Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Fastest stock production truck on the planet

amoraamora Posts: 204
edited March 2014 in GMC
The 93 GMC Syclone 4.3 V6 with 3 psi Mitsubishi
turbo. Only thing faster was ZR1 CORVETTE...
Syclone was faster in acceleration, handling
than Testarossa, Nissan 300ZS, ACURA NX, Any
Ford past or present, Any import Porsche, Ferrari,
Lambo, Jag, Cobra 427. A modified production
S10 truck set bonneville speed record in 1990
at 203 mph with 4.3L V6.....$30,000 brand new....

Comments

  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    Or do you mean quickest? Those things are a terror but I believe they didn't go much faster than 130 or so with their low gearing and brick like shape. And my numbers may be off but I don't believe they would tow anything or had much of a payload. Very questionable that they were trucks. More like 4 wheel drive Buick Grand National. Don't forget the SUV version called the Typhoon.

    You're a little goofy in some of the cars you listed it would beat but it was a cool vehicle.
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    I did a search on them last year.I was looking for a performance vehicle.I found some for $17000 there were others for close to $40000.Ended up with a 99 lightning,became a total lunatic parking on the other side of lots at the mall, car cover at night,waxing every week.Truck was very quick but not much you can do with it but race from light to light.I was undefeated before I traded in for my F250,a little bummed I didn't wait the kelley blue book has them now worth over $30000 as a trade in.I only got $26000.There were no trade in values til early this year,traded in last Sept.Anyways you live and learn.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    ...well...it's not a truck, but I just bought a '96 Impala SS with only 17,000 miles on it and I had to tell someone. Great car! It has the LT-1 350 engine with stock 260 horsepower and 330 lb-ft of torque. Mine is suped up with headers, free-flow exhaust, cold-air intake, and hypertech powerprogrammer (with header module) bringing the horsepower to 309 and the torque to 367 (those are calculated flywheel numbers based on the rearwheel dyno measurements).

    I highly recommend this car for anyone who wants a comfortable sedan with phenomenal acceleration. The stock ones are also very powerful because of all that low-end torque. It also responds very well to bolt-on mods. It's also built like a truck (body on frame) and you can tow with them.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,054
    ever thought of adding a supercharger. I saw a '95 Black SS with one. Broke the tires loose with just a little throttle. Mighty awesome.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    I've heard bad things about superchargers on the LT-1's. The compression ratio is 10.0:1 on the Impala version (10.3:1 on Camaros/Firebirds, and 10.5:1 on Corvettes). That makes supercharging pretty hard on your engine unless you use racing fuel or lots of octane boost on top of premium fuel (both of which are expensive options). You can do some light supercharging (less than 5 psi boost), but it's still risky and with the low boost you only get about 20-30% power increase (depending on how good your intercooler is), less if the engine knock sensor retards your timing.
    That's still substantial, but a lot less than the 50% you can get with other engines. I wonder if the one you saw was modified to lower the compression ratio for the supercharger. I've heard of guys doing that.
    Honestly the torque that this engine has really is enough on it's own, especially now with the light mods. Together with the aftermarket 3.42 gears that the previous owner had put on, this 4200 lb car accelerates like it's a Chevy Cavalier with a big-block in it. You literally get pinned to your seat back.
    The best part about this car is that it's a practical performance car. Not too many of those on the planet. I'm looking forward to passing some BMW's, Audis, and Lexuses in my $22,000 "family sedan".
    -powerisfun
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    I test drove one of them also,pretty quick also big car backing into spot at dealer I bumped another car a little hard to judge especially after sitting high in a truck.I think the 96 is a collectores item because of the trans shift in center console rather on steering column like in 95.I'm not quite sure on this but I did read something like that.I have seen black,cherry,charcoal grey and a dark hunter green although I think the only factory colors were black and cherry.I'll probably start looking for a new summer toy soon wish I knew how to ride a motorcycle.I like the looks of the Harley buell.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    Yeah, I bought the '96 because of the floor shifter and the fact that it was the first year they put a tachometer in it (figure that one out..???). The official factory colors are: Black, Dark Cherry Metallic, and Dark Green/Gray Metallic. Mine is the Green/Gray which is the rarest color, but the prettiest in my opinion.
    The charcoal grey one you saw must have been a custom job. I bet it looked pretty good, though.
    Yeah, it will take some getting used to sitting low again with such a big brute of a car. If you're looking for a toy, you should pick up an older 5.0L Mustang. You can get them for pretty cheap and the aftermarket is tremendous. Projects are always funner than buying a car already done, anyways. You can have it be as fast as your old Lightning in no time. Just a thought.
  • amoraamora Posts: 204
    Technical data taken from COMPLETE GUIDE TO 1992
    MODELS TRUCK & VAN BUYER'S GUIDE, I did not
    make up the data about the imports.

