Sleepers
- Thread starter turboash78
- 185 comments
- 9,093 views
VIPERGTSR01My friend has a good sleeper, its a 1985 Nissan Bluebird wagon GL (910) with a modified SR20DET the engine on engine dyno before it went in the car put out 646hp 500ftlb's on a safe tune without using nitrous oxide (he has nitrous oxide connected but never used or tuned with it). The only problem is the intercooler give's it away abit.
That thing is freakin sweet yeah if he had that front mount hidden a little bit no one would ever suspect a thing lol.
- 5,833
- Right behind you
- SRV2NV
Theres a 1984 Dodge Omni in town that some guy has done up. Aside from a lil lower then normal stance, it basically looks like a Dodge Omni with a license plate that says "OMNI VORE". Raced him on the highway in my friends 1993 Camaro Z28 with chip, intake, headers and 3" exhaust, laughing the whole time, thinking what a fool he must be trying and basically got eaten!
After finding him at Taco Bell a couple weeks later, we found out whats under the hood. Its not a Shelby Omni (or whatever they called them) the guy just dropped in a beefed up 2.2 Turbo intercooled engine from the Daytona Shelby Z and added some other hidden mods to make himself a great sleeper. Saw him at the track a couple times since, where he was running high 12's all day. If it wasn't for the turbo and blow off valve, you wouldn't even know the car was modified.
After finding him at Taco Bell a couple weeks later, we found out whats under the hood. Its not a Shelby Omni (or whatever they called them) the guy just dropped in a beefed up 2.2 Turbo intercooled engine from the Daytona Shelby Z and added some other hidden mods to make himself a great sleeper. Saw him at the track a couple times since, where he was running high 12's all day. If it wasn't for the turbo and blow off valve, you wouldn't even know the car was modified.
- 2,321
Sleeper Collection!
1UZFE Celica RWD
SR20DET MGB
EJ20T WRX motored old Subie wagon RWD
EJ20T WRX motored Combi van
3SGTE Tercel
Northstar V8 Golf
http://www.cwstuning.com/gallery/coupe-degolf?page=1
LS1 Ford Fairmont Wagon
http://www.tremek.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152832&postcount=3
1UZFE Celica RWD
SR20DET MGB
EJ20T WRX motored old Subie wagon RWD
EJ20T WRX motored Combi van
3SGTE Tercel
Northstar V8 Golf
http://www.cwstuning.com/gallery/coupe-degolf?page=1
LS1 Ford Fairmont Wagon
http://www.tremek.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152832&postcount=3
- 5,833
- Right behind you
- SRV2NV
WOAH...That EJ20T WRX motored old Subie wagon RWD has to be the ultimate sleeper. Even if I heard the engine running I wouldn't believe it without opening the hood.
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
One of the best stock sleepers of all time has to be the Isuzu Impulse RS...
They used to say that it was one of the best "fast" cars you could buy for less than $25,000 USD, and it would not have a problem chasing down Porsche 944s of the time. Unfortunatley for the car, it was an Isuzu... And it did share a platform with the GEO Storm, a pretty weak economy car sold in the US for quite some time. But alas, the car may have faded away, but its still a performance Icon for me.
Another sleeper?
The Saab 9000 Turbo from the early '90s. It was fast, handeled well, and although it was a bit expensive, it could outdo many cars that were well out of its price range.
My personal favorite, and IMO the greatest all-time sleeper:
The 1996 Chevrolet Caprice 9C1
Baisicly Chevrolet had taken the engine and transmission out of the Camaro Z/28 and thrown it into a full-size car. With 260HP on tap, the Caprice 9C1 with it's 350 cubic-inch Chevy V-8 LT1 power plant can whisk the 2-ton car from zero to 100 mph in less than 25 seconds... Thats impressive for such a huge car. Used, they can fetch well over $4000 here in the US, but if youre lucky you can sometimes find one for less than $2500. Unfortunatley the car died in 1996, and it was replaced by the Ford Crown Victoria as the police car of choise. That may all change, as the rumors are that the RWD Impala will be back in 2008 or 2009.
They used to say that it was one of the best "fast" cars you could buy for less than $25,000 USD, and it would not have a problem chasing down Porsche 944s of the time. Unfortunatley for the car, it was an Isuzu... And it did share a platform with the GEO Storm, a pretty weak economy car sold in the US for quite some time. But alas, the car may have faded away, but its still a performance Icon for me.
Another sleeper?
The Saab 9000 Turbo from the early '90s. It was fast, handeled well, and although it was a bit expensive, it could outdo many cars that were well out of its price range.
My personal favorite, and IMO the greatest all-time sleeper:
The 1996 Chevrolet Caprice 9C1
Baisicly Chevrolet had taken the engine and transmission out of the Camaro Z/28 and thrown it into a full-size car. With 260HP on tap, the Caprice 9C1 with it's 350 cubic-inch Chevy V-8 LT1 power plant can whisk the 2-ton car from zero to 100 mph in less than 25 seconds... Thats impressive for such a huge car. Used, they can fetch well over $4000 here in the US, but if youre lucky you can sometimes find one for less than $2500. Unfortunatley the car died in 1996, and it was replaced by the Ford Crown Victoria as the police car of choise. That may all change, as the rumors are that the RWD Impala will be back in 2008 or 2009.
- 2,321
Wolfe2x7
I dunno about that. If I saw that I wouldn't immediatley think "performance car".
It does have a huge intercooler but many people with otherwise unmodifed cars put FMICs on their cars. That doesn't necessarily mean speed. The shoddy paintjob and mismatched wheels help the sleeper image too.
And also, it is just a Tercel, who would expect a modified 3SGTE in it?
- 9,089
- Scotland
the red golf in his pic is a pretty good sleeper 
- 745
- Columbus
Volvo 850 T5-R
VOlvo S70 T5
VOlvo S70 T5
Cars with engines from other cars or thousands of dollars worth in upgrades, they aren't real sleepers to me. A sleeper to me is a car with its factory egine, that kicks ass.
Example:
Buick GN(X), of course we can spot these, but to the average ricer, they'd never see it coming.
Shebly Omni GLHS
90's Turbo Caravan/Voyager
Real, factory sleepers.
Example:
Buick GN(X), of course we can spot these, but to the average ricer, they'd never see it coming.
Shebly Omni GLHS
90's Turbo Caravan/Voyager
Real, factory sleepers.
- 273
SSVelle
You have a point, and couldn't agree more, but I guess mainstream(corporate) tends to distort things(I don't know who it exactly be in this case).
RevheadnzSleeper Collection!
1UZFE Celica RWD
At a Celica forum I'm at someone posted a short vid for that Celi-GT4.
http://media.putfile.com/V8-Celica-GT4
Enjoi!!
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,268
- United States
- 997
- Regina, SK
- Turboash
Definitely... good find.
- 1,595
- Alhambra, CA
- chop-uh
- Sr Crumbbiscuit
I do love the Quad 4 powered "baby" Oldsmobiles (Quad 442, Achieva SCX), but how about their 3.8L supercharged big brother, the LSS?
Better yet, how about another 3.8 S/C sleeper, the Buick Park Avenue Ultra?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/PARK...4613044192QQcategoryZ6139QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Looks just like your grandparents' car (bench seat, whitewalls, the whole 9 yards), but with a couple of bolt ons you could probably get north of 300 hp and hand out the ultimate humiliation to almost any challenger...the humiliation of getting spanked by an old fart's car!
👍
Better yet, how about another 3.8 S/C sleeper, the Buick Park Avenue Ultra?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/PARK...4613044192QQcategoryZ6139QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Looks just like your grandparents' car (bench seat, whitewalls, the whole 9 yards), but with a couple of bolt ons you could probably get north of 300 hp and hand out the ultimate humiliation to almost any challenger...the humiliation of getting spanked by an old fart's car!
