GTP Cool Wall - GMC Typhoon

[YSSMAN]

In My Opinion.

Not really. This is a body-on-frame truck. Of course, this does pre-date the SUV terminology too. Still, a truck.

 

[Giancarlo]

It's a 2-door SUV from the mid 90s, and it looks good (although i'd change the front bumper) so i have somewhat of a soft spot for it as well.

 

[SVX]

See my edit.

 

[buickgnx88]

Cross-over: SUV-type (enclosed) body on car platform
Ute: Pickup on car platform
SUV: enclosed body on truck platform (usually separate frame)
Truck: Pickup, also another name for a SUV with separate frame.

 

[Tornado]

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

No. It is a lowered and street-tired SUV, but so is the 2WD Blazer and that isn't a crossover either. It is is also still a body-on-frame vehicle.

 

[JCE]

Cool. No subzero because its not a Cyclone. Either way this thing is just cool.

 

[Joey D]

No. It is a lowered and street-tired SUV, but so is the 2WD Blazer and that isn't a crossover either. It is is also still a body-on-frame vehicle.

If you want to get technical the insurance classify them as station wagons.

 

[Murcie_LP640]

Questionable performance numbers aside, it's ugly, from a brand I dislike quite greatly, and it doesn't really seem to have a purpose.

Seriously Uncool.

 

[Joey D]

How are people saying this doesn't have good performance? For it's time it was stupidly fast, especially considering it was a truck. Car & Driver put it up against the Ferrari 348...and the Typhoon won.

I've seen these things on the track too, with non-90's tires they handle very well.

I'll admit it's fairly ugly, but it's a vehicle from the 90's, they were all ugly.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

Cool.

For the time it was pretty quick, and it was actually a nice attempt by GM to burst out of the "norm". I actually don't mind the styling, and judging by the videos out there, atleast the owners use these as they were intended.

 

[Zenith]

I won't understand why people are going crazy about its performance. Sure it's fast, FOR A TRUCK. That's like saying it's healthy, for being sold in mcdonalds. Sure it's got a great motor in it, but why not put that in a car (or even a good looking truck?)

And before you say "well it has off-road and transport abilities"
-off-road: Too low
-Transport: Okay you have a point.... still uncool in my book.

 

[Tornado]

I won't understand why people are going crazy about its performance. Sure it's fast, FOR A TRUCK.

It wasn't fast for a truck. It was fast, period. Even when the Corvette got the LT1 it would take a good driver to outrun one of these, and the Syclone (which was several hundred pounds lighter) would outrun ZR-1s all day long.

Sure it's got a great motor in it, but why not put that in a car (or even a good looking truck?)

There are practical reasons for this. Namely, there was nothing else in the GM stable they could have put it in. GM had 4 platforms besides this one that the engine would have fit in:

• The Corvette.
• The F-Body
• The GMT 400
• The Chevy G20

Of those, only F-Body and GMT 400 would have made any sense. Except the F-Body would never have been allowed to have this motor, and the GMT 400 already had performance options that this would have competed with internally (the SS454).

 

[buickgnx88]

None of us has been saying it has off-road abilities...in any case (for its time especially), 6 seconds 0-60 is certainly fast.

 

[mustangGT90210]

I voted cool. Not Subzero, 'cause Blazers don't have that "it" factor to me. But a solid performer none the less 👍

 

[buickgnx88]

Cuz you're a Ford guy, amirite?

 

[Joey D]

I voted cool. Not Subzero, 'cause Blazers don't have that "it" factor to me. But a solid performer none the less 👍

If a Blazer had an "it" factor for anyone I'd question their sanity...*Looks at previous vehicles*...damnit!

One other thing that I can say about the Typhoon is it took GM more thought then just cramming an LT1 under the hood and calling it a day. Anytime GM thinks it's going to be cool, when they don't, well look on the road, you'll see what happens when they don't think.

 

[Tornado]

^ That is a good point. GM could have, at any point in the nearly 10 years that the S10 had been on sale at that point, stuck a Camaro engine in it and left it at that (*cough* *cough* Colorado *cough* *cough*). That they went to such extents speaks volumes for how the engineers probably had to fight to get it out the door.