    It went 0-60 4.9 sec 13.6 in 1/4

    Faster than L98 VETTE, PONTIAC 20TH ANNIV,
    PORSCHE CARRERA, LOTUS ESPRT TURBO, CAMARO IROC,
    PORSCHE 928GT, TESTAROSSA....It had limiter to
    125MPH due to tires, it had a 500lb wt rating,
    was all wheel drive, the brick shape had no effect
    on the 204.145 mph on Sept 14, 1990 two way average in the flying mile. The Buick Gran National had a Turbo 3.8L V6. A totally different engine. The GN would do 180 mph when equipped for
    DEA and moonshine law enforcement agencies. Your are right about TYPHOON. The 2 dr S10 Blazer SUV Vehicle sold poorly due to their $30,000 asking
    price in 1993.

    I have all the data, test reports, service manuals, maintenance records on laptop computer,
    vehicle registration, tags, receipt for after market add-ons, pink slip (took 3 years to get) $26,000 total cost incl finance charges.
    I have a photo of me lighting up all fours after
    30 PSI injectors were added and shift kit to
    tranny. I may be goofy re today's higher performing cars, but surely not goofy in cars of
    1993...Have not lost race yet. Not even to
    a fuly restored '70 hemi CUDA, of course it
    had lower compression engine due to non-availability of 105 Octane fuel. Oh, limiter
    was disabled with HYPERTECH programmer. I stayed
    with an SC SUPERCHARGED 3,8 V6 89 T-BIRD at 149MPH,
    Mustang GT fell back. Mustang 5.0 LS can do
    155MPH...Lexus and Infinity can do anhonest 150mph..........
  • RoclesRocles Posts: 985
    barlitz,

    Forget that Buell!! It is stocked with a crappy Sportster motor! Take it from a guy who owns three bikes in which one is a Harley--never buy one for performace or reliability! In fact, Buell issued a recall on ALL of their models from the past three years due to numerous problems.
    If you need an American ride--go for the Victory Sport. (Made by Polaris)
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    Your original topic was "fastest STOCK PRODUCTION truck..." Not modified. Stock with speed limiter, stock injectors, tranny etc. top speed, according to you, was 125. Not very FAST in my book. Quick, yes. Fast, no. I don't know a lot about G.M. except about my 502 for my boat but I've always been under the impression the 4.3 is a bored or stroked 3.8. Much like my 502 is related to the 454 but with siamesed cylinders. The Syclone was a cool vehicle but with maybe a 200 pound payload with two people aboard it was hardly a truck. The Typhoon was a Jimmy not a Blazer(not that it makes any difference) Finally I guarantee the land speed record holder you mention had MANY aerodynamic mods or it would have been airborne.

    Lastly a Mustang magazine has a modified '97 Cobra(like mine) and it has run 12.2's on motor no power adder. Stock ls1's run low 13's stock. So while your truck is bitchen' it aint all that.
  • jcmdiejcmdie Posts: 595
    "Truck" and "Fast" should not be used in the same sentence. Maybe "strong" or "powerful" but not fast.
  • amoraamora Posts: 204
    The land speed record was made with GMC
    mini-truck with same spoiler/cladding as SYCLONE,
    If it had better aerodynamics is would have
    gone 250-280 mph....I understand your
    doubts, if you are still not convinced, check
    the published sources...it is all there. Also
    FYI, modified S10 with 4.3 won the PIKES PEAK
    HILL CLIMB. I don't remember if it was 4x4 or
    2wd, I think 2WD......I know about FORD COBRAS,
    289, 427 and the SUNBEAM TIGER with 260 V8, I am
    loyal to none, love all fast, quick vehicles.
    When I was in high school in early sixties, my
    neighbor, an aerospace engineer owned a Sunbeam
    TIGER with Ford 260 V8, very fast, this was before
    Shelby Mustangs and Cobras were thought of by Carrol Shelby and Lee Iacoca.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

    In 1961 is when Shelby approached A.C. cars about a hybrid using their chassis and frame. The prototype used the first version of Ford's smallblock, a 221, before the 260's came out.

