egokiller68

i have always been told that the tpi motors were pretty quick. i am not regreting buying my formula but i just seem a little let down by to performance aspect of these cars. its not just that my car is slow because i beat a buddy who has a iroc but are these cars really this slow to start out with i have already bought new heads and a new cam and a nitrious system. hopefully this will change my 91 fireturd into a firebird. just wondering if its just me or if all ofyour cars are slow too.

dave89gta

Define slow.

egokiller68

opposite of fast. i used to have a 93 lightning and i once got torn up by a formula and he said that he just have rocker arms on it. my truck ran 13s i would be lucky to pull a fifteen secend run. it feels that way anyway

V8Astro Captain

iTrader: (1)

My stock (except the 100 shot of N2O) '85 IROC was pretty slow. It was fun as hell to drive around...plenty of "right now" torque. But it wasn't much good against the new F-body V6's, or my Astro van, or my brothers '98 Mark VIII LSC....

ronterry

Yea, a stock cars performance kind of represents for that year the current trend, technology, and EPA hoopla.
I'm sure a Vette of that same year wasn't that much faster.
I mean look at my '81 or '82, those where a joke by todays standards. But GM did there best to survive the EPA propaganda machine, by giving us good torque but it droped off so quick the HP suffered. But it kept the insurance companies & EPA happy. Those morons don't even know what HP really is. I mean **** take the same amount of torque and move it down the rpm band and your HP goes up. daaaa

Ron

RB83L69

TPI had no business ever being considered a "performance" induction system. Its design, namely using runners whose length is "tuned" (the "T" in "TPI"), is a compromise at best. What TPI does, is to cause the positive-pressure pulse (acoustic wave, sound, whatever you want to call it) that results from all the air rushing down one runner toward a cylinder as it fills, and smacks into the back of the intake valve as it closes; and makes it travel up one runner, into the plenum, and down into the next runner in the firing order, so that it reinforces the cylinder fill event of that next cylinder. This only works across a very narrow RPM band, namely from about 3300-3800 RPM, due to the particular runner length they chose. That length is 22"; so you end up with 22" from the intake valve, through a few inches of plenum, back down the next runner's 22" length. So the total physical distance from one intake valve to another is right at 4 feet. The speed of sound is about 1100 feet per second, or just at 1 foot per millsecond. So the pulse arives at the next intake valve just about 4 milliseconds after the one that created it, which produces its maximum effect at the RPM which corresponds to 250 cyl fill events per second, which is just about 60 revs per second, which is 3600 RPM. A 3600 RPM torque peak is not "performance", it's 2-barrel truck motor territory. Then on top of that, the runners are so small and have a 180° bend in them, so there's basically no way for them to flow enough air for any HP above 4500 RPM or so in a 350, even if the acoustic effect is de-tuned by siamesing or whatever. Just a pitiful choice of design for the purpose at hand. It would have made a great truck induction except for being so complex that it would have been hard for fleet owners like construction companies and such to maintain in the field.

Contrast that with the LT1 intake. A totally different design, short runners with a large cross-section, very good for performance, what GM should have been producing in 1985 instead of TPI.

I'm glad TPI finally disappeared. It's too bad it took so long since IMHO it's the one single thing that killed the Camaro and Firebird. If GM had wised up sooner there might still be a F-body car in their production lineup, instead of a bunch of front-wheel-drive weenie cars with SS badges.

So, yes, unfortunately your car is slow, especially by modern standards. If you're in a place where such things are allowed by smog laws, get rid of it, you will have a much better chance of being competitive on the street.

25thanniversZ

If GM had wised up sooner there might still be a F-body car in their production lineup, instead of a bunch of front-wheel-drive weenie cars with SS badges.



summed it up pretty good

Zepher

iTrader: (1)

I've got a bone stock 305TPI 88 Formula.
I knew before I bought it that it was pretty slow compared to a lot of the new cars on the market.
I'll be modding mine sometime next year.

LnealZ28

Well that, and the fact that the 4th gens are FUGLY. IMHO, of course.

MikeZ28

iTrader: (1)

Im gonna guess you have a 350 right? an L98...

I have a vette L98 with aluminum heads and Flowmaster exhaust.

