the weather is in the mid to low 60's.

 

my 89 ta ran 13.04@104 bone stock, they are not slow

 

you do realize that A: a 13.04 would be at a faster speed than 104mph and B: that the 20th anniversary Turbo Trans Am ran at 14.2 seconds and it was quicker than the V8 ones in 0-60 and also 1/4 mile right? going from a 14.0 to a 13.04 is more than a 3mph difference. OR that would mean your 0-60 was way quicker than mine and slowed down or that it is quicker at higher speeds than mine. my trans am was rated 5.6 to 60mph, i clocked it at 5.8 with a stopwatch. you would have to be at the 5 seconds flat area to get a 13 in the 1/4. and with you having at least 50hp less than mine, i dont see it. the most a non-LT1 350 produced was 235hp in 1992 and it was less than that in 89. i think it was 225. sorry man but im calling you out on that 1/4 time and speed.

 

but if you own a TTA, then i take back what i said because their are a lot of differences between cars, whether it be a little off on the turbo pressure or whatever. i have heard of them dropping almost 1 second just from the turbo being 1psi more than usual. so to be clear, calling you out if you have a 5.7L, not calling you out if you have the 3.8L. and IF you have a 5.0L, tell me where you live or your phone number so i can personally laugh at you for even trying to say a stock 5.0L ran that 1/4mile time

 

yeah, well now I'm moving to Colorado Springs in the next few months and there's a NHRA 1/4 mile track 30min from my house!!!! This time I'll actually empty the bed of the truck and step on the gas instead of rolling into the throttle. Granted the air is thinner so I'll loose a bit of power but I'm curious to see how much and if it's too much I can get a smaller pulley and still be good on fuel since I have plenty duty cycle left.

 

dude, bone stock my tta laid down a 13.04@104 back in 89 on the stock gatorbacks that are still on it, btw-last trip i took to strip was a 11.20 @ 121,call me out?make it worth my while pal-i'll put the deed to my 5 br ranch which sits on 5 acres,with separate 5 car detached garage on it,you want to call me out on my 10.07 @ 137 run on my cbr too?

 

btw-no its not stock,all bolt ons so i can retyrn it too stock,has 4997 miles on odometer,original owner, just reread post -didn't catch part you weren't calling me out on 3.8,fyi was really a souped up gnx motor, also made more rwhp than vette that yr-only listed as 255 so it was the same aschevy's flaghip-corvette that year,mine put down ~295 rwhp off the showroom floor

 

wow. dude, do you know how to read? first you told me your "bone stock" 89 t/a ran a 13.04@104. which is the part i am calling you out on. then i said "to be clear....if you have 5.7L i am calling you out, if you have a TTA, i am not calling you out....
and i know what the TTA has in it. didnt you see the part where i put 3.8L? anyone who didnt know that a TTA existed would say something like "the 3.8L wasnt put in until the 2nd half of the 1995 model year." but now you are saying it is a TTA, first you said "TA" which is completely different. then you gotta say you ran all these fast times and that you have a big house and garage so i should believe you. maybe people would believe you if you could get your story straight. i dont see how you have the money to have a 5 acre yard with a big house and 5 car garage if you cant even comprehend things you read. are you sure your "big house and garage" isnt made by MATTEL? (by the way...they are the ones who make hotwheels cars....in case you didnt know)

 

dude. just stop typing...i bet your eyes are brown...from how full of crap you are. the GNX was rated at 250hp, and they bumped it up to 276hp in the TTA, and they ran 0-60 in 5.1 seconds and a 1/4 time of 14.2 seconds. dont see how a 276hp at the crank is putting down 295 at the rear wheels. maybe getting 295 NOW with the bolt-ons you say you have on it. but dude, IF you had a TTA, you would say a TTA. its one of those cars you dont forget to tell exactly what it is because it is so rare. its like if you had a dodge ram SRT-10 and someone asked you what it is and you just reply "its a dodge ram." if you have something that special, you say TTA, you dont just say you have a TA.
and yes the TTA was quicker than the vette that year and actually it had the quickest 0-60 time in a trans am until 1998 got to 60 in 5.1 and a 1998 had an LS1 with 305hp but also ran the 1/4 in 13.4 seonds. see the difference? mine was 285hp and 0-60 in 5.8, and 14.0 in the 1/4, but the 98 TA with an added 20hp gets to 60 in .6 seconds less and also runs the 1/4 in .6 seconds less than mine did.

