GTP Cool Wall - GMC Typhoon

  • Thread starter Tornado
  • 121 comments
  • 9,771 views

GMC Typhoon

  • Total voters
    92
  • Poll closed .
Tornado

Tornado

40,855
** 1992-1993 GMC Typhoon suggested by Joey D **
38464573.jpg


Specs:
Engines - 4293cc OHV 12-valve turbocharged and intercooled V6.
Layout - AWD
Transmission - 4-speed automatic
Power - 280 HP (:lol:) @ 4400 RPM
Torque - 360 lb-ft @ 3600 RPM
Curb weight - 3752 lb
Zero to 60 mph - 5.3 sec
Standing 1/4-mile - 14.1 sec @ 95 MPH
Price - $28,995
​
 
Last edited:
I'm having a hard time with this one. Its an awesome statement of how far GM was willing to take things before they jumped off the deep end of mediocrity, and it bodes well for the idea that you could get any car you wanted in the early 90s with a turbo. It was crazy fast in a straight line at the time, was rugged and built to last (somewhat), and was a fitting "not really" follow up to the Buick GNX. It even handled fairly decently. All this with 4 seats, minor off-road capability and plenty of cargo space. I personally love it, and I'm sure it is what everyone else with an S10 yearns for (short of those crazies that just put Lingenfelter Corvette engines in their S10s instead).

But there is this nagging, awful feeling at the pit of my stomach that still says uncool, or at least just very barely cool. I can't place why, either. Maybe it doesn't look menacing enough. Maybe it is because it isn't to its full potential (read: Turbocharged 5.7L). Maybe I just blame GMC for the BMW X6M. I don't really know, but I'm gonna cop out and say "Cool" anyways.
 
Last edited:
Sub-zero, I have a soft spot for sporty trucks (especially from the 80's and 90's :P). The only draw back is the lack of manual transmission (though there are a few options that could easily be swapped in nowadays.)

Oh, and it was an AWD, not a 4WD.
 
Uncool. Kinda like the Land/Range Rover Rouge (I think, they had it on Top Gear), a SUV or Off Roader kinda turned to a faster road car, it was really stiff on the rough terrain. Anyway, It's got good power, but it looks like it's been turned more into a faster road car, it would probably be rubbish going on rough/kinda rough terrain (Hills and bigger rocks etc) because of it's low body kit and very low for a off roader/SUV ride height.
 
Last edited:
So now I am thinking that the poles need something between Cool and Uncool. It is not Uncool, cause it is a turbo-charged V6. But it is hardly an SUV, and no sports car. This is one that I remember drooling over in my high school days. I think they did a pickup too. Then I wanted the Dodge Dakota RT. I say cool simply because of the limited production.
 
I’m a Ford Guy but even I got to vote subzero. This and the version based on the S-15 PU(forget what its called). I mean its Sleeper which I love and its got the motor similar to the one from the turbo Buicks. That’s just makes it more than cool.
 
They did it so the torque converter would minimize the effect of lag, and also so hooligans wouldn't be able blow the flywheel out the back of the transmission with 4500 RPM clutch dumps. As it were, GM probably didn't even have a transmission at the time that would have hooked up properly and taken the torque (the ZF 6-Speed of the ZR-1 could handle more than the Typhoon put out, as seen in the Lotus Carlton, but I doubt it could handle AWD power launches on dry pavement), and even the mighty 700R4 really didn't like the torque thrown at it with the Typhoon.
 
Last edited:
Seriously Uncool.

I know the performance figures are nice and all.

But what does this car/pickup/van/SUV DO?!
Beyond that there is the fact that it's a GM, which a few years later would earn a reputation for cheap, plastic cars.

See anyone driving around in this today and you'd think that they lowed and put a snugtop on a bad pickup
 
A very cool truck, AWD turbo 6. It probably didn't do a lot of things well, but I bet it hauled the groceries in a straight line. While that may not be cool, and I may not be talking about actual groceries, I can't put my finger on what else it is you would use one for. I mean, I've never had a Blazer anywhere but off road. Rally truck :lol:? I'd drive one if the price were right and it was all in order.
 
