When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
0-60 in 5.5, 1/4 mile in 14
Well I don't know. I'm thinking it would "kill" every American car built between 1976 & 1989, every Japanese car built before 1990 & I'm sure I can come up with more.
Corrected
don't know where you got your info, but I goggled "Ferrari 328 gts 1/4 mile times" - came up with this site --
it listed this - 1988 Ferrari 328 GTS 0-60 mph 6.6 Quarter mile 14.8
the same site listed this --
1988 Chevrolet Corvette Z51 0-60 mph 5.9 Quarter mile 14.4
I'm sure it's kind of a neat car, and I wouldn't mind having it in my garage. not tryin' to get into a pi$$in' contest with you, but as I said before, "that thing ain't killin' nothin'!" more likely, it would be committing performance suicide!!!
0-60 in 5.5, 1/4 mile in 14
Well I don't know. I'm thinking it would "kill" every American car built between 1976 & 1989, every Japanese car built before 1990 & I'm sure I can come up with more.
No question the 328 is a great car but at twice the selling price of a C4 and at todays resale prices 4-5 times. The C4 / Z51 ate the 328 in handling. For a couple of grand the C4 would match the performance of the 328 no problem. Then there is the dive factor, you don't want a 328 as a daily driver unless you can get past the 5 to 10 thou in service cost per year. As much as anyone would want a Ferrari in there garage, I still take a C4 any day of the week, and if I had 69 grand to spend on a car, think of the car you could build with a C4.
No question the 328 is a great car but at twice the selling price of a C4 and at todays resale prices 4-5 times. The C4 / Z51 ate the 328 in handling. For a couple of grand the C4 would match the performance of the 328 no problem. Then there is the dive factor, you don't want a 328 as a daily driver unless you can get past the 5 to 10 thou in service cost per year. As much as anyone would want a Ferrari in there garage, I still take a C4 any day of the week, and if I had 69 grand to spend on a car, think of the car you could build with a C4.
I don't think there is any car that matches the C4 in overall performance..............given the low cost of the C4. But that low cost is both a positive & a negative.
0-60 in 5.5, 1/4 mile in 14
Well I don't know. I'm thinking it would "kill" every American car built between 1976 & 1989, every Japanese car built before 1990 & I'm sure I can come up with more.
Corrected
I think in 1987 a little black Buick Regal with a V6 would eat that Ferrari's lunch.
So yeah, Curbstomped by a TA, a hair slower than a C4 (14.50s not 14.70s), and just as fast as an 87 Turbo Regal.
The Ferrari just can't compete with the General's Best of the era.
Dont know what turbo regal you quoted. I had a new one and with less then 2000 miles on the 215 width eagle gt's it ran a 14.1 with a very sucky 2.3 60 foot ie lots of tire spin. Almost impossible to keep those tires from spinning. Very normal times at the time with totally stock 86-87 gn's. 13's were very easy with these cars with any decent tire stock. The 328 did not impress me other then the price.
Yeah, the Turbo TA was one seriously Bad *** Car.
Only a thousand or so made, but I'm hoping to find one some day. Or maybe build one, as a tribute.
Yeah it's pretty surprising to hear how fast they were, especially given the unimpressive performance of the previous T/A turbo from the early 80's. I drove one of those back to back with a T/A 6.6 & it was a step backward performance wise.
Yeah it's pretty surprising to hear how fast they were, especially given the unimpressive performance of the previous T/A turbo from the early 80's. I drove one of those back to back with a T/A 6.6 & it was a step backward performance wise.
Well, the 301 was a carbed engine, that was the start of it's problems. It also had a really really crappy CR (even for a boosted engine). Carbs and turbo chargers really really don't mix. Then you have the well let's face it, the gen 2 F Bodies were Obese start to finish. (some of them weighed over 3800 lbs)
the 89 Turbo Ta was a SFI 3.8, given the then brand new FWD 3.8 buick heads, giving it more a little more guts than the 87 Regal had. Then you have the birds solid aero, and light weight (car fully loaded weighed 3300 and change), to go ontop of that.
Don't forget; the 301 also only had 3 main crank bearings.
And the '89 TTA had WS6 suspension so did handle well.
BUT: NOBODY, and I mean nobody, would buy that Ferrari to beat Corvettes, GN's, TTA's, nothing. No one would buy that car to beat anything. They'd buy that car for status, the experience that it provides, or some of both. The Ferrari may or may not beat a late '80's Vette (probably a driver's race), but the Ferrari does provide and experience that the 'Vette never could.
So yeah, Curbstomped by a TA, a hair slower than a C4 (14.50s not 14.70s), and just as fast as an 87 Turbo Regal.
The Ferrari just can't compete with the General's Best of the era.
Lol ya, the "General's" top car could barely compete with Ferrari's bottom of the barrel car. Makes perfect sense.
try running a c4 (or GN... or whatever other GM) against a Ferrari Testarossa, F40, 288 GTO, 348TB, 328GTB 3.2...................... all 80's ferrari's that would crack any GM of the time like a lame duck.
Lol ya, the "General's" top car could barely compete with Ferrari's bottom of the barrel car. Makes perfect sense.
try running a c4 (or GN... or whatever other GM) against a Ferrari Testarossa, F40, 288 GTO, 348TB, 328GTB 3.2...................... all 80's ferrari's that would crack any GM of the time like a lame duck.
Bust at what price point your talking about a 200,000.00 car compaired to a 28.000.00 dollar car am I missing something here??