Bigger engine for BS

[sajohnson]

Wouldn't be the first time.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a23739443/buick-regal-grand-national-gnx-history/

Quotes from the article:

"C/D clocked a 4.9-second zero-to-60-mph run, quicker than a contemporary Corvette, most U.S.-market Ferraris, and even the Lamborghini Countach. Its quarter-mile was also impressive at 13.9 seconds. But C/D's tech team calculated that the test car's engine was actually pumping out something like 290 horses versus the advertised 235, so it may have been tweaked by Buick engineers."

That could mean, "All Grand Nationals actually have 290 hp, and they are all downrated to 235", or, "All Grand Nationals have 235 hp, as claimed, but the 'press car' was tweaked to around 290."

Regardless, in my decades of subscribing to the 3 big car mags, I have read several times about hp/torque being downrated, supposedly for insurance reasons. I'm not familiar with the law regarding those claims, but perhaps it's only exaggerating the numbers that's illegal.

"When the program finally was approved and development completed, some of the dealers who got GNXs chose to keep them, while others charged premiums of as much as $20,000 over their $29,290 sticker (which was already $10,995 over the $18,295 list for a fully optioned '87 Grand National). One reportedly sold for $75,000."

I was ready to buy a GN back then but ADM reared it's ugly head. It ended up having quite a few problems, so I was glad I didn't buy one.

Sponsored

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

Perhaps different sources of info for the 2.0L EcoBoost

Mark S stated:
245 hp @ 6000 rpm,
277 lb-ft torque at 3000 rpm

Documentation for my ‘22 Badlands:
250HP @ 5,500 RPM, (186.5 kW | 254 PS)
277ft-lbs Torque @ 3,000 RPM

FWIW the 250 HP@5,500 RPM and 277 lb.ft Torque @3,000 RPM Ratings is based on Premium Fuel.

 

[Mark S.]

Perhaps different sources of info for the 2.0L EcoBoost

Mark S stated:
245 hp @ 6000 rpm,
277 lb-ft torque at 3000 rpm

Documentation for my ‘22 Badlands:
250HP @ 5,500 RPM, (186.5 kW | 254 PS)
277ft-lbs Torque @ 3,000 RPM

Many automotive news outlets report 245; I don't know why. Did Ford bump the numbers for later MYs? As of right now, Ford claims 250 in its marketing material.

 

[Mark S.]

Regardless, in my decades of subscribing to the 3 big car mags, I have read several times about hp/torque being downrated, supposedly for insurance reasons. I'm not familiar with the law regarding those claims, but perhaps it's only exaggerating the numbers that's illegal.

I used to read C&D magazine religiously before the internet. I don't have time to read a magazine cover-to-cover these days. I remember the prevailing opinion among the writers regarding the disparity between the published horsepower numbers and measured performance for the Buick Regal Grand National was that it had to do with marketing. To wit: Chevrolet demanded that Buick NOT publish the actual engine power figures because they far exceeded the Corvette's engine power figures. This was the first hint to many that the old adage "there is no replacement for displacement" may not be so cut and dried.

The image below came from a late-80s edition of Motor Trend. Corvettes of the time sported 5.7L V8s making fewer ponies than the 2.0L engines in our Badlands (240 hp if I recall), and were totally incapable of smoking the tires like this. I'm pretty sure images like this pissed off a lot of higher-ups in the GM corporation.

 

[sajohnson]

FWIW the 250 HP@5,500 RPM and 277 lb.ft Torque @3,000 RPM Ratings is based on Premium Fuel.

That's helpful, thanks!

I just did a search and almost every BS BL review, regardless of year, said 250/277.

MT did too, but they have a small asterisk [*]:

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2021-ford-bronco-sport-badlands-first-test-review/

One review says 245/275:

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2021/12/2021-ford-bronco-sport-badlands-review-the-little-suv-that-can/

No explanation, but I noticed they said the prices they listed are Canadian. So then I searched for the Canadian BS BL specs, and sure enough, 245/275:

https://www.canadadrives.ca/blog/car-guide/2021-ford-bronco-sport-review

Mystery solved!