A severely compromised 4WD truck, pretending to be a sportscar. NO!!!!!!!!

Uncool.

Together with all sports trucks and luxury SUVs.
(Except for the Range Rover.) A truck should be a tool/ implement, not an accessory. Unless its a Rangie. It should carry things and go places. This one wouldn't carry much more than a statin wagon, if that, and wouldn't go places the station wagon couldnt go.
 
It's bat-guano insane.

It's ugly. You'll have to explain what it is. It's not a great SUV or a great sportscar (despite being faster (or as fast, I can't remember) than the Corvette of that time to 60 mph).

It doesn't meet any of the requirements of being cool.

I love it anyway.

Subzero.

SVX
Then why does it have a body design of an off roader then?
Click to expand...

Why does a Lancer Evolution have four doors?
 
It doesn't do anything for me, and looks subtle enough that Joe Average wouldn't see it as anything special either. Uncool.
 
It was faster than Ferrari's of the day, it could carry ones crap with ease, it handled very well, it was quick, and they are still pretty rare. It's essentially the Skyline of the SUV world and remained to be one of the fastest SUV's for a very long time. It's not a sleeper either, you know it's either going to be a poser vehicle or it's going to be fast by looking at it since it doesn't look average. I want a Typhoon more then just about any other vehicle out there.

However since there are about a million fakes, a lot of d-bags that own these, and they are way over priced, I'm only going with cool.
 
homeforsummer
It doesn't do anything for me, and looks subtle enough that Joe Average wouldn't see it as anything special either. Uncool.
Click to expand...

I actually wouldn't be surprised if it landed in the Seriously Uncool category... but I'm secretly hoping it'll stay "cool", at least.

My word are we car enthusiasts biased... :lol:
 
No redeeming features at first sight. And that's all that matters when you know nothing about the car. Seriously Uncool.
 
I would say this vehicle is cool.

But it would probably fail to score more than a single point using the Superficial system. I'm sure a domestic guy would comment about it in a gas station sometime, somewhere. But car people --and only a certain kind of car people-- would be the only ones impressed.

Voted cool anyway.


M
 
homeforsummer
It doesn't do anything for me, and looks subtle enough that Joe Average wouldn't see it as anything special either. Uncool.
Click to expand...

Lucas
No redeeming features at first sight. And that's all that matters when you know nothing about the car. Seriously Uncool.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. Joe Average seeing something as "special" bumps any car way up into the uncool spectrum for me. I couldn't give a crap about impressing Joe Average. If I have to explain what it is to you, I don't care about your opinion of it anyway.

That's precisely why the Syclone/Typhoon get a solid Cool in my pantheon. Anybody who matters will recognize it instantly. It's only missing out on Subzero because I know there's an '80s GM interior lurking in there... :lol:

It's cool in precisely the same way anything with a Mopar turbo 2.2 in it is cool: because it's a victory for the car guy engineers against accountant-driven management. It's a big middle finger to corporate mediocrity. "You give me no budget and no time to develop cool cars, FINE. I'll come up with something badass anyway!"

Just like the GN/GNX, a manual would probably slow this thing down. The automatic is much better. I've made a drag pass in a stock Typhoon: step on the gas and brakes at the same time, wait for the tree to drop, then sidestep the brakes and mat the throttle. With all that preload, boost is way up, and AWD means you leave the line like a ballbearing out of a wrist rocket.
 
Omnis
Clunkers are not cool.
Click to expand...

Care to define a clunker? Because if it's just a car with bad gas mileage we have really screwed this wall up.

I voted cool because it was unlike anything else on the market at the time.
 
I don't normally vote on these but I saw the typhoon and I just had to stop in and say this: The Typhoon and its Syclone cousin get a solid Subzero from me for one important reason. I'm a huge car guy, and I give ANY car a chance, but for the most part I am less interested in domestic makes ESPECIALLY from this period, and for GM to build something so different... so totally ridiculous at a comparatively dark automotive time is just cool on every level to me. I can explain to someone who knows very little about cars or another car person who hasn't heard of the pair what exactly this thing is and after the initial disbelief they always utter the phrase "cool".