 

[LSX]

I think an LS2 Colorado SS was in development at one time. M6 and 400hp would be stepping all over the Silverado SS face, forget it's toes I bet that's why it never went anywhere, same with the Ranger Lightning Bolt.

But just for fun -


That's not it, but perhaps similar to what it would have been had GM built it. OR maybe I imagined the whole thing, but I'm pretty sure I remember reading about it being in development on an F-body forum.

 

[buickgnx88]

Well Chevy does offer the 5.3L LH8 V8 in the Colorado (same as in the Hummer H3).

 

[LSX]

Whatttt! I never knew that, that's pretty cool. It's nice and cozy here, under my rock ya know?

 

[buickgnx88]

Haha it wasn't really announced it seems. I only knew from putzing around on the Chevy site, playing with the "build your own".

 

[niky]

I won't understand why people are going crazy about its performance. Sure it's fast, FOR A TRUCK. That's like saying it's healthy, for being sold in mcdonalds. Sure it's got a great motor in it, but why not put that in a car (or even a good looking truck?)

I love how in this thread, people have to invent reasons for this thing to be uncool. If a car is uncool, you don't really have to explain why it is... it just is...

The Typhoon and Syclone were two of the fastest things you could buy to drive during their time... period. Faster than the Vette. Faster than a Ferrari. They were absolute bonkers.

You might make a case for them being uncool because they're just small, dumpy looking trucks... but that's the superficial kind of cool.

This cool goes down to the bone.

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

Late response: Practicality is never cool. See Mini Cooper Clubman.

 

[Tornado]

Whatttt! I never knew that, that's pretty cool. It's nice and cozy here, under my rock ya know?

Most people tend to ignore it because the Colorado itself is a piece of junk and putting the 5.3 in it makes it slightly less of a piece of junk (being that the main problem with the Colorado is terrible engines) that is still slower than the Frontier 4.0.

 

[mustangGT90210]

Cuz you're a Ford guy, amirite?

I don't descriminate past the Silverado/Sierra...

I'd drive one proudly though. You can't say no to something that fast. I'm easily swayed by performance. BUT! It's a Blazer, so it just get's a cool

Haha it wasn't really announced it seems. I only knew from putzing around on the Chevy site, playing with the "build your own".

I saw a press release on it... once

 

[Jim Prower]

Cool. I don't have a super weird rationale, so I'm just not going to say why I voted that way.

 

[Eric.]

Looks like some of you don't realize this is an SUV, not a two door truck with a bed topper or whatever. And its not like the Typhoon was designed from the ground up to do this. GM had the car sitting around and some crazy engineer was able to pull the right strings and get the project underway. You don't buy this model to go off-road. You buy it to tear the smile off the face of every Corvette, Camaro, and Mustang owner you get staged against at the stoplight.

One problem with car people is that they assume people buy sports cars to race, buy anything with 4WD to do hill climbs, etc. I'm sure no less than 90% of new trucks will see off-road duty within the first several years of ownership, or even at all until the next owner gets them. The numbers for sports cars are maybe a little higher.

The S-10/Blazer/Jimmy etc, from the factory, were almost certainly intended as a small, fuel efficient cargo hauler, and in 4WD trim would handle snow and some light mud without much trouble. With the 2.8L V6 those things would do about 30mpg from what I've heard.

Anyway, I'm gonna vote subzero. Not really in line with how this thread normally goes, since its basically a sleeper, which isn't cool.

 

[buickgnx88]

since its basically a sleeper, which isn't cool.

Ground effects/flares and larger wheels/tires constitute it a sleeper? What else does it need to have?

 

[Eric.]

Ground effects/flares and larger wheels/tires constitute it a sleeper? What else does it need to have?

Its an old truck. None of its mods stand out as something special, it just looks like someone has changed a few parts.

 

[Tornado]

Looks like some of you don't realize this is an SUV, not a two door truck with a bed topper or whatever.

No, but this was the immediate successor to one.

 

[buickgnx88]

No, but this was the immediate successor to one.

Actually no. It was produced at the same time as the full-size K5, and the Blazer (later turned Tahoe) based on the C/K trucks was in fact the successor.