    In 1962 Ian Garrard contacted Ken Miles of Sunbeam to fit the 260 in the Rootes Alpine, later to be called Tiger, apparently it wasn't a good install because Garrard then went to Shelby to do it right ie: modify the firewall and chassis etc. So as you see not only was the A.C. Cobra before the Tiger, Shelby actually helped engineer the Tiger. Funny story about the Tiger is Rootes motors was bought by Chrysler but a contract that was inked by Shelby forced Chrysler to keep a Ford motor in the Tiger.

    When you say the circa '70 454 is no relation are you just talking aluminum heads? Otherwise I for the life of me can't figure that one out. They are all very much related unless you can tell me why.

    I will concede I don't know for sure on the 3.8 G.M. motors but I was under the impression that like the 4.3 is 3/4 of a 350 the 3.8 is 3/4 of a 305 G.M. engine. A lot of interchangeability.

    I will not doubt your land speed claim but I will argue till the end it's no where near a STOCK PRODUCTION truck as you for some reason insist on calling it. Both Lightnings(93-95 and current) are faster off the showroom floor than your Syclone. Stock production IS off the showroom floor.

    Enjoy your truck I think it's bitchen but I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    Yeah, I've read that too about the Impala SS being a collector's item. I'm hoping they're right. It is currently on the top of the list for best resale value cars. Brand new in '96 with every option they cost $26,202 (including destination). I've seen some with 50,000 miles on them now go for $24,000. Crazy!
    I really lucked out getting mine for $22,000. I'm hoping to keep it forever.
    -powerisfun
  • amoraamora Posts: 204
    Ok, I agree with you 97% about AC and Cobra
    history. Have many books on subject in storage in my attic. My memory is slightly fading, am 53
    year old aging hot rodder. If memory (again)
    services me right, the 454 engine in '70 El
    Camino/Chevelle had ultra high compression and solid lifter heads, the de-tuned '71 and later
    454s were low compression units with hydraulic lifter heads... These are showroom vehicles..who told you or whear did you read that the 93 and new lightenings were faster off the line than my Syclone?? It depends on driver experience during launch. Let me give you an example. When I was
    16 years old my Mother had a '62 Buick Electra 225
    4 door 4500 lb gunboat with 401 325 Hp, 445 LBS TORQUE Ultra high compression engine, 4 bbl carb and a Dynaflow
    tranny, my buddy's mom had a '62 T-BIRD with 390
    4V high compression Ford engine. We had a grudge
    race. Just before launch, i Had left foot on brake and torqued up motor rpms, I beat my buddy's
    mom's T-bird, He should have smoked me. His mom later got a '63 Pontiac Grand Prix with 389 and therefore had the quicker car. My point is with my drag racing experience I was able to beat my
    friend due to superior technique. I owned a
    55 Belair Hardtop with stock 265-4v engine, same
    buddy had a '55 T-BIRD with re-built 292-4v motor,
    both were automatics. We had drag race again and
    I dusted his Bird by 5 car lengths, police gave us
    both tickets for going 65 in a 35 mph zone, he
    was kind enough not to charge us with drag racing. He was behind the whole time. Both of us were 16 at time. I just thought id throw in that little bit of nostalga. I have many tire burning years of experience. I hope you agree on one thing, that experience many times wins grudge matches no matter what you drive....

    Regards to you and your automotive saavy....
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    I think we're not on the same page. Lack of communication spoils a lot of good dialogue. I know your Syclone is quicker then most production vehicles, including even the current Lightning. My reply from the very first post was in regards to the "FASTEST" claim. I always put quickest and fastest into two different categories. There has been many a 1/4 mile race won where the loser has a higher trap speed. No doubt with 4 wheel drive those GMC's tore off the line like very few vehicles could in their stock trim. I just didn't think they were that "fast".