Also I think some people may be confusing the terms "makes sense" or "practical" with "****ing awesome" or "very cool". But I respect their opinions.
 
buickgnx88
Well it wasn't designed to go off-road, that's what the regular Blazer/Jimmy was for.
Click to expand...

So what was it intended for then?

Zenith013
Seriously Uncool.

I know the performance figures are nice and all.

But what does this car/pickup/van/SUV DO?!
Beyond that there is the fact that it's a GM, which a few years later would earn a reputation for cheap, plastic cars.

See anyone driving around in this today and you'd think that they lowed and put a snugtop on a bad pickup
Click to expand...

This 👍👍

neanderthal
A severely compromised 4WD truck, pretending to be a sportscar. NO!!!!!!!!

Uncool.

Together with all sports trucks and luxury SUVs.
(Except for the Range Rover.) A truck should be a tool/ implement, not an accessory. Unless its a Rangie. It should carry things and go places. This one wouldn't carry much more than a statin wagon, if that, and wouldn't go places the station wagon couldnt go.
Click to expand...

This too 👍👍

Lucas
No redeeming features at first sight. And that's all that matters when you know nothing about the car. Seriously Uncool.
Click to expand...

And this (Nice name change Lucas, by the way) 👍.

It may be considered as one of the ancestors of the weak SUV's we have today. Off-roaders without great off-roading capabilities that try to be sporty with a big engine but are anyway slow because they're heavy. Also, this one has some pretty lazy engineering...Although it has good torque and takes this brick to 60mph in 5.3 seconds (which is impressive)... 4.2 liter turning out 280hp is bad but...4.2l TURBO turning out 280hp??? And that engine needs to move almost two tons?

Out of my 22 rules, 9 apply, 3 cons and 6 cons, 3 out of 9 = 33.3% = Seriously uncool. Where it should go with it's fellow partners:

Jondot
2007_Dodge_Nitro_ext_1.jpg



bmw-x3-exterior-2007-1.JPG


update-audi-a4-and-q5-being-considered-for-u-s-production_100208949_m.jpg


volkswagen_tiguan_prices.jpg


2009-nissan-murano.jpg


2010-lexus-rx-350-1-450x307.jpg


2005_Honda_Element_ext_1.jpg
Click to expand...

How did we end up doing "cars" like this? :( I'm gonna throw up :ill:.
 
Sub Zero, an awesome car from an era when GM had a sense of humor.

So what was it intended for then?
Click to expand...

To be a hot rod version of the standard Jimmy/Blazer

It may be considered as one of the ancestors of the weak SUV's we have today. Off-roaders without great off-roading capabilities that try to be sporty with a big engine but are anyway slow because they're heavy. Also, this one has some pretty lazy engineering...Although it has good torque and takes this brick to 60mph in 5.3 seconds (which is impressive)... 4.2 liter turning out 280hp is bad but...4.2l TURBO turning out 280hp??? And that engine needs to move almost two tons?
Click to expand...

The 280hp rating was there to please the insurance companies, actual output was higher. Still 280hp was very respectable for the early '90's, especially from a V6. The Corvette from this period had 300hp.

The acceleration numbers listed here are on the slow side. I've seen them rated 0-60 in 4.6 seconds.

How did we end up doing "cars" like this? :( I'm gonna throw up :ill:.
Click to expand...

Most likely the gubment and the stupid CAFE standards.
 

Similar threads

Snikle
  • Poll
GTP Cool Wall: 1992-1999 BMW M3
Replies
11
Views
1K
Centroid
Centroid
Snikle
  • Poll
GTP Cool Wall: 1992-1995 Bugatti EB110 Super Sport
Replies
11
Views
1K
Snikle
Snikle
Wiegert
  • Poll
GTP Cool Wall: 2015 Audi RS3 Sportback
Replies
23
Views
2K
VXR
VXR
Tornado
  • Poll
GTP Cool Wall - Pontiac Fiero
2 3
Replies
70
Views
18K
Vince_Fiero
Vince_Fiero
Wiegert
  • Poll
GTP Cool Wall: 1992-1993 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution
Replies
26
Views
4K
Sage Ages
Sage Ages

Latest Posts

Back