Plus im running a rochester carb. I don't what you mean fast but the last thing I lost to racing was a 3.2 acura tl type s and that only beat me on top end. I pulled on him though 4 gears. by like a car and 1/2

and that was with 2 bad spark plugs.

But i have no problem taking down the new mustangs and all the ****.

If you want performce go with a carb it has a much wider power band. I see like 5500rpms on my shifts give or take 300 rpms.

Morley

TPI is what sparked the resurgance of production muscle cars. The HP numbers compared to the late 70's-early 80's were fantastic, each year the F bodies got more powerful.
TPI killed the F body? Hardly! If anything it ressurected them from the dead, in the years I mentioned they were but a forgotten shadow of what they had once been. The 77,78,80 &81 T/A were a sorry POS to be wearing that name. They didn't have the power to get out of their own way.
Safety design demands are what killed the F body, that and corporate stupidity.

ronterry

Think of the money they saved in the late 70's & early 80's with the power outputs...The first one that comes to mind is the POS TH-200C... I couldn't believe I pulled out a 200C from my '81!!! ...yet the rear end can handle 500+FPT???
The Z's had wonderful intakes, and a carb that can handle 795CFM, but the damn compression was -- maybe 8.5:1, and cams that made the peanut look like a monster!!!

Ron

90Formula-X-F

Factory LB9's, WS6, 5speed cars were way faster stock than any other TPI year there was on the street. If you didn't own one
then you wouldn't know. Only a twin turbo grand national made me look silly. I bought mine brand new and I blew off countless 5.7's. I NEVER ever lost to another F body EVER to this day and I know there are faster ones out there but I never ran up against one of them. A freind of mine bought his 89 5.7 GTA a few months before the 90's came out and my car ate his for lunch. It was so bad that he went out and bought a paxton. He still wouldn't race me again. Why would consider owning something you thing is slow... Man ........

You obviously just don't know... do yea..

Hope to see you out there.... Even though she's not the same anymore. The X-F in my name is because I no longer run the vin code F Engine. However All components are stock except what is listed below.....

- 355ci, WS6, 5speed -
* Ported & Polished Big Valve Cylinder Heads (Cast # 993)
* 2.02 & 1.6 Manley Pro-Flo Valves
* Harland Sharp 1.6 Ratio Roller Rockers
* Crane Valve Springs and Retainers
* G.M.P.P. Ram Jet Roller Cam
* Crane Roller Lifters
* Speed Pro/TRW 1.25 Dome Forged Pistons
* Windage Tray
* Lightweight Nodular 16lb Flywheel

* Induction - Ported and Gasket Matched
Plentum
Manifold
Runners
52mm Holley Throttle Body
Custom Built Adjustable Fuel Pressure Regulator
#19 GPH Injectors running at 50lbs

* Exhaust All New
Edlebrock Chrome T.E.S. Headers
High-Flow 3" Carsound Cat
Dynamax 3" Exhaust Tubing and Tail Pipes
Flowmaster American Thunder Muffler

rjmcgee

In 93 the Lightning was just an appearance option wasn't it?
They had a 351 with like 210 hp or something like that. How did you make yours so fast?

Jim85IROC

iTrader: (2)

Although some people **** and moan that TPI has no place on a performance car, it was a pretty damned potent induction system for its time. It allowed Corvettes to run the fastest 1/4 mile times since the "good old days" when they had mega-inch big blocks, except it did it with a car that still managed to knock down 25mpg on trips.

Sure there is better stuff out now... that's the point of advancing technology, but for an induction that's nearly 20 years old, it's pretty damn nice.

Some of us actually prefer it over other systems. When I went Vette shopping, I specifically looked for a 91 so that I could get TPI instead of an LT1. The huge torque of the L98 is a fantastic thing in a daily driver. The low end torque makes the car feel like a rocket ship on my daily commute, and I don't have to worry about cooking the optispark every time it rains.

omcrider

The third gen TPI cars when stock are definalty not the fastest things on the road. They did however help revive the muscle car idea following the fox mustangs lead to putting some HP back in the EPA production motors (it did not help kill it). What killed it was the Ford Mustang (I know you all hate to hear that curse word in here) that was selling like crazy at a cheaper cost and better marketing using a 20 yr old platform, even though the LS1 could eat up a GT in the 1/4 Mile not all shoppers in this category were putting speed as their greatest need. IMHO I think the 3rd gens are much better looking than the 4th gens and for what you can pick up a nice 3rd gen for $3000-5000 grand slowly put some work and fine tuning into it you can have respectable performance on a budget. Not to mention they are a classic in the making. I know my car can't run with an LS1 or maybe even an LT1 but the low and midrange torque give it a seat of the pants fun factor.