 

lol-it is titled as a trans am -basically a 2oth annivrsarry with tta badging, the part of the story of the house and land is true-i own my own successful hvac company,btw ,you will see in my follow up post the part where i didn't catch the part you were calling me out on, by the way it was rated at 255 at the crank, funny how they have that listed in the brochure huh?you read too much into magazines results, old 5.0 mustangs would range over 1 second differences in their 1/4 mile times, guess you are gonna tell me that sam kinison didn't die in a turbo ta either?don't tell me how rare they are unless you know numbers,oh btw- what was the rarest turbo ta?second rarest? total number made? please educate me with your knowledge- what was dfference that gnx had over gn in 87, now redeem yourself- what was difference that the 3.8 in the 89 turbo ta had over 87 gnx??????i cee you live in pa as well, put your title or deed where you claims are...now it isnt stock, but it was off the shwroom floor when it ran the 13.04

 

funny i was reading in one of your posts on synthetic vs conventional oil, how you publically state that you :"are not mechanically inclined",now it all makes sense why you publish and believe magazine hp ratings and 1/4 mile times, lol

 

wow, so you have to do a backround check on people now? and being mechanically inclined means knowing how to fix things or make things. like for instance, i dont know how to put a turbo on a vehicle. that is considered "not mechanically inclined". and it wasnt really magazines i got my figures from. it was pontiac, you know...the company that made your car...and also from other people who own them and have posted track times. and you still didnt tell me how your apparent 255hp(like it says in your brochure) made 295 at the wheels off the showroom floor. and thats even before your engine was broken-in. and i'm glad you can read your brochure by the way, but since you couldnt comprehend my posts before, i dont see how you are able to comprehend your brochure..dont worry, im sure your kids will be sharp as tacks since the brains usually skip a generation. trust me, 82+ f-bodies are the cars you dont want to argue with me about.

 

funny how my trans am was titled as a firebird, since that is the model of the car, trans am is basically a package level of the firebird. like base, then formula, then trans am...and i have no clue who sam kinison is.. and the rarest turbo T/A were the convertables and i know there was some that had either a different color interior or something with them. not exactly sure but it had a few options put together that most didnt have or only had one or a few of the options. all TTAs were white with tan interior except the leather optioned ones. i honestly dont know the difference between the GN and the GNX because i never really cared to know. all i know is they were the turbocharged 3.8L engines and that they had less hp because pontiac had to modify the engines when they put them in the TTA. but im sure you already know all this stuff because you read your brochure. and by the way, car companies usually underrate their cars for insurance purposes especially in sports cars. look it up. that is where i got the 276hp from. it is the actual most common rating. like i said before, all of the TTAs are not the same in power, the turbo could run above or below what they are supposed to so a little more or less power output would happen. i have a buddy who has 2 TTAs and he said one runs at 1 PSI more then the other one and always has.
oh by the way, what all did you get with your TTA when you bought it, since you are the original owner. im sure you can remember since you can remember your exact, ahem fake ahem, 1/4 time and speed from 1989. i will know if you are lying

 

what a stupid ***-they had more than the gnxs and u still can't tell me why,fake ahem huh?funny there are two people in life-those who work for people and those who have people work for them,hence the reason driving a plain jane v-6,the reason i can put up stuff in a bet is-1 i'm right and 2-all i have is paid for, all hail to u mr 82-89 f body man, you know so much about the 80 cars but not sam kinison?special keychain, leather owners manual,certified letter from pas, windshield and door stickers,cassette tape,

 

You both make me laugh. I can see some inconsistency from both but timmy, your not winning this battle. You read way too much and what you hear from others, you need some hard data. The tta's didnt have a whole lot of hp but instead had a great amount of torque at a very low rpm. That helps alot on the top end push the car to a higher mph. Openclass, first you said 13.04, then 13.4. That makes a difference also. And im also curious how it made 295rwhp from the showroom. Could it be pushing more boost from something like a leaking wastegate? Really just curious.

Im only butting in because i am a big fan of turbo buicks mainly and it caught my attention.