[oldman]

For you Mustang guys "During this wheel-to-wheel confronta*tion, the 5.7-liter IROC-Z accomplished exactly what the Chevy engineers intend*ed: it was quicker than the Mustang. The difference wasn't great, however, and be*sides, there's a lot more to real-world driv*ing than isolated bursts of speed. " Ouch

https://www.caranddriver.com/compari...om-line-page-3

As I told you all the Mustang's rear suspension really sucked bad:

In fact, it was excellent controllability that gave the IROC-Z its big advantage at Willow Springs. The Z's nearly neutral cornering balance and ability to segue smoothly from understeer to oversteer made driving on the track easy. In long, sweeping corners, it was a cinch to choose a line and set the car's attitude by gently caressing the throttle. Upon exiting the bend, more power, along with a bit of op*posite steering lock, kept the Z pointed in the desired direction without breaking traction at the rear wheels.
Driving the Mustang was much harder, because it understeered strongly most of the time. Increasing the power in a turn made its front tires grind even more, though a heavy foot on the throttle would eventually break the rear tires' grip. Keeping the tail from getting too far out of line wasn't difficult, but the necessary corrections—lifting off the throttle and straightening the wheel—took their toll on our lap times. The Mustang's tendency to kick its tail out also made it hard to apply power when exiting a corner: a little too much can lead to a tire-smoking, opposite-lock powerslide.

As I've said if you were really there, you knew the Mustang was a light cheap platform very flexible and the rear was unstable. Yikes. The auto IROCK ran a 14.5 and the 5.0 notch ran a 14.9... The article says the firm shifting auto gave up nothing to the 5.0's manual. These are editors not engineers. It was the broad torque band of the TPI that let the 350 pull the heavier car and the slush box along thank you.

[kttxz06]

Originally Posted by 1295/SS

Just when I think you can't embarrass yourself any more, you come up with this gem. You obviously never spent any time at the track in those days.
A 5 spd 305 camaro with the G92 option was a driver's race with the 5.0. Mustang. THE 5.7 cars made easy work of the 5.0. My bone stock '87 GN embarrassed all of the above.

Agreed. When i was in HS. 90-94. My buddy had a 92GT Fox Body and my other buddy had the 92 Z28. Black with Red Stripes. That thing was gorgeous. The z28 straight laid the smack down on that GT. It wasn't even close. Of course, non of them had a shot against my Zx-6, but you get the idea.

[vtirocz]

http://www.iroc-z.com/articles/artic...endofanera.htm

The iroc-z put down some decent #s for the time.

[BlaqWhole]

I had an 83 or 84 4cyl 3sp manual Camaro, an 84 Z28 auto 305, an 86 Z28 5sp manual 305, a 87 Z28 auto 305, an 87 IROC auto 5.7, and a 90 Formula auto 5.0 TBI. This was back in the mid to late 90s. The 5.7 TPI IROC was wicked fast. The only thing faster back then were the Vettes and GNs. The 5.0 Mustangs were a driver's race with the 5.0 TPI IROC but they could not beat the 5.7s. Funny thing is that my buddies all had Camaros Trans Ams, and Firebirds, back then and the only way Mustangs could beat us was if they had strokers or forced induction. Mustangs needed the aftermarket back then and they still need it all these years later.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by oldman

As I've said if you were really there, you knew the Mustang was a light cheap platform very flexible and the rear was unstable. Yikes. The auto IROCK ran a 14.5 and the 5.0 notch ran a 14.9... The article says the firm shifting auto gave up nothing to the 5.0's manual. These are editors not engineers. It was the broad torque band of the TPI that let the 350 pull the heavier car and the slush box along thank you.

I wasn't there in the 80s when these cars first showed up. I was on the scene with them in the 90s. And yea the 5.7 TPIs were beating the Mustangs. In 93 the LT1 showed up and basically walked all over the SN95 GTs. The LT1s had 245 hp (although they now say it was 275) in 93 and 94 and then got upped to 275 from 95-97.

The Mustang V8s had like 215-225 when the 5.0 carried over into 94 and 95 but they also gained weight. Then they go the NPI 4.6 and remained 14-15 sec cars, lol!! Even the PI GT couldn't break into the 13s. I think like 1 tester actually managed to get a 13.9 out of a 5 sp GT but I'm not even sure. I remember one magazine and a guy wrote in to the mag and complained that his GT was soo slow that he couldn't get past a girl in a Honda Prelude in a merging lane, LOL!! And even funnier, there were some Honda Accords around 02-04 that were actually faster than some GTs stock for stock. I think it even tied or was like 1 tenth behind the 5 sp manual GT.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I had an 83 or 84 4cyl 3sp manual Camaro, an 84 Z28 auto 305, an 86 Z28 5sp manual 305, a 87 Z28 auto 305, an 87 IROC auto 5.7, and a 90 Formula auto 5.0 TBI. This was back in the mid to late 90s. The 5.7 TPI IROC was wicked fast. The only thing faster back then were the Vettes and GNs. The 5.0 Mustangs were a driver's race with the 5.0 TPI IROC but they could not beat the 5.7s. Funny thing is that my buddies all had Camaros Trans Ams, and Firebirds, back then and the only way Mustangs could beat us was if they had strokers or forced induction. Mustangs needed the aftermarket back then and they still need it all these years later.

