Re: looks like it is sad. It looks sad?? I know what looks more sad. The fact that you're end comments or "mottos" are sexual, durogatory, and compensating for immaturity or self-want. Face it.
Re: looks like it is sad. It looks like a mime, lol. It's thinking,"Help I'm trapped in a box!!!" <!-- Signature -->
230 hp stock <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"><!-- Signature -->
you fools! look at the year , its a '86! thats a lot of horse power for back then. cars still sucked because of that shit that happened in the 70's that killed off muscle cars <!-- Signature -->
345 hp in 1986 is not a bad figure, considering how crappy most engines were back then<!-- Signature -->
This corvette is bunk. I dont care if its a 86 or a 96 its only got 345 horse with a twin turbo V8.Maybe they should try NOS and see how many more horses they can pull out of that pig.
I'm not sure why a twin turbo would have so little HP. That is strange. Could it be a way for the HP to seem low for insurance reasons?
First off all the stock 85-90 corvettes ran 0 to 60 in 5.5 seconds witch is hardly slow for that time or even our time! second of all the stats on this car is way off so be ware of the sleeping giant. Coupe 191.5 mph - 308.2 kph Convertible 176.2 mph - 283.6 kph 0 - 60 mph 4.44 s 0 - 100 mph 10.50 s Standing 1/4 mile 12.77 s @ 113.1 mph http://www.callawaycars.com/Corvette/TwinTurbo/twinturbospecs.htm i have even seen numbers much lower than that. Now that i have cleared that up i just wantted to say you are correct the stock corvette was still rather slow for a V8 how-ever if you gut out the catalistic converters the numbers will sky rocket into the 4's
<!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from NOS inhaler</i> <b>This corvette is bunk. I dont care if its a 86 or a 96 its only got 345 horse with a twin turbo V8.Maybe they should try NOS and see how many more horses they can pull out of that pig.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE --> oh and #$%# something up in the process b/c the motor cant handle it yeah y didnt i think of that
Stock GN faster A stock Buick Grand National is just as fast a this if not faster. The GN has a single turbo V-6. I'll try to find some more info on the GN.<!-- Signature -->
Re: Stock GN faster Yes and No. I own both, a Callaway Twin Turbo Corvette (91# 26) as well as an 87 GNX (#254). While off the line yes the Buick is faster since its an automatic, etc, but it has no top end compared to the Callaway. The Callaway is not as fas off the line but by the time you reach 60 you caught up and there is no comparison past 100 MPH. See my GNX @ http://www.employees.org/~luigi/Buicks.htm and my Callaway @ http://www.corvetteforum.net/c4/luigi
Re: Stock GN faster That's pretty cool that you own both of them, I wish I could have a GNX let alone a GN [edit]Man, this thread is old, I was a n00b when I made it[/edit]<!-- Signature -->
Re: Stock GN faster dude u must not be able to drive a stick if u think the auto makes your gn better off the line.. thats all i have to say, this is is a stupid thread cause the corvette will KILL GN's