RB83L69

What killed it was how they stuck with it for so long. Yes, when it came out, it was a "revival" of the muscle car idea, sort of, for a year or 2, especially when you compare to the all-time loser joke CFI; then it was obsolete almost immediately. Problem was, even when it came out, it wasn't much of an improvement over a carb if any from a performance standpoint, considering how TPI didn't stack up against the L69; but then, when the competition came out with their roller motor and better FI in 87, TPI was all over with.

Look at the LT1 intake sometime. It's so simple it almost hurts to look at it, especially after all those years of people thinking for some unknown reason that those long restrictive horsepower-killing runners were somehow necessary for FI to work. It's got a fraction of the parts and pieces, less stuff to fail, it's cheaper and easier to put together, and gives same emissions and gas mileage capability, plus the potential for about 100 more horsepower. If GM had simply told themselves that all those tubes and crap were too expensive to build, and made the little short-runner thing in 87 like they should have instead of sticking with the stupid TPI design for all those critical years, we'd probably be reading about the demise of Mustang production in 2003, instead of GM losing the war and being forced to bail on the F car.

IROCThe5.7L

n/m

omcrider

RB83l69 I still think trying to blame the temporary demise of Firebird and Camaro on the TPI platform is ludicrous. The TPI hasn't been used in ten years. Even in its day there weren't to many american cars with better performance (Corvette, the gm turbo v6, 5.0 mustang by a hair). Your average automotive consumer is neither fanatical about certain brands nor are they anywhere near awareness of whats under the hood anymore much less what was there ten years ago. The 4th Gen design just got old, the stangs were cheaper, and their marketing was better. What is interesting is the same year that production on these f-bodies stops ford introduces two of the most intriguing fox body's yet, with plans in a year or two to introduce an all new body style that looks sweet. Lets just hope by 05 that GM gets back into a new firebird/camaro that makes it a competitive market again. Competition in this market makes it all that much better for the consumer.

RB83L69

The damage was done by the early 90s. The 4th gen was stillborn as far as marketing goes.

You can't blame it on styling; look at the late 80s-early 90s Mustangs for the poster child for ugly. You can't blame it on lack of innovation; the Fox-body Mustang was unchanged for ... what .... 16 years? and the SN95 retains its early 70s Maverick front end to this day....

GM lost the war for the most "exciting", "youth-oriented", whatever you want to call it car, and never managed to overcome it.

IMHO the next Mustang body style is even uglier than the last. It's typical of alot of newer cars; something that looks about like a hippopotamus head with a few "retro" "styling cues" (think PT Cruiser or that new Nissan SUV-like minivan thing). Yuck.

You're right though, competition is what keeps us all sharp. Just like racing.... if there isn't a very real chance that the competition could win, it isn't a race, it's just an exhibition. Now there's no competition any more.

The Camaro and Firebird absolutely ruled the hot-rod scene all through the late 70s and early 80s. The Mustang wasn't even a player let alone a contender and even farther from a winner. You don't see any Mustangs at all from that era on the road any more, they were so forgettable; think about it, when was the last time you saw a 76 Mustang? How could any self-respecting organization just squander that kind of brand equity and market domination? GM let it slip away due to pure laziness and lack of understanding of their marketplace. There's no excuse for some lame front-wheel-drive import POS to be able to shame a supposed "hot-rod" like what ended up happening to TPI cars before they were mercifully put down.