 

[BourbonRunner]

Seriously, a very lightweight, brick-shaped object like a BS probably cannot safely manage more HP/torque than the 2.0 already provides. I’d imagine things get slippery quickly.

I'd be willing to give it a go. For science.

"C/D clocked a 4.9-second zero-to-60-mph run, quicker than a contemporary Corvette, most U.S.-market Ferraris, and even the Lamborghini Countach. Its quarter-mile was also impressive at 13.9 seconds. But C/D's tech team calculated that the test car's engine was actually pumping out something like 290 horses versus the advertised 235, so it may have been tweaked by Buick engineers."

That could mean, "All Grand Nationals actually have 290 hp, and they are all downrated to 235", or, "All Grand Nationals have 235 hp, as claimed, but the 'press car' was tweaked to around 290."

I was going to mention the infamous GN downgrade but you beat me to it. Buick certainly downgraded the GN's stats because, as Mark write below, the Corvette (and Camaro) engineers were PISSED. (Pontiac also did similar with the Firebird. Can't upset the bowtie boys!)

To wit: Chevrolet demanded that Buick NOT publish the actual engine power figures because they far exceeded the Corvette's engine power figures. This was the first hint to many that the old adage "there is no replacement for displacement" may not be so cut and dried.

The image below came from a late-80s edition of Motor Trend. Corvettes of the time sported 5.7L V8s making fewer ponies than the 2.0L engines in our Badlands (240 hp if I recall), and were totally incapable of smoking the tires like this. I'm pretty sure images like this pissed off a lot of higher-ups in the GM corporation.

Having had more than a few 1/4 mile rides in a worked over GN, that pic above is pretty much how they came off the showroom floor.

Buick was not supposed to have a fire breathing muscle car in the Malaise Era, even though it had the NASCAR wins to justify a "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" model. It wasn't in the GM corporate plans and certainly not during the advent of the catalytic converter and smog pumps. But some clever engineers in Detroit figured even if GM wouldn't give Buick a hi-po V8 they could play around with forced induction and not anger the C-suite.

But the best part of the whole story: the turbo V6 came out of a Boy Scout's project at Buick in the early 70's.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a23739443/buick-regal-grand-national-gnx-history/

Guess the answer is Canadian’s can’t handle the extra 5HP ?

Sohhhry Canada. You're just too polite for the excessive 5 whole extra ponies

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

I used to read C&D magazine religiously before the internet. I don't have time to read a magazine cover-to-cover these days. I remember the prevailing opinion among the writers regarding the disparity between the published horsepower numbers and measured performance for the Buick Regal Grand National was that it had to do with marketing. To wit: Chevrolet demanded that Buick NOT publish the actual engine power figures because they far exceeded the Corvette's engine power figures. This was the first hint to many that the old adage "there is no replacement for displacement" may not be so cut and dried.

The image below came from a late-80s edition of Motor Trend. Corvettes of the time sported 5.7L V8s making fewer ponies than the 2.0L engines in our Badlands (240 hp if I recall), and were totally incapable of smoking the tires like this. I'm pretty sure images like this pissed off a lot of higher-ups in the GM corporation.

I remember those GN's at Thompson Raceway and when in the burnout box the tires wouldn't start spinning until the Boost came in.

 

[BourbonRunner]

I remember those GN's at Thompson Raceway and when in the burnout box the tires wouldn't start spinning until the Boost came in.

One of my friends in high school's dad was a rich redneck gearhead. You know the type- contractor, owns his own business and has lots of fun toys. A mid-60's tri-power GTO owned since new, Harley's, boats, sea doos, big house with a swimming pool, etc. Mr Scott was one hell of a guy. His two sons worked for him and had a succession of built TransAms, Fox Body Mustangs, and so on... his daughter's first car was a lightly used low mile 3000GT VR4.

But the one car he had that was just plain ignorantly nuts was his worked over Grand National. I have no idea to this day what was done to it but it was FAST.

Many nights were spent trailing that thing as Mr Scott hunted for "10 second bullshitters" around town. And every time, that fire breathing turbo V6 would trounce that "10 second bullshitter" like it was nothing. Good times.