Now hold on BW, I had not one but two GLH-S, even though they were advertised as 175 HP for warranty work, each left the Shelby shop with the 205 HP setting. Even in CA. low 14s and a terror on the Auto-X. I use to look for GN from a roll. Remember it was the Mustang and Camaro guys that were laughing when HotRod Magazine claimed the GLH-S was two full seconds faster than a 350...till Carol challenged them (Ford and Chevy) to a race: 1/4 mile and autoX, and road race. Ford and Chevy showed up with trailered in cars and a team, Carol drove his to the race, took his brief case out and said here ya go. Goods: easy to get 300 HP from it, the bads no way to hook to the ground, torque steer was CRAZY, worst shifter on the planet, nay about the same as a GTI, and Dodge build quality like everything would break or fail. Comfortable seating though..

on the fox body:
Lapping Laguna Seca in the Ford Mustang GT is a study in contradictions. The car seems fast and sounds fast, but does not live up to its promise. Lap times are limited by rear axle hop, brake fade, and tires. It is far below its potential due to these problems, and was a click slower than the Daytona 1:29 (75.5). The tire and brake problems are solvable with aftermarket products, but the rear axle hop is more complex. It appears to be a matter of excessive location compliance, and the result is that the car cannot put its great engine to full use. Under some combinations of cornering, high acceleration, and irregular surfaces, the rear axle can cause the wheels to momentarily lose contact with the road surface, and the power must be reduced to bring everything back under control. This adversely affects lap speeds, and is very upsetting to the driver.

And in two years the GLH-S would add 50 percent more HP and loose 250 lbs..http://www.motortrend.com/news/1983-...na-comparison/

|

[Zeke.Malvo]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I wasn't there in the 80s when these cars first showed up. I was on the scene with them in the 90s. And yea the 5.7 TPIs were beating the Mustangs. In 93 the LT1 showed up and basically walked all over the SN95 GTs. The LT1s had 245 hp (although they now say it was 275) in 93 and 94 and then got upped to 275 from 95-97.

The Mustang V8s had like 215-225 when the 5.0 carried over into 94 and 95 but they also gained weight. Then they go the NPI 4.6 and remained 14-15 sec cars, lol!! Even the PI GT couldn't break into the 13s. I think like 1 tester actually managed to get a 13.9 out of a 5 sp GT but I'm not even sure. I remember one magazine and a guy wrote in to the mag and complained that his GT was soo slow that he couldn't get past a girl in a Honda Prelude in a merging lane, LOL!! And even funnier, there were some Honda Accords around 02-04 that were actually faster than some GTs stock for stock. I think it even tied or was like 1 tenth behind the 5 sp manual GT.

Ummm no. The 93-95 LT1 was 275 hp the 96-97 switched to OBDII had 285 hp. I had a '97 A4 Z28, it went 13.8 @ 101 with a CAI. Good solid car. I heard of quite a few 4.6 SOHC '99-'04 breaking into the 13's as well. Try getting your facts straight rather than just spewing your verbal diarrhea.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Zeke.Malvo

Ummm no. The 93-95 LT1 was 275 hp the 96-97 switched to OBDII had 285 hp. I had a '97 A4 Z28, it went 13.8 @ 101 with a CAI. Good solid car. I heard of quite a few 4.6 SOHC '99-'04 breaking into the 13's as well. Try getting your facts straight rather than just spewing your verbal diarrhea.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Not all of the LT1s were rated at 275 HP. And I remember the 93-94s being rated at 245 and then changed to 275 at some point. So if I was wrong then I was wrong. There's no need for you to react in such a childish way.

And I said there was one test where a 99-04 5sp GT ran a 13.9. Show me one where they did better. Or show me all of these GTs that you know of that broke into the 13s bone stock in an official test. Post a link since you wanna talk shit. Those cars consistently tested in the 14s.