Ed Maher

The camaro and firebord died because of politics. New federal crash standards, an aging production plant, and a union with it's contract up all had a hand in the death of the f-body. If the general wanted to sell f-bodies in the late 90s, they would have advertised them. They knew they weren't going to retool the plant and re-up the union so they took the easy and clean way out by dropping the whole line outright. Boom, no need to upgrade side impact, no need to rebuild a dump plant, and no need to pay the union guys.

omcrider

Now I would tend to agree with alot more of what you said there! Your definatly right about the ugliness factor of the stang of the late 80's, firebirds/camaros had a much better looking body design. GM lost the war in its marketing and cost had alot to do with it. The market they were shooting for was the younger buyer, so when the younger not as financially secure buyer starts comparing a stang to a camaro he sees the big price difference in vehicles that are basically on the same level of performance. I could never figure why someone would put $34,000 into a new SS Camaro when they could have the much superior vet for another 8-10K. Your also right about mustangs falling on there face in the 70's early 80's the Trans Ams (think Smokey and the Bandit) and Camaros at the very least still had good looking cars even if the EPA put a strangle hold on the performance. So yeah the TPI cars relatively speaking are slow (my friends new Altima puts out the same HP rating), those living in non-smog states have the best of both worlds you can have the sleeper 3rd gen with its classic looks yet stuff a carbed stroker between its fenders and compete with anything being mass produced. Those of us in California will have to hold onto ours for awhile (like thirty years) before we can modify without prejudice.

kevinc

Nope, just yours.

SSC

HA HA HA HA. I was begining to think I was the only one with that opinion.


Yea but those politics go out the door when money is involved.


The TPI sysytem isnt to bad for a daily driver I personally wouldent mind having a TPI car I just wouldent race it.

1990GTA

The TPI may not be one of the best intake designs, but I think it is one of the best looking factory intakes.

IROCZTWENTYGR8

iTrader: (1)

Wow, I can't believe some of the unexpected nonsense I'm hearing in here. 1st, to the poster. You gave no information about your car so its not easy to judge why you think this about it. Is it a 305 TPI Auto or 5-Speed (G92 or not??) or a 350 TPI?? What year?? How many miles on the car?? Is it all tuned up and in top running condition?? Need more information. People have told you that TPI's are fast and you got beat by a lightly modded Formula for a reason. (probably an L98)

Now, on to the other stuff. I have to comment on the completly ridiculous statement about TPI having something to do with the F-Body not being here anymore, ROTFL. :sillylol: If you want to know the truth about why the F-Body isn't here all you have to do is read what Ed Maher just posted, that is the real reason for the hiatus and what happened. Don't expect to hear GM talk about it for a good while because they can't even if they wanted to. The 4th Gens' looks, unpopularity, the M*stang outselling them like crazy, and whatever else aside, that is the reason, definetly not TPI LOL. It wasn't even there in the 4th Gen and was only used for 8 years, 6 with the 350. Tuned Port Injection (especially the L98) brought back real performance to the F-Body and started it all off again which led to the LT1 then LS1. I know the L69 didn't do that. It was the 1st time in years that the cars were in the low 14's again and were putting out TQ numbers like 330 ft. lbs. or even HP numbers like 225 for that matter. It was a popular combination and looked at as the only real way to beat a 5.0 M5 LX. (I don't wanna hear the LB9 G92 guys, yes your cars are quick but take a same year L98 IROC/Z28 G92 vs. same year LB9 IROC/Z28 M5 G92, in the same condition, both driven to their potential = LB9 loses) Many people like TPI and would rather have it than other intakes. I see more show cars using it for its performance and looks. In 87 a car with that power and that got 16/26MPG was like incredible, it was the 350 TPI and the 5.0 that put muscle back into musclecars. Yeah, TPI isn't a revver, but it is definetly a performance car intake, especially for a street car. TQ like that wasn't felt since big blocks and if I remember correctly, stock big blocks didn't rev either but still made great power. I mean the 5.0 didn't rev much higher than TPI also. All being stock, TPI makes its max HP at 4,800 RPM and max TQ at 3,200 RPM. A 5.0 makes its max HP at 4,600 RPM and max TQ at 3,400 RPM. Alot of difference huh?! Seems the 5.0 shouldn't have been put into cars, right?? Now, the LT1 is 5,200 RPM max HP and 2,400 RPM max TQ. There is more of a difference here but its basically a trade off for more HP with a loss of that TQ feeling, kinda like how an LS1 is fast but doesn't feel like it, which stinks IMO fast or not. Each setup has its own advantages and disadvantages. And whether you do or don't like TPI, you have to admit that it's 1 of the best looking intakes ever. They are not slow, its just that cars are getting faster and even more efficient. If you run real low 14's or have a 6 sec 0-60, chances are that you're still gonna be faster than about 80% of the cars you'll meet on the street everyday.

