GTP Cool Wall - GMC Typhoon

[Famine]

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.

It'd need over 450hp to do that, at that weight.

Or the world's dumbest gearing.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

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?

Except this isn't slow, it isn't heavy for an SUV, and technically still has off road capability.

And that "lazy engineering" isn't so much them being lazy as it is them appeasing insurance companies with a fake power rating and making do with what was around. They had the 4.3L Vortec V6; they had previous turbo experience; put 2 and 2 together and you get this and the Syclone.

That and I'll bet money that in daily driving, an old Sy/Ty feels stronger than something like an X5/X6 M; the 4.3 is very strong down low when not boosted, add a smallish turbo and it moves.

 

[Adamgp]

It'd need over 450hp to do that, at that weight.

Or the world's dumbest gearing.

I looked again, the Syclone (pickup) with the same power was rated at 0-60 in 4.6. Typhoons were rated anywhere between 4.9 and 5.3 to 60.

 

[Famine]

With 300hp and acceleration-minded gearing, 5.5 is just about believable for that amount of weight. You're talking about Skyline/GTO-beating performance despite a substantial weight handicap (less substantial in the case of the GTO, but still a handicap) from a chronological peer. That'd require intensely underplayed power ratings and gearing to about 100mph tops.

 

[Jondot]

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?

Whoa whoa whoa, let's not get too hasty here. It's an American car from the early 90s. Of course it's going to have a giant engine with comparatively little power. But bear in mind that the current Chevy Silverado 4.8V8 chucks out less power and torque than this, and the Typhoon's V6 was designed 18 years ago. I mean it's still uncool in my book, but you can't moan about it chucking out 300hp when it was conceived before Miley Cyrus was - particularly when you've already complimented its 0-60 time.

How did we end up doing "cars" like this? I'm gonna throw up .

Then I'd recommend the Element and its durable hose-down interior.

 

[Omnis]

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.

Big, old, clunky, ugly vehicle.

 

[Adamgp]

With 300hp and acceleration-minded gearing, 5.5 is just about believable for that amount of weight. You're talking about Skyline/GTO-beating performance despite a substantial weight handicap (less substantial in the case of the GTO, but still a handicap) from a chronological peer. That'd require intensely underplayed power ratings and gearing to about 100mph tops.

350hp was more likely.

As for the specs, Those are from the internet, magazines and tv, as well as talking to Sy/Ty owners.

 

[Diego440]

Because of it's impractibility (sp?) I rate it marginally Uncool

 

[Duke]

With 300hp and acceleration-minded gearing, 5.5 is just about believable for that amount of weight. You're talking about Skyline/GTO-beating performance despite a substantial weight handicap (less substantial in the case of the GTO, but still a handicap) from a chronological peer. That'd require intensely underplayed power ratings and gearing to about 100mph tops.

A stock Typhoon will run the quarter right around 14 flat with a mid-90s trap speed, busting into the upper 13s on a good day. The Syclone is a little lighter and runs about half a second quicker. 60-foot times are in the 1.75-2.0 range.

 

[NotThePrez]

Cool. It's not too bad looking, and going from 0-60 in 5.3 seconds in an SUV is pretty impressive.

 

[Famine]

A stock Typhoon will run the quarter right around 14 flat with a mid-90s trap speed, busting into the upper 13s on a good day.

On that weight a mid-90s trap speed is consistent with a nearly-300hp engine. It also means that we're looking at a claimed 5.5s to 60mph and, at best, 8.4s to do the next 35mph (if the 4.9 claim is given any credence at all, that's 9.0s for the next 35mph), which kinda gives some ground to the "absurd gearing" notion - 11mph/s for the first 60mph and 4mph/s from there to the quarter.

 

[SVX]

What makes you say that?

I kid, of course.



Why do any of these?

Because they were mean't to be Off roaders/Cross overs.

The Typhoon has been turned into kinda the X6M/X6 (I think), as TGAustralia said that BMW said it was a "Sports Car". It's pretty much a faster Typhoon for the road. In My Opinion.

 

[land sea air]

With 300hp and acceleration-minded gearing, 5.5 is just about believable for that amount of weight. You're talking about Skyline/GTO-beating performance despite a substantial weight handicap (less substantial in the case of the GTO, but still a handicap) from a chronological peer. That'd require intensely underplayed power ratings and gearing to about 100mph tops.

The acceleration numbers (many of which are less than 5.3 seconds to 60) are real and were duplicated by everyone who tested the vehicles back in the day, whatever the power ratings may be (underrated as they were I seriously doubt they were near 400).

EDIT: Hard to find any top speed numbers but it was well over 100 iirc

EDIT EDIT: also your comparison to the GTO/Skyline is sort of making the point for why it's cool!

 

[buickgnx88]

Because they were mean't to be Off roaders/Cross overs.