👍
- 4,522
- TwinTurboJay
Subaru Forester 2.5XT Limited
Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door wagon
Price as tested: $28,490 (base price: $28,490)
Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve flat-4, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 150 cu in, 2457cc
Power (SAE net): 230 bhp @ 5600 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 235 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmission: 5-speed manual
Wheelbase: 99.4 in
Length/width/height: 176.6/68.1/62.4 in
Curb weight: 3324 lb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero to 60 mph: 5.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: .15.8 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 7.3 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.3 sec @ 96 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 128 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 182 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.75 g
EPA fuel economy, city driving: 19 mpg
C/D-observed fuel economy: 18 mpg
Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door wagon
Price as tested: $28,490 (base price: $28,490)
Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve flat-4, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 150 cu in, 2457cc
Power (SAE net): 230 bhp @ 5600 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 235 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmission: 5-speed manual
Wheelbase: 99.4 in
Length/width/height: 176.6/68.1/62.4 in
Curb weight: 3324 lb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero to 60 mph: 5.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: .15.8 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 7.3 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.3 sec @ 96 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 128 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 182 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.75 g
EPA fuel economy, city driving: 19 mpg
C/D-observed fuel economy: 18 mpg
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,268
- United States
Didn't feel like reading the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned the new V6 Toyota Rav4? I think Car and Driver got it to run the 1/4 in 14.9 @ 93 mph...
SSVelle
i really wouldntt call the glh or caravan turbo fast the 3.8 caravan has more power than the turbo most of those dodge 2.2/2.4 turbo's sucked ass i mean sure the glh is alot quicker than a na 2.2 pos
as for sleepers my choices would be the gmc syclone and its brother the typhoon awd + a turbo in the lightweight s series platform hell the still run 15-20g and their well over 10 yrs old now also for my sleeper pics any crown vic or 9c1 caprice with lt1 power not that crappy 4.8 they stuck in a few models
- 997
- Regina, SK
- Turboash
1992ish GEO Storm...
195+ hp@wheels (@ 10psi boost... I think he has over 20psi now!)
http://www.robietherobot.com/storm/geo_storm_mods.htm
195+ hp@wheels (@ 10psi boost... I think he has over 20psi now!)
http://www.robietherobot.com/storm/geo_storm_mods.htm
For factory sleepers, I can't believe nobody has mentioned a Taurus SHO yet. 
I've owned eight of these cars so far... they were made from 1989-1999 and here in the states they suffer the same horrible resale as the regular Taurus so these days they can be bought CHEAP. The car pictured above set me back $400. When I sold it I had about $3500 into it all total, including a tranny rebuild, repaint, suspension & some basic bolt ons. Plus, since they are still a 4 door Taurus the insurance is cheap too, and yet they're as fast or faster than the Ford Mustangs of their generation
The early generation SHO's (89-91) didn't look much different from a run of the mill, 140 hp 4 door Taurus. However, they actually had a DOHC 220hp 3.0 V6 built by yamaha mated to a Mazda built MTX-IV 5-speed manual. The engines are amazingly strong, I know many SHO owners with well over 200,000 hard miles on their engine, and a few with 300,000. When this car came out in 1989 for $19,900 the ONLY 4 door that could beat it was a $50,000 BMW M-5, nothing else with 4 doors came close and it was a match for many two door performance cars of the era. It's main disadvantage was the launch; being FWD these cars are very tricky to launch well and it takes a lot of practice to really get them going. However, once you figure it out the 5-speed SHO was a match for Ford's Mustang GT all the way through 1995, and if you ran into a Mustang from a roll, stock for stock the SHO would walk away. Official stats for the 89 SHO were 0-60 in 6.7 seconds, 1/4 mile in 15.1@ 95 and a drag limited top speed of 143. Unofficially, in my 6 years of SHO ownership (including several regional meets and one national SHO convention) I've seen numerous 5-speed SHOs run well into 14's in stock and near stock trim (my 89 ran a best of 14.74 @ 96 with an extra 16 horsepower in basic bolt-ons.) It had a curb weight of 3078 lbs, had fully independant suspension with beefy 24mm front and 26mm rear sway bars, and once you put a decent set of tires on it (stock was 215/65/15, I ran 225/50/16's ) it actually handled EXTREMELY well, with good balance and easy lift-throttle oversteer on demand. Best of all, the 1st generation cars were very stealthy; aside from some ground effects they looked just like a regular Taurus. My car above had some nice wheels on it, but take them away and the car could almost pass for a plain old Taurus:
92-95 had the same engine & tranny setup but were slightly larger & heavier with a unique front end and a little more bling. 93-95 cars could be had with an automatic, and their engines were stroked to 3.2 liters. With the 5-speed, these second generation cars were just as quick as the first gens; in fact the quickest completely stock SHO I've ever seen was a 94 5-speed that ran a 14.52 at US-41 dragway in Illinois. The key to these cars is learning how to launch them; they're very tricky to get going as there is a fine line between bogging the engine and spinning the tires silly. Once you figure out how to get it moving, it will haul ass.