85TPI400

Jim85, You took the words out of my mouth. I am a lover of TPI myself for daily type driven cars. The way I see it is who really wants to **** their car out into the higher rpms to be able to enjoy driving it. When my brother was shopping for a six speed vette, I convinced him to go with a 91 as well. The car is amazing when you drive it correctly rolling through the gears and shift at peak horsepower.
Dont get me wrong guys, the TPI system has its dowfalls, such as they cost a fortune to modify to be able to compete in the higher RPMS with carbed cars or LT1s. But I think they are great for what they are. And I know I am going to get slammed for this but I think GM went too far the other way with the LT1 design, for an enjoyable daily driver anyway...

RB83L69

Spoken like a true TPI partisan.

Look at the sales figures. You'll see that F car sales peaked early in the 3rd gen's life, and dropped off afterwards. There should be a clue somewhere in there.

What should have happened, was the TPI should have been used for only as long as it was "current" technology. Much like CFI which lasted for, what, 2 years. It was a first attempt, which kind of proved the concept of MPFI in a performance application, but should have been supplanted ASAP.

I really don't care too much about the factory HP and torque "ratings". They are far too inaccurate. For instance, just in the case of TPI, the "peanut" cam 305 and the "L69 cam" 305 got the same HP "rating"; that's patently bogus and we all know it. Those "ratings" certainly cannot be used to directly compare one car/drivetrain combo to another. I notice, conspicuously absent from the comparison, was the vehicle weight, which also strongly affects performance; throughout the years of the 3rd gen, the factory steadily piled it on, adding a hundred pounds of useless extra plastic dripping off of every body panel (especially the Pontiacs). Even if the HP had remained the same, the cars would have slowed down over the years.

What matters is the end user's perception of whether his car is a "contender" or not. After you see lots of sets of your competitor's taillights, you begin to think that maybe you didn't get what you bargained for. Having lived myself through the days of the old classic hot rods, the oil shocks of the 70s, the emissions crippling of cars, and the revival of "performance" to a point where this year's cars are often actually faster than last year's, the TPI motor failed on all counts, especially after 88. Even getting rid of the extremely poorly executed MAF system and band-aiding it with S/D was just a nibble around the corners.

Ed is right too; aging plants, greedy unions, etc. all contributed. However, if the sales had been there, the company would have found a way around those obstacles, just as they have done with trucks and SUVs which are produced in plants with the same issues. But since the product was weak, the consumer demand was also weak; and it made more economic sense to just bail. But that all goes back to cars that failed to excite the buying public, due to lackluster performance.

Dewey316

rb,

i agree with you in many points, especialy about the TPI performance, the induction system would have been very nice in a truck, but not in a performance car.

but there was much more to it than that. the 4thgens absolutly killed the mustang in performance, but still lacked sales. i remeber in 95 when they had a press day for the mustang, and had a Z/28 there to show how good the mustang was, and the Z killed in every aspect. but look, the mustang still sold. why, because it is more what the public wanted. the mustang had alot more appeal to the female market especialy. just look at how many v6 stangs are runnign around, they are everywhere. the f-body no matter how well it performed was not the ticket, they are hard to get in and out of, they lack styling, and appeal. period. GM also failed to advertise the f-body's, while ford pushed the mustang very well, and saw the sales that come with good advertising.

85TPI400

I wouldnt consider myself one if we are just taking about flat out power. I just think it provides a nice balance of driveability, fuel economy and delivers good bottom end torque and performance for most people on the boards or strictly daily driven cars.
Unforunately, I live in a place where emissions and legality is an issue. There is no doubt in my mind that if I wanted one of my cars to be just crazy fast that I would just throw a completely worked or furter stroked 400 or a bigblock in it, put a carb on it and run headers, mufflers and dumps and call it a done deal.

Jim85IROC

iTrader: (2)

*** damn. You really think TPI killed the f-body?

What killed the f-body was a lack of V6 sales, and if you can somehow manage to relate that to using TPI in the 80s, then you deserve your own talk show.

Look at sales numbers for the late f-bodies and you learn all you need to. SS & WS6 sales were compitent. Ta/Formula and Z28 sales were dismal, and V6 sales were nowhere to be found. The only people buying the cars were gearheads, and that doesn't support an entire platform. The reason that the mustang is still around is because they made a car that appealed to the masses, and was able to sell solid numbers.

In the 80s, thirdgens sold well in excess of 250k vehicles per year... and well over half were not Z28s or Trans Ams. Out of all cars sold, only a small fraction came with the top offered motor.

The sucess of a car line like this depends on its overall appeal. The 4th gen f-body didn't have it for a multitude of reasons, but the use of TPI in the 80s sure as hell wasn't one of them.

I can just imagine a mustang guy saying this: "You know, I was going to buy one of those 325 horsepower LS1 cars that can pound the **** out of every mustang on the road, but since GM used TPI back in the 80s, I decided to buy the Mustang instead."

Oh... and speaking of mustangs, have you ever seen one from the 80s? Ever see their induction? Long, tuned runners, just like TPI.

RB83L69

I'm driving a 305 carb car; stock Q-Jet, stock intake, stock exhaust except for Edelbrock TES, stock air cleaner, stock ignition, every single emissions device including the ECM, EGR, AR, the cat, etc. installed and operating correctly with no Check Engine light, recently was licensed in California....

I drilled about a 89 or 90 Vette at a stop light the other day. It was a guy on his way to a wedding, I could tell because the bride was his passenger. I didn't expect such a person to want to race. He punched it as he left the light, to my surprise; so what could I do? He got about a full car in front of me before I nailed it. I was back even by the end of first, and about a car and a half in front of him by the end of second. Then we had to stop for the next light. He was disappointed when he asked what I had under the hood and I told him.

Poor guy. I bet he loved that big TPI torque too. So much torque that his L98 couldn't keep up with an old carbed 305 through 1st gear.

The 70s Camaros and Firebirds weren't marketed at all. Yet, they easily acqured and held, to this day, an image in the public's mind as "hot rods", even though most of them are as gutless as a Civic. Those of you who were around back then will remember exactly what I'm talking about. And where did that image go???? TPI.

bigals87z28

look at a 4th gens sales.. they kept going down... must of been cause of tpi and its lack of power eh?

then what the hell are we fighting about if we are not talking about horsepower ratings and comparing them?

Hind site is 20/20.. In 1984-85 they didnt think about the LT1 intake and it would be better then TPI or the LS1 would give great power all around the rpm range. They knew that the TPI system worked well for a 305 car and that it gave monster torque with modderate hp for a daily driver. If you wana make a 10 sec car, TPI aint the place to be... If you want a good 13 sec car runnin around the streets, shutting down the little imports, TPI should do ya just fine. TPI did bring power back to the new age Camaro's and Birds. As said before, TPI led to bigger and better things, LT1, LT4, LT5, LS1, and G0D's gift to the Bowtie the LS6. You cant say TPI killed sales for fbods. I think that it peaked so high before TPI because poeple did know know JACK about modding FI cars! All they knew is that the runner mess was not a carb on top and they cant do the normal mods to make it faster. GM needs to get off there **** and Lutz needs to jack some of these bean counters against the wall and beat the crap out of them. Lutz will be the man with the plan. If there is money to be made in RWD fast cars, which apparently there is because EVERYONE is going RWD, GM will throw there hat back into the ring with a RWD car... The Fbod will return.. and Ill be on line with the deposit like the rest of us!!!

Morley

GM didn't need to advertise those cars back then, you had movies like "Smokey and the Bandit" to do it for them. TV shows used F bodies all through out them as did other hollywood movies. That was "free" advertising for GM. Also the price difference between an F body and mustange wasn't very big, not like in the final decade of F body existance.
GM never really advertised the F bodies, they never felt a need to, the cars always sold themselves in the past, so they figured they would continue to so. Price was the big factor here, mustangs were so much lower in price that more people could afford them and therefore they sold more of them. Just look at the price of a new T/A or SS compared to a GT. Who cared if the GT always lost to the F bodies, they were close in performance (not in handling though) and cost heaps less. Economics, plane and simple, GM wanted far too much for their top of the line rides than ford did, GM priced themselves out of the performance business along with expensive mandated safety upgrades.