The Typhoon has been turned into kinda the X6M/X6 (I think), as TGAustralia said that BMW said it was a "Sports Car". It's pretty much a faster Typhoon for the road. In My Opinion.

Thing is though, trucks and SUVs don't have to be off-road oriented (especially since barely anyone uses them off-road anymore). People enjoy driving fast and quickly around corners, while on the other hand most vehicles that do that can't haul much. The Typhoon (and subsequently the Syclone) are able to go fast and take corners, while at the same time being able to haul home a dishwasher from Home Depot (provided it's strapped down correctly).

 

[Azure Flare]

👍 that is all I have to say. Cool.

 

[SVX]

Thing is though, trucks and SUVs don't have to be off-road oriented (especially since barely anyone uses them off-road anymore). People enjoy driving fast and quickly around corners, while on the other hand most vehicles that do that can't haul much. The Typhoon (and subsequently the Syclone) are able to go fast and take corners, while at the same time being able to haul home a dishwasher from Home Depot (provided it's strapped down correctly).

What's the Point? It's got a very low for an off roader, so what's the point? It's probably not going to be very good off road, so why not get a Toyota Hilux Surf? Less power yeah but more taller!

 

[Tornado]

Also, this one has some pretty lazy engineering...

No.

4.2 liter turning out 280hp is bad but...4.2l TURBO turning out 280hp???

Guess what! Also keep in mind that this isn't 2009, where every manufacturer has a 3.6L-ish V6 that produces 300 HP.

On that weight a mid-90s trap speed is consistent with a nearly-300hp engine. It also means that we're looking at a claimed 5.5s to 60mph and, at best, 8.4s to do the next 35mph

The 5.3 sec and 14.1 sec quarter are from the same Car and Driver test (I actually made a typo with the initial post). As far as gearing, here are the gear ratios and their speeds, also from the same test:

Gear 	Ratio 	Mph/1000 rpm 	Max. test speed 
I 	3.06 	6.5 	        31 mph  (4800 rpm) 	
II 	1.63 	12.2 	        59 mph  (4800 rpm) 	
III 	1.00 	19.9 	        96 mph  (4800 rpm) 	
IV 	0.70 	28.4 	        124 mph (4350 rpm

EDIT: Hard to find any top speed numbers but it was well over 100 iirc

Speed limited to 124 MPH.

What's the Point? It's got a very low for an off roader, so what's the point? It's probably not going to be very good off road, so why not get a Toyota Hilux Surf? Less power yeah but more taller!

Because people buying the Typhoon weren't looking for an off-roader, and a Toyota Hilux isn't a performance car?

 

[Jondot]

Because they were mean't to be Off roaders/Cross overs.

...then there's your answer. Neither was the Typhoon. It was designed to be a performance car with the body of an off roader, and no more than that.

What's the Point? It's got a very low for an off roader, so what's the point? It's probably not going to be very good off road, so why not get a Toyota Hilux Surf? Less power yeah but more taller!

Because a Hilux Surf won't do 0-60 in around 5 seconds. Might as well ask 'why not buy a Ford Festiva and use less gas?'.

 

[SVX]

...then there's your answer. Neither was the Typhoon. It was designed to be a performance car with the body of an off roader, and no more than that.

I understand, now. But now doesn't that make it something it isn't? Why not make it be able to go off road for what it is?

 

[Tornado]

No, because the original S10 body style wasn't designed with off-road capability in mind in the first place.

 

[buickgnx88]

Because that's what the Jimmy (which it was based on) was designed for! You don't need gobs of power for off-road (just good gearing), which is why the standard 4.3 was good enough.

No, because the original S10 body style wasn't designed with off-road capability in mind in the first place.

 

[LSX]

I bet it will kick some backside off road. I was able to go everywhere I could in my old truck in a stock WRX off road, and quickly at that. I'm sure they both sit plenty low.

In deep mud? No, I don't think you'd want to take one there, but you would not take the average crossover through that either.

 

[Tornado]

I didn't say it couldn't. But it wasn't designed with that at the very top of the list. I mean, the S10 didn't even come with 4WD when it first debuted.

 

[SVX]

I get it! It's kinda like a ute but with those canopy things on the back, but more performance. So kinda like a Subaru/Mitsubishi? It does have around that power.

 

[YSSMAN]

I voted Sub-Zero, but I'm a die-hard GM fan. So take what you want out of that.

Problem is, the Syclone was always cooler. That truck still gets my heart racing every time I see one.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

I get it! It's kinda like a ute but with those canopy things on the back, but more performance. So kinda like a Subaru/Mitsubishi? It does have around that power.

Nope, it's a small truck/SUV at the end of the day.

 

[SVX]

True.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

But they aren't utes; that would imply them being car-based which they are not.

 

[SVX]

But they aren't utes; that would imply them being car-based which they are not.

EDIT: Yeah, it is a mini truck. But would it be classified as a Cross-over?

 

[buickgnx88]

Actually it would be "In my terminology".