    Ditto your salutation.
  • RoclesRocles Posts: 985
    I don't get it. If the Impala SS was so great, how come it was only sold for a few seasons? Hell, how many units did they actually sell before totally redesigning it? It proves that a engine can only do so much for a car.
  • amoraamora Posts: 204
    I was being difficult, please excuse emotional
    ravings from original statement of fastest.....
    I agree 101% that fastest and quickest is not
    the same. Re: Drag racing, I hear you about loser having higher speeds, It is who gets there
    first at finish line. I have seen some incredible
    races where the loser should have won, having
    higer speeds and quicker lapse time. Also the
    ability of a super stock vehicle doing wheelies...
    ie 1964 Chevelle with 427...WOW!!!

    I owned a '62 MGB for approx. 3 weeks unitl my
    Father, a Body and Fender repairman for over 50 years demanded i get rid of the killer of drivers
    sports car. I argued with him that it is possible to avoid an accident with superior handling until he showed me a few wrecked MG's,
    Triumphs, sprites and Jags with body parts....

    He worked in Hollywood where many movie stars owned the most beautiful sports cars I have ever seen. The most gorgeous car I have had the pleasure of riding in was a '72 Ferrari Daytona
    Spyder with a V12, chain driven camshafts and
    6 Webers...It belonged to a Surgeon. I believe
    a few hundred were made. I thought the '70 427 tri power vette was ferocious, the Ferrari was
    indescribable as was/is the 427 COBRA...

    Have a great day

    Regards,

    Andy
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    The guy that I bought my Impala SS from also had a Cobra kit-car with a 460 in it. He says it weighs about 2000 lbs and has over 400 hp and gobs of torque. He's selling that too because he's afraid to drive it. He said the front wheels come off the ground too easily (and that's with that huge 460 weighing them down).
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Posts: 4,162
    I don't think so ace..

    I'll ride something more reliable...like A Silverado.

    2 Hundee in a [non-permissible content removed] shaker....no thanks

    - Tim
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    No more beer for Tim. LOL!
  • RoclesRocles Posts: 985
    Too scared to drive a car?? What a bunch of weenies! I guess I'm a regular stuntman with my motorcycles, eh?
  • RoclesRocles Posts: 985
    powerisfun,
    I understand the suv craze but it still doesn't make sense that GM would stop a good-selling car and then change its platform.
    I would think that a car would help their fleet mpg and keep the enviromentalists off their backs.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Posts: 2,728
    Love the Impala SS.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    I don't know. The B-bodys (Impalas/Caprices/Buick-Roadmasters/Cadillac-Fleetwoods) were big and boaty looking so even though they got better gas mileage (EPA ratings: 17/26) than any full sized truck/SUV and probably better than most compact trucks/SUVs, there may have been an image problem. They look like they're big piggish luxury liners. I don't know, I'm guessing here. The new 2000 Impala is much smaller and has a V6 (the heralded 3800) and FWD. Nice car, but not a born classic like it's predecessor.
    I just found out that in Australia, GM still makes a version of the old Impala. Only it's not called that. It's called the "Holden SS" and it has the LS1 and is still RWD. That must be a pretty sweet ride. Lucky Aussies!
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Posts: 2,728
    The LT1 is still a great engine that gives an honest 275 horsepower. The LS1 truck engines fudge when they claim 270. Probably should be more like 245. The 5.7L aluminum LS1's in the F-bodys, no fudge...
  • bigsnagbigsnag Posts: 394
    They maybe fudging the other way, as in near 350 hp, rated at only 320. Those things will flat out haul!
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Posts: 358
    Oh yeah, no complaint about the LT1 (After driving the Impala SS, I'd gladly trade my Vortec 350 in my truck for the LT1, and the Vortec 350 is no slouch), but I do like to give credit where credit is due and there's no doubt about it, the LS1 is better than the LT1 (and it's quite a bit lighter too).

    bigsnag:
    I've heard that too. Some people who know have told me that the Trans Am and the Z28-SS are both actually faster than the Corvette. GM doesn't want to advertise that fact, though, because it might make the Corvette buyers a bit peeved.
  • RoclesRocles Posts: 985
    The Trans-Am? Oh you got to be kidding!
  • meredithmeredith Posts: 577
    After 30 or more days of inactivity....

    this topic is being "frozen." it will be archived or deleted in the next 10 days or so.

    Front Porch Philosopher
    SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
This discussion has been closed.