92 Grand Am Shootout (article)

[Matt95GT]

"Similar But Not Matching"
By Sue Elliott
High Performance Pontiac
8/1992

http://fazeshift.org/pics/albums/userpics/92GAshootout/page44.jpg

http://fazeshift.org/pics/albums/userpics/92GAshootout/page45.jpg

http://fazeshift.org/pics/albums/userpics/92GAshootout/page46.jpg

http://fazeshift.org/pics/albums/userpics/92GAshootout/page47.jpg

[MantaGreen97]

Wow, nice of you to post that Matt!

Though the numbers do look a little slow... I thought the 92-95 with the Quad and the manual did the 0-60 in 7.4s or around there... 9.8s is a far way fromt that. Just from memory, I thought it was the quickest production GA ever, with the 99+ GT being around 7.7s 0-60 IIRC... I have no 1/4 mile times in my head at all but 16.6 @ 83.5 for the Quad + 5 spd seems slow to me too :???:

Edit: Also funny how they considered the disc/drum brake setup to yeild "absolutely remarkable" stopping distances :???: Weird. I guess it wasn't bad for 1992 though. But considering the same braking system was in use some 6 years later I doubt a 98 GA would get the same comment. Also strange is the 55-0 stop test. Usually it is 80-0 or something like that, in most publications...

[Prospeeder]

Thought those times were WAY to slow for sure. 9.8 seconds? I thought they did them int he 7's and quarter miles in 15's. The 3.3 Im not too surprised, 17 second 1/4 sounds about right, but i would think it was faster than my 1.6 Mazda 323, wich is advratised to do 60 in 10 seconds

[Matt95GT]

Yes, the times are really slow. Both cars should show better numbers. The article mentions high altitude track, and I'm betting temp/humidity weren't ideal either. I've run both a 94 HO (170 HP) and 95 LD2 (150 HP) in near-stock form... both hit 15's.

My thoughts on the article:
-Numbers aren't exactly a good benchmark, but valid to compare the 2.
-The difference in engine types (low-RPM torque vs high-revving power) was addressed.
-Those burnout pics really need to be in color.
-Good to see the suspensions were mentioned as well.
-Yet even more potential GTO based on N-body talk back then... apparently that idea was around for some time. I've seen mentions from the late 80's all the way to the original SC/T concept make references to a GTO.
-I think they are a bit confused about what "true dual exhaust" means.
-I'd buy a new one right now for $17,110. :drool:
-The passenger airbag prediction for 94 was wrong. (...thankfully. I like my dual gloveboxes)
-Weight is one of the first things to come up in a V6 vs Quad 4 debate, yet in reality the weight difference is negligible, as the article shows.

Overall, good article. Other than the poor numbers all around for 1/4 mile & 0-60, the results are about what I expected.

[goredsox]

When the cars are broken in more they will run better time, in all the car mags the do new and 40,000 tests, the 40,000 mile tests always run a tad quicker.

My 2 door SE 3300, can do 0-60 in the low 9's, dont know about the quarter mile though...

[goredsox]

thats expensive 17K, mine only ran in the mid 13K

[goredsox]

scratch that mine cost mid 16's :lol:

[Prospeeder]

Not to mention the color of those cars and the wheel combonation is amazing, i know id buy one

[mrjoecanadian]

Thanks for posting that, now I gotta print it.