 

[69cuda340s]

One of my friends in high school's dad was a rich redneck gearhead. You know the type- contractor, owns his own business and has lots of fun toys. A mid-60's tri-power GTO owned since new, Harley's, boats, sea doos, big house with a swimming pool, etc. Mr Scott was one hell of a guy. His two sons worked for him and had a succession of built TransAms, Fox Body Mustangs, and so on... his daughter's first car was a lightly used low mile 3000GT VR4.

But the one car he had that was just plain ignorantly nuts was his worked over Grand National. I have no idea to this day what was done to it but it was FAST.

Many nights were spent trailing that thing as Mr Scott hunted for "10 second bullshitters" around town. And every time, that fire breathing turbo V6 would trounce that "10 second bullshitter" like it was nothing. Good times.

Back in '80s guy in neighborhood had a GN with wastegate actuator, down pipe, colder thermostat. Ran 12s in 1/4 mile on street tires. Guy ask me wanna go for a ride? Sure, so he power brakes it at red light light turns green sounded like a fighter jet sideways across intersection pinning me in seat. Crazy only those three mods. Had another buddy bone stock '86 GN ran 14.4 1/4 mile which was typical unless you knew how to drive them ice down intakes ect then one could knock 1/2 second off the ET. Fun times.

Dealers had the GNs on the lots but they were all marked up dealers were asses they were happy to sit on them. I bought a 5.0 5 spd LX conv instead which I still own.

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

Back in '80s guy in neighborhood had a GN with wastegate actuator, down pipe, colder thermostat. Ran 12s in 1/4 mile on street tires. Guy ask me wanna go for a ride? Sure, so he power brakes it at red light light turns green sounded like a fighter jet sideways across intersection pinning me in seat. Crazy only those three mods. Had another buddy bone stock '86 GN ran 14.4 1/4 mile which was typical unless you knew how to drive them ice down intakes ect then one could knock 1/2 second off the ET. Fun times.

Dealers had the GNs on the lots but they were all marked up dealers were asses they were happy to sit on them. I bought a 5.0 5 spd LX conv instead which I still own.

Post some pictures of the 5.0 5 speed LX conv.

 

[Bucko]

I used to read C&D magazine religiously before the internet. I don't have time to read a magazine cover-to-cover these days. I remember the prevailing opinion among the writers regarding the disparity between the published horsepower numbers and measured performance for the Buick Regal Grand National was that it had to do with marketing. To wit: Chevrolet demanded that Buick NOT publish the actual engine power figures because they far exceeded the Corvette's engine power figures. This was the first hint to many that the old adage "there is no replacement for displacement" may not be so cut and dried.

The image below came from a late-80s edition of Motor Trend. Corvettes of the time sported 5.7L V8s making fewer ponies than the 2.0L engines in our Badlands (240 hp if I recall), and were totally incapable of smoking the tires like this. I'm pretty sure images like this pissed off a lot of higher-ups in the GM corporation.

I recall seeing one of these in a Pontiac/Buick showroom when I had a Trans Am. Looking at the sticker, I wondered who in their right mind would pay the sticker price ($36K I believe) for a V6 Turbo?

Boy, was I soooooo wrong!

 

[69cuda340s]

Post some pictures of the 5.0 5 speed LX conv.

These are all fairly recent. It original paint/top/interior. Car was dealer stock fall of '87 they wanted it gone cause winter was coming.

 

[Escape2Bronco]

Interesting. My 1995 Lightning was rated at 240hp. Pretty much no comparison to the 250hp BS. The Lightning would press you into the seat with the pedal floored. The BS is just fine but no where near the same feeling in the seat.

 

[Mark S.]

Interesting. My 1995 Lightning was rated at 240hp. Pretty much no comparison to the 250hp BS. The Lightning would press you into the seat with the pedal floored. The BS is just fine but no where near the same feeling in the seat.

Compare the torque numbers.

 

[Bucko]

While some of us (at least me) are crying over spilled milk, in 1985, I could have bought a Plymouth Superbird for 37K (this price was negotiable). I was afraid to ask my wife for that money.

I ended up buying a 1971 Chevy SS for 9 grand. She was still mad at me for several days.

Sponsored