[wjones14]

Originally Posted by oldman

As I've said if you were really there, you knew the Mustang was a light cheap platform very flexible and the rear was unstable. Yikes. The auto IROCK ran a 14.5 and the 5.0 notch ran a 14.9... The article says the firm shifting auto gave up nothing to the 5.0's manual. These are editors not engineers. It was the broad torque band of the TPI that let the 350 pull the heavier car and the slush box along thank you.

I was there. Well, not with an IROC, but back then I ordered a new 1984 H.O. L69 Z28 5-speed. The car was like an athlete, but the ride was like a skateboard. A few years into ownership, a co-worker said his 5.0 Capri could take my Z28. I didn't believe him for one second. But a few days later he got next to me out of nowhere on the highway and challenged me, and his car just walked away. I couldn't believe how much faster it was. The 5.0 in that article was the 1986, but the peak came in 1987, and that's what the Capri was. A few years later, I ditched the Camaro and went to an '87 Mustang GT. That car was a lot of fun.

[JamesNoBrakes]

Old news, but interesting if you remember it:

http://www.autonews.com/article/1999...horsepower-fix

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by wjones14

I was there. Well, not with an IROC, but back then I ordered a new 1984 H.O. L69 Z28 5-speed. The car was like an athlete, but the ride was like a skateboard. A few years into ownership, a co-worker said his 5.0 Capri could take my Z28. I didn't believe him for one second. But a few days later he got next to me out of nowhere on the highway and challenged me, and his car just walked away. I couldn't believe how much faster it was. The 5.0 in that article was the 1986, but the peak came in 1987, and that's what the Capri was. A few years later, I ditched the Camaro and went to an '87 Mustang GT. That car was a lot of fun.

Similar story...my boss at Sears had a GT and I had just got my 87 Z28. It had the 5.0 carb'd (H VIN code) engine...last year for the carbs. We raced but I didn't know what I was doing. He left me by bus lengths. I can honestly say I never lost to a Mustang since then.

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by oldman

For you Mustang guys "During this wheel-to-wheel confronta*tion, the 5.7-liter IROC-Z accomplished exactly what the Chevy engineers intend*ed: it was quicker than the Mustang. The difference wasn't great, however, and be*sides, there's a lot more to real-world driv*ing than isolated bursts of speed. " Ouch

https://www.caranddriver.com/compari...om-line-page-3

As I told you all the Mustang's rear suspension really sucked bad:

In fact, it was excellent controllability that gave the IROC-Z its big advantage at Willow Springs. The Z's nearly neutral cornering balance and ability to segue smoothly from understeer to oversteer made driving on the track easy. In long, sweeping corners, it was a cinch to choose a line and set the car's attitude by gently caressing the throttle. Upon exiting the bend, more power, along with a bit of op*posite steering lock, kept the Z pointed in the desired direction without breaking traction at the rear wheels.
Driving the Mustang was much harder, because it understeered strongly most of the time. Increasing the power in a turn made its front tires grind even more, though a heavy foot on the throttle would eventually break the rear tires' grip. Keeping the tail from getting too far out of line wasn't difficult, but the necessary corrections—lifting off the throttle and straightening the wheel—took their toll on our lap times. The Mustang's tendency to kick its tail out also made it hard to apply power when exiting a corner: a little too much can lead to a tire-smoking, opposite-lock powerslide.

As I've said if you were really there, you knew the Mustang was a light cheap platform very flexible and the rear was unstable. Yikes. The auto IROCK ran a 14.5 and the 5.0 notch ran a 14.9... The article says the firm shifting auto gave up nothing to the 5.0's manual. These are editors not engineers. It was the broad torque band of the TPI that let the 350 pull the heavier car and the slush box along thank you.

nice job digging up a head to head of the '86GT. They were slower than the 85's and 87-93's because the swirl heads were terrible, but you knew that. hell the 85 gt was a low 14 car stock if you could drive.

[hotlap]

I bought my 91 5.7L Z28 with a cam in 94. It was fast AF. The only street race it lost was to a Typhoon that pulled so hard on me that it wasn’t even close. I only street raced back then so no idea how fast it ran but that 91 Z was one of my all time favorite cars.

[Zeke.Malvo]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Not all of the LT1s were rated at 275 HP. And I remember the 93-94s being rated at 245 and then changed to 275 at some point. So if I was wrong then I was wrong. There's no need for you to react in such a childish way.

And I said there was one test where a 99-04 5sp GT ran a 13.9. Show me one where they did better. Or show me all of these GTs that you know of that broke into the 13s bone stock in an official test. Post a link since you wanna talk shit. Those cars consistently tested in the 14s.

There's no such thing as an official test seeing as there is no governing body to regulate it.

You must be thinking of the iron head/block LT1's in the Caprices and Impalas, which I also had at one point (bored/stroked to a 383). Those were rated at 265 hp.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk