obv not a real car guy........who the heck buys stuff like that and doesn't drive it?
What is never talked about is that
the other GM A-bodies with a 350 were comparatively as fast.
I was only speaking from seat of the pants experience. I never compared specs side by time.Care to elaborate with some supporting specs?
Having worked for Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and Buick at the time these were built, I would take a V8 Cutlass first, then a Grand Prix. I have rebuilt to many 231 V6's to ever want to see another one again.Care to elaborate with some supporting specs?
Do you think the Turbo V6 performance was overhyped?Having worked for Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and Buick at the time these were built, I would take a V8 Cutlass first, then a Grand Prix. I have rebuilt to many 231 V6's to ever want to see another one again.
[QUOTE="traintech55, I have rebuilt to many 231 V6's to ever want to see another one again.
At least those crappy C clip rear axles kept my children fed.Just like all GM stuff can be great, some great ideas but the reliability suffers because the bean counters want to save a buck. You can open a Summit catalog and there are pages and pages of stuff to buy to make your GM anything stronger and not break stuff, with Chrysler most of the stuff is overbuilt, 10-11-12" brakes when GM was using 9", c clip rears with crappy clips.
If everyone thinks they are shitty cars and poor performers, why are they collectable?
I agree with you, I would drive the 585 mile car once a year just to keep things moving. The other one I would drive the crap out of it.Now, were this me, I'd keep the low miles on the 585-mile car, and drive the other sparingly. I could not own a car like that and NOT drive it!
Turbo's + GM image machine worked good... the auto press seemed to like them. The again the 1983 Motor Trend Car of the year might tell you how smart those folks can be...If everyone thinks they are shitty cars and poor performers, why are they collectable?