Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regals are riddled with faults. Transmission and sensor problems were natural occurrences with them. Head gaskets were a must when you really needed to depend on the car. Regals are junk. EW
I see you are obviously still stuck in 1988, as that's how old all of your info is.
Re-read my previous post. If you know what you are doing you don't need head gaskets to be dependable. Most of the electrical issues have been dealt with by now. Transmissions hold up fine unless you don't have the TV cable adjusted right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustPassinThru
I purchased a '79 in Oct '78 and it was powerful for exactly 2000 miles. It seemes that after an oil change, when the engine was started to drive the car off the rack, the turbo was dry and burned up. Detroit notified the dealers to disconnect the wiring, run the engine for a minute to circulate the oil, and then connect the turbo. I don't know how many dealers followed this procedure.
Sounds more like the turbo wasn't getting any oil and seized up. Why they said to "disconnect turbo" is beyond me. The best I've heard is to unplug the ECM wire and crank the engine for a few minutes to get oil in the turbo, but others have claimed of not doing this with good results. Of course IMO a good synthetic oil is a must for a turbo car. But I could understand the dissatisfaction with the company after trying to label it your fault.
I'm actually talking about Regals made from 1987 to 2004. Regals and Century's spent more time along side roads then any other vehicle. They were cheap and junk. EW
I'm actually talking about Regals made from 1987 to 2004. Regals and Century's spent more time along side roads then any other vehicle. They were cheap and junk. EW
Yes, they are all junk..
I own a 2004 Regal GS (supercharged 3.8L) and that car is reliable as can be, and is really fast for what it is. With minor mods (intake, pcm tune, smaller pully and exhaust) these cars will run low/mid 13's all day. Once you get into much of that, or do cam/head work, you are in danger of the trans going out though. Maybe thats what EW's talking about. I love having a comfortable, reliable car that can run with the Mustang/Camaros.
The Syclone is my dream truck though, and hopefully I'll have one in the not too distant future. GN's are awesome too though. Can't beat the sound of the turbo spooling. My S/C whine is up there in comparison though.. hehe.
I own a 2004 Regal GS (supercharged 3.8L) and that car is reliable as can be, and is really fast for what it is. With minor mods (intake, pcm tune, smaller pully and exhaust) these cars will run low/mid 13's all day. Once you get into much of that, or do cam/head work, you are in danger of the trans going out though. Maybe thats what EW's talking about. I love having a comfortable, reliable car that can run with the Mustang/Camaros.
The Syclone is my dream truck though, and hopefully I'll have one in the not too distant future. GN's are awesome too though. Can't beat the sound of the turbo spooling. My S/C whine is up there in comparison though.. hehe.
I bet driving a Regal you get a lot of old women wanting a ride to the super market in your pimped out Buick Regal that looks like something an old man would drive heading back to the old folks home. EW he he
Yeah, I just have that car to suprise all the 'muscle' cars and for the good ride quality. The ladies all love my other two trucks. One lowered truck and one lifted Jeep, and I can't keep them away. In reality though, I attract them, not my vehicles.. duh.
And no, EW, I won't take you for a ride to the supermarket. You'll have to ride your motorized cart. haha.
I'm actually talking about Regals made from 1987 to 2004. Regals and Century's spent more time along side roads then any other vehicle. They were cheap and junk. EW
I had a '00 Buick Regal Grand Sport with the Supercharger and it ran great.
It still gets top ratings from Consumer Reports as a Best Bet for reliable used cars too.
No, I actually own one, it's the little brother to the GN (Turbo T) and just wanted to see if anyone else has one or has had one.
I like mine and wouldn't mind having another. As I recall those cars were the american dominance in the 80's....not even the Corvettes could touch them.
Of course neither could the 5.0 Mustang or the Z28 Camaro.
I don't know if I'd agree that the 5.0 Mustang couldn't touch them. They were stout competitors for each other, and I used to love the rivalry. They were very similar, at least in the quarter mile.
I got into the 5.0's in about 1990, and still have one today. (500 rwhp black 1992 GT convertible with big brakes, 6-speed, Griggs suspension, etc.)
I used to have a 1990 coupe, and after I put a Vortech supercharger on it raced what I later found out was a pretty pumped up GN. I think he was more suprised that I beat him than I was that he kept very close. I was used to beating just about everything at that time with my blown 5.0.
I thought about getting a GN, but just didn't like the interior enough.
It's amazing how much technology has improved. You see four door 6 cylinder cars making more than 300 hp now. Amazing.
The Connecticut State Police used to have T-Types back in the late 80's. They were unmarked with stock GM colors and I'm sure they surprised more than one speeding motorist. Having owned a late 80's 5.0 Mustang, I know for a fact that in stock form, the Buick was very quick. No, I won't tell you how I know.
As for the "junk" comment, I would have to agree only in some aspects. Let's face it gang, GM body integrity and fit and finish quality was pretty bogus in the 70's and 80's. Raise your hand if a door handle or an inside door pull or switch came off in your hand. How many times did those doors have to be slammed because the door pins and bushings were junk (an why they continued to use them 20 years later). Never mind the squeeks and rattles. Even the early 90's didn't see much improvement. I would say that at least now GM is getting better. Still not great, but getting better. I don't think anyone would argue the performance and reliability of their drivetrains, but the cars were really sub-par. If you get 200k out of a GM car of that era, I'm willing to bet it's body is ready to fall off or every componant has been replaced.
I don't know if I'd agree that the 5.0 Mustang couldn't touch them. They were stout competitors for each other, and I used to love the rivalry. They were very similar, at least in the quarter mile.
Well I guess if you consider a stock GN ran 14 seconds and a stock 5.0 ran 15 seconds.....
Sure you can "soup up the 5.0" and it might have a chance, but then all you have to do is turn up the boost on a GN and watch them disappear.
Of course the T types were a little quicker than the GN due to being lighter, and the GNX was top dog of the trio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryfry
If you get 200k out of a GM car of that era, I'm willing to bet it's body is ready to fall off or every componant has been replaced.
My car has 216,000 miles, body is very sound, no rust, underbody is very sound, frame is good, the body mount bushings need replaced but that's typical of any 20 year old car unless it's been sheltered. It did receive a re paint in the 90's as the paints didn't last long.
Well I guess if you consider a stock GN ran 14 seconds and a stock 5.0 ran 15 seconds.....
Sure you can "soup up the 5.0" and it might have a chance, but then all you have to do is turn up the boost on a GN and watch them disappear.
Of course the T types were a little quicker than the GN due to being lighter, and the GNX was top dog of the trio.
Wierd, my post posted, then disappeared.
If you read that stock Mustangs ran 15 seconds, then you were reading what Car and Driver ran a stock Mustang GT auto. Anyone who could drive could get the 5-speed coupes easily into the 13's. And, there was some free hp available by a little bit more timing and removing some intake restrictions.
And the soup up comment doesn't hold any water. If you take a V8 and a V6 and put a blower or a turbo on either one, which one do you think will go faster? I know alot of guys with Fox Mustangs that are running 9's with street cars. There are Mustangs and GN's running alot faster when you get into money cars (pro drag racing), but it's harder to hop up a V6 than it is a V8.
My convertible passes CA smog, is set up for handling, idles, doesn't overheat sitting in traffic, and still runs mid-11's. The only thing holding me back from more power is the block. There is alot of potential there.
But, I love the GN's and would still love to pick one up one day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