Jim85IROC

iTrader: (2)

So you stomped some poor unsuspecting bastard with a lousy running vette that can't drive. I've seen plenty of bone stock L98 vettes run 13s... especially the speed density cars like mine. How many stock L69s can do that? Oh wait... none. A good running L69 might break into the 14s. A full second difference. If you think your L69 can beat them, you really need to spend more time at the track.

I remember when the LT1 came out in the 93 f-body. Everybody got a massive hard-on over their low 14 second 1/4 mile times. Nobody noticed that they were only about a tenth quicker than the 92 L98s.

RB83L69

Yeah right. Of course. And you were there too, right?? In case you didn't notice, I was the unsuspecting bastard, not the other guy.

Note also that you can take a LT1 and put a cam and headers on it, and a little tuning, and come up with an easy 60-80 HP. You can't do that with a L98 or LB9. It takes all of those things, plus some serious bucks in replacement intake tract parts and the correct fine-tuning, to add 60 HP to a L98; and where you could continue to bump the LT1 up with head work and other things, the L98 reaches the end of its road at around 325 HP. To get much past that, those long runners have to come off, and something else has to go on there, at which time it's no longer TPI.

I think we can agree to disagree, especially going by results on the track and the dyno. Facts are facts as far as that goes, even though what we each "prefer" might be something entirely different. I test-drove a 85 Vette within a week after it was released, and decided that I wanted nothing to do with TPI; it was barely faster than the lame 79 Z28 I drove into the dealer (not quite stock but not heavily modded either), and although it gave a nice little push back into the seat for an instant at a certain RPM, it ran completely out of steam before the transmission even shifted itself (it was an auto and I just left it in Drive). Nothing that I've seen in that induction system over the 19 years since that day has done one whit to change my initial impression of it. I don't know how long you've been doing this, but some of us don't have to look at the "ratings" or get all warm and fuzzy about the only induction system we've experienced, in order to make an intelligent comparison among them.

I'll take a large cross-section short-runner intake system, carb or FI, any day, over that twisted-drinking-straw "tuned" thing. A motor with as many cubes as a 350 doesn't need to permanently unrecoverably sacrifice that much horsepower in favor of a 10-15% bump in the torque curve at a low-midrange RPM. That's just bad design, and is the single biggest reason why the F car came to lose its association with speed and power in the public's consciousness, whatever those who like it might think. Then once that association was gone, the public ceased to be interested in buying the car for all of the reasons listed above, and once that happened, it was too late. The war was already lost.

wesilva

iTrader: (35)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RB83L69

IMHO the next Mustang body style is even uglier than the last. It's typical of alot of newer cars; something that looks about like a hippopotamus head with a few "retro" "styling cues" (think PT Cruiser or that new Nissan SUV-like minivan thing). Yuck.


Amen to that. Look how the panels seem bolted on especially the sail panels. The fender extensions absolutely suck!! That is one ugly looking car compared to the flowing 3rd and 4th gen Camaros/Birds styling cues. Then Ford goes and adds 400 lbs to the darn thing!! That move is directly aimed at the roomier F-bodys, IMHO. The demise of the F-body has to be the marketing and politics. Every rag out there claimed they were the best bang for the buck bar none!!

IROCZTWENTYGR8

iTrader: (1)

ROTFL, RB you are too much. Our cars were switched to SD because of COST. SD was alot cheaper to produce than MAF and thats why they changed. When a new body style that is greatly recieved comes out, sales are usually always the highest at 1st. Now, Third Gen sales peaked in 84, but the years after that (which were TPI years ) sold higher numbers than the years before 84. Like I said, that was obviously when TPI was there. On top of that lets also not forget that there were also price increases, by 85 each model costed about $1000 or more than it did in 82 and it kept going up as the years went on. You are saying BS because you are so biased to the L69 of all things which was discontinued 3 years after it came out in F-Bodies. (supposedly because of fuel boiling problems) I mean, that engine was pretty good but lets be honest, any good running G92 or not L98 can make an L69 look silly, come on now. You also talk about weight and how they got heavier. I don't know if you noticed, but after 84 the only things different was a redesign of the bumpers, GFX and a few other things, but it was basically the same just with a different look. They were still the same weight. And, the 85-on TPI cars have slightly better aerodynamics than the earlier cars. (which I do like also) Then you say because TPI didn't get faster each year it stunk. Uh, there was some sort of power increase every year from 87-92 whether it was 5HP or 15TQ. The 5.0 was the same in the M*stang and never changed from what 87-94 or something, so I guess they are BS too right?! LOL, this is just getting really silly now. I know some real car builders and modders and none of them have this view that you do about TPI. I even have some 85 production numbers for you, which was before they were discontinued.