The 96-99 cars got a little more stealthy again, but they also got a little slower. They were all automatics and went to a jointly designed Ford/Yamaha 3.4 V8 that made 235 horsepower. Despite a power bump, the added weight and the auto only option netted a car that averaged high 15's in the 1/4 mile. It was still a terror on the highway though, with a top speed of 140. It was much more refined than the earlier cars, and reflected the competition that was coming from GM in the form of the supercharged Bonnevilles and Grand Prixs.
You can drive a 3rd generation SHO in GT2 and GT4. The first and second generation SHOs were supposed to make it into GT4; I was actually involved in one of the GT photoshoots for cars in Detroit; they took photos and sound clips of a white 91 and a red 94, but sadly only the V8 made it into the game
Another reason I like these cars so much is that they have sparked more confusion, misinformation and flat out myth than just about any other car out there. Seems everyone I talk to has something different to say about either the origin of the car or the kind of engine it has. I've heard everything from "Mustang V-8" to "turbo 4 cylinder" to "supercharged 6", and I've heard everything from "these engines originally made 300 horsepower and were detuned" to "they were built for boats but Ford put them in a car." Most recently, I had a guy tell me that Ford had to do a major engine modification after the first year because they were putting out way too much power and completely wasting the Mustang. I also had a guy insist that these engines originally made 800 horsepower in pure racing trim. Suffice to say, I've spent many a year deciphering the fact from the fiction about these cars, but I love hearing the stories just the same
More than you wanted to know probably, but the 89 SHO is the reason we have such a nice variety of strong performing sport sedans today. At a time when 4 door performance came with a huge price tag, it turned the whole industry on it's head and sent the automakers scrambling. It gets my nod for one of the best factory sleepers 👍
I've owned eight of these cars so far... they were made from 1989-1999 and here in the states they suffer the same horrible resale as the regular Taurus so these days they can be bought CHEAP. The car pictured above set me back $400. When I sold it I had about $3500 into it all total, including a tranny rebuild, repaint, suspension & some basic bolt ons. Plus, since they are still a 4 door Taurus the insurance is cheap too, and yet they're as fast or faster than the Ford Mustangs of their generation
The early generation SHO's (89-91) didn't look much different from a run of the mill, 140 hp 4 door Taurus. However, they actually had a DOHC 220hp 3.0 V6 built by yamaha mated to a Mazda built MTX-IV 5-speed manual. The engines are amazingly strong, I know many SHO owners with well over 200,000 hard miles on their engine, and a few with 300,000. When this car came out in 1989 for $19,900 the ONLY 4 door that could beat it was a $50,000 BMW M-5, nothing else with 4 doors came close and it was a match for many two door performance cars of the era. It's main disadvantage was the launch; being FWD these cars are very tricky to launch well and it takes a lot of practice to really get them going. However, once you figure it out the 5-speed SHO was a match for Ford's Mustang GT all the way through 1995, and if you ran into a Mustang from a roll, stock for stock the SHO would walk away. Official stats for the 89 SHO were 0-60 in 6.7 seconds, 1/4 mile in 15.1@ 95 and a drag limited top speed of 143. Unofficially, in my 6 years of SHO ownership (including several regional meets and one national SHO convention) I've seen numerous 5-speed SHOs run well into 14's in stock and near stock trim (my 89 ran a best of 14.74 @ 96 with an extra 16 horsepower in basic bolt-ons.) It had a curb weight of 3078 lbs, had fully independant suspension with beefy 24mm front and 26mm rear sway bars, and once you put a decent set of tires on it (stock was 215/65/15, I ran 225/50/16's ) it actually handled EXTREMELY well, with good balance and easy lift-throttle oversteer on demand. Best of all, the 1st generation cars were very stealthy; aside from some ground effects they looked just like a regular Taurus. My car above had some nice wheels on it, but take them away and the car could almost pass for a plain old Taurus:
92-95 had the same engine & tranny setup but were slightly larger & heavier with a unique front end and a little more bling. 93-95 cars could be had with an automatic, and their engines were stroked to 3.2 liters. With the 5-speed, these second generation cars were just as quick as the first gens; in fact the quickest completely stock SHO I've ever seen was a 94 5-speed that ran a 14.52 at US-41 dragway in Illinois. The key to these cars is learning how to launch them; they're very tricky to get going as there is a fine line between bogging the engine and spinning the tires silly. Once you figure out how to get it moving, it will haul ass.
The 96-99 cars got a little more stealthy again, but they also got a little slower. They were all automatics and went to a jointly designed Ford/Yamaha 3.4 V8 that made 235 horsepower. Despite a power bump, the added weight and the auto only option netted a car that averaged high 15's in the 1/4 mile. It was still a terror on the highway though, with a top speed of 140. It was much more refined than the earlier cars, and reflected the competition that was coming from GM in the form of the supercharged Bonnevilles and Grand Prixs.
You can drive a 3rd generation SHO in GT2 and GT4.
The first and second generation SHOs were supposed to make it into GT4; I was actually involved in one of the GT photoshoots for cars in Detroit; they took photos and sound clips of a white 91 and a red 94, but sadly only the V8 made it into the game Another reason I like these cars so much is that they have sparked more confusion, misinformation and flat out myth than just about any other car out there. Seems everyone I talk to has something different to say about either the origin of the car or the kind of engine it has. I've heard everything from "Mustang V-8" to "turbo 4 cylinder" to "supercharged 6", and I've heard everything from "these engines originally made 300 horsepower and were detuned" to "they were built for boats but Ford put them in a car." Most recently, I had a guy tell me that Ford had to do a major engine modification after the first year because they were putting out way too much power and completely wasting the Mustang. I also had a guy insist that these engines originally made 800 horsepower in pure racing trim. Suffice to say, I've spent many a year deciphering the fact from the fiction about these cars, but I love hearing the stories just the same
More than you wanted to know probably, but the 89 SHO is the reason we have such a nice variety of strong performing sport sedans today. At a time when 4 door performance came with a huge price tag, it turned the whole industry on it's head and sent the automakers scrambling. It gets my nod for one of the best factory sleepers 👍
- 273
I can't believe the SHO wasn't metioned either. My friend raced what he thought was just another 98 or so year Taurus and didn't have a chance. Taking a closer look we see SHO on the rear and the V8(or # of valves) badge on the side.
What about the a Chevy Beretta? I've seen one on a hot pursuit on TV and was leavin the cops in the dust.
What about the a Chevy Beretta? I've seen one on a hot pursuit on TV and was leavin the cops in the dust.
- 1,872
- Bogotá
- GTP_Suitan (w/ an i), SultanRS4
i also love sleepers man you aint the only one
just i dont like every single one
just i dont like every single one
- 997
- Regina, SK
- Turboash
An Uncle of mine had an older SHO... he loved its power, but he says his new Lincoln LS would give it a hurtin'.
- 4,522
- TwinTurboJay
Wolfe2x7The Taurus SHO definitely deserves respect, but a FWD Ford sedan with a Yamaha engine just isn't really my thing.
It doesn't help that I think Tauruses are some of the most boring-looking vehicles ever designed.
the whole point of a sleeper my friend!
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
Someone mentioned the Beretta, which was a quick car in GTZ form.
...No one mentioned the Grand Prix Turbo from 1989 which had turbocharged version of the 3.1L V6 good for 205HP and 220lbs-ft of torque. It may not have been the quickest car in it's day, but it packed a punch thanks to it's modifications done by none other than McLaren.
...No one mentioned the Grand Prix Turbo from 1989 which had turbocharged version of the 3.1L V6 good for 205HP and 220lbs-ft of torque. It may not have been the quickest car in it's day, but it packed a punch thanks to it's modifications done by none other than McLaren.
Yeah, I know...but the Taurus is just awful-looking, IMO.
