Grand National VS Super Coupe

GLH

Javelin wrote:

belteshazzar wrote: this thread is too obvious. i propose a formal thread jack: GN vs. Turbo Mark III Supra

Still GN by three and half miles.

Have you ever driven a MKIII Supra? They are really underrated cars. I honestly don't think I could chose between the two if it wasn't for the fact that the MKIII is much cheaper. I'll admit I haven't driven a GN but I have driven a Regal T-Type Turbo which is very close to the same car I think.

Grand National.

Even if they do this on occasion:

Cotton wrote: not a fair fight at all.....GN is already a legend and a decent GNX is bringing 80-90k.

if you don't want to pay that, a turbo trans am is usually under $20k.

I am a Ford guy and still say, hands down GN, knife to a gun fight.

Ranger50 wrote: Grand National. Even if they do this on occasion:

That would make an awesome coffee table though.

I'm more interested in the motorcycle shown in the first picture than the red thing in the second.

Grand national

rebelgtp wrote: Alright going to take my first stab at a VS thread. I figure to help level the playing field at least power wise I would go with the Super Coupe instead of the Turbo Coupe when going up against the GN. Personally I think the GN has it in the bag, though I have seen some fast SCs out there.

The Super Coupe is a turd.

GNs are very, very fast luxury cars.

I used to go to Norwalk all the time. It'd be a constant parade of 8, 9, 10 second GNs.

Why is this even a question? What next? Escalade vs. Caterpillar backhoe?

Tom_Spangler wrote: The only good things about the MN12 platform are the IRS and the looks (though they aren't better than the GN).

Oh, let's be fair now. The T-bird IRS was junk, too.

And the cars rusted faster than you could say "Unibodysayswhat?"

GN

Ranger50 wrote: Grand National. Even if they do this on occasion:

Well, to be fair, you're still at the roughly 1000hp level when you get to that point.

Ranger50 wrote: Grand National. Even if they do this on occasion:

DAMN! I have never seen that happen, glad it wasn't my engine I think I would cry

I know it really wasn't a fair fight but come on we have a GM Supercharged V6 vs a Ford Supercharged V6...I knew the GN would be the winner here. I suppose I could have put Fox Body Mustang or one of the 90's Cobra Mustangs...

GN, or GNX I'd take either one

rebelgtp wrote:

Ranger50 wrote: Grand National. Even if they do this on occasion:

DAMN! I have never seen that happen, glad it wasn't my engine I think I would cry I know it really wasn't a fair fight but come on we have a GM Supercharged V6 vs a Ford Supercharged V6...I knew the GN would be the winner here. I suppose I could have put Fox Body Mustang or one of the 90's Cobra Mustangs...

GM Turbo V6, Ford Supercharged V6. One made out of spun glass, one made out of the pavement used in hell.

93EXCivic wrote:

Javelin wrote:

belteshazzar wrote: this thread is too obvious. i propose a formal thread jack: GN vs. Turbo Mark III Supra

Still GN by three and half miles.

Have you ever driven a MKIII Supra? They are really underrated cars. I honestly don't think I could chose between the two if it wasn't for the fact that the MKIII is much cheaper. I'll admit I haven't driven a GN but I have driven a Regal T-Type Turbo which is very close to the same car I think.

No but I've had both an MKII and MKIV Supra. I would take the GN over either. I can't imagine the MKIII being a better car than the MKIV.

Now an MKIV TT would give me pause. From the day I bought my NA I wished I had saved more money and bought a TT.

BTW there is a big difference between the t-type and the later intercooled GNs.

Stock GN blocks were used in Indy for years. Stock 3.8 Ford blocks blew headgaskets before boost. The GN was a turbocharged terror. The SC was an overweight pig.

No contest, GN is a black, sex-on-wheels mercenary.

Ranger50 wrote: Grand National. Even if they do this on occasion:

I was on the GN side before you posted this. Now I am even further on the GN side. That is a spectacular failure and a great story. "Yeah, I was putting down about 1200HP then the block split in two."

Supercoupe.

Supercoupe.

Supercoupe.

Why?

Yeah, the GN will take my car in a drag race, but mine looks better, handles better, and isn't exactly a slowpoke.

They're heavy, but not quite as heavy as people think. Stock, my 94 was ~3640. That's new Mustang GT territory, and people don't faint over the weight of that thing.

And let's be honest: the cars are designed as two very different things. One is made to go in a straight line very fast. The other is a budget grand tourer.

I don't care if I'm the one vote for the SC at the end of this thread. I still maintain it's the better car for everything but a drag race.

WWDVD?

(What would Darth Vader Drive?)

The GN of course!

Wow! Unanimous! I think the first one.

Can't buck the system. I agree with GN FTW.

Javelin wrote: Stock GN blocks were used in Indy for years.

The Stage II block is the one to get.

I have seen a Stage II with large chunks blown off of the bottom end welded back together and then proceed to live under 1200whp.

Why was it welded back together? You just can't get 'em anymore, and even a welded-up engine block kit is still stronger than the available options.

The 109 block is good to about 1000hp. Mind you, some of the limited class racers are getting to that point with unported heads, stock unported intake manifold, and stock unported turbo housings.

aussiesmg wrote: I am a Ford guy and still say, hands down GN, knife to a gun fight.

I agree 110%... Plus it's the only car the grim reaper personally endorses. If it's good enough for him, well...

You are all not giving the SC a chance or know little about them

So a stock mid 14 sec GN is quicker than a stock low 15 sec SC. I get it. But that is about the only thing a GN does better out of the box. I admittingly love the menacing look of a GN...But it handles like dog doody, brakes like dog doody, drives like dog doody (IT IS NOT A LUXURY VEHICLE BY ANY MEANS). Interior wise SC hands down..Youde have to be smoking some serious stuff if you thought otherwise

Engine wise the the stock SC motor is better as well. Power is instant, no lag, feels good. Steel crank, better aluminum heads, beefy block. The factory supercharger is an advantage for seat of the pants feel but ultimately is a bottleneck for overall numbers. That SC draws 75-100 hp. My 1994 SC stock 230/330, GN 245/255..Older 89 type SC I believe is 210/220 or something like that. I believe these numbers are correct but you get the idea. In todays standards..Not impressive for any of them

So ultimately in stock form the SC...Drives wonderfully around town, on the highway, is a hell of allot more comfortable, brakes better..has no lag but instant power(and can be had in 5 speed) however...3/4 of a second slower stock for stock vs a GN. And that makes the GN so much better?

Or are we saying the GN is so much better because in modded form its faster? We all know you can make anything fast..So exactly why the SC hostility...I have a feeling there is a little ignorance going on around here about not only stock but modded SC's.

And I didn't join here to troll but to defend my lovely mn12 platform. GN..pffftt