LB9: 32,836
L69: 2,497



To the 4th Gen hiatus issue, whether or not the 4th Gen sold good, (which it didn't) they were going. The idiot management that was in there at the time decided that way before it happened. And guess what, even though the sales were lower, they were STILL profitable to GM and made them money. Most of the cars sold were Z28's and SS's and the prices on the SS's were definetly high, no1 was buying the cheap cars but bought the expensive 1's instead. You are not gonna see a new Camaro on the streets until about later 06 because of the contract that they have to go by. This is why you don't hear GM say the words Camaro or Firebird, because they really can't for an extended amount of time.

omcrider

Wow this topic went from why is the TPI slow to TPI killed the Camaro Why not jump to Why doesn't pontiac have a rear wheel drive v8 in their lineup or what about the upcoming GTO next year that will fill that void. Funny how some people are just hard to rationalize with. Any way you cut it the TPI has potential to be a great street car setup, It is definatly one of the best looking induction systems especially when cromed or painted lots of showcars are using them these days for that unique look. Can you tune them as easy as a carb? No. Do they have the higher revving potential of the LS1? No. Can you build a fast, fun, goodlooking, street car out of one? You betcha can!

Ed Maher

RB, i think you're just ranting on a soapbox or something brother. The f-body lost it's performance image because of the peanut cam cars more so than anything else. Consider that most Z28 / IROC / TAs were saddled with a peanut cam in one form or another. The worst sin of all were the peanut cam TPI cars though since they forever stigmatized the injection much worse than the real performance variants did (as you claim)

Seriously, L98 thirdgens were always mid-low 14 second cars. As fast as the much lighter LX mustangs, and usually a few tenths quicker than the GTs. Only a couple tics off the lighter vette. How is that pathetic for it's time?


As for the potential of a long runner set-up, look at Kevin91Z. Small heads, weak launch with the 6 speed, still runs high 12s at what, 110? That's fast enough for a lot of people. Or what about Mike Davis. Siamesed base went high 11s, and to the untrained eye would look like a stocker.


I do agree that thirdgens did take a performance black eye though, but i blame all the peanut cam V8s that GM was shoveling into these cars. Since most V8 thirdgens are in fact pathetic excuses for performers with sub-200hp V8s, MOST people's experience with thirdgens is that they are high 15 second or worse cars. Like i said, the peanut TPI cars really stick a fork in the rep of TPI cars since most people will never realize that the peanut TPI cars are a joke and have nothing in common with the real TPI cars until that flat bumpstick is out of there. Since the majority of TPI cars are so cursed, easy to see why that'd be majority opinion.

Another problem we had for years was no ability to get in the chip. While mustang guys had an easy system of recalibrating MAFs to tune and compensate for engine changes, TPI cars were left with band-aids and kludgey methods of fooling it and compromise. The only people who were programming chips were crooks who weren't tuning ****. So even if you ran nice heads/cam/etc your tune was way off and you had a 13 second car that should run near 11s. It took just the right luck to get something put together that went right, and thus *fast* cars were few and far between.


I don't think TPI is some great system, it's definitely a compromise design. Given a choice i'd probably take an L69 car over an LB9. But you're just closing your eyes if you can't respect that there are stock long block L98 cars in the low 13s and examples of long runner TPI into the 11s. TPI was not the death of the f-body. TPI's lack of performance is a myth considering any L98 car would smoke your beloved L69 (stock), and was only a couple tics off the far superior in every way LT1 (gee, aluminum heads, a real mild performance cam, not a flat stock with a little more duration, 10.5:1 compression).

It's kinda funny that you even hold the L69 in such high regard. I can understand why, as one of the rare few that know how to deal with CCCS it is a great system. However, the vast majority of CCCS cars are either completely fubarred and need major TLC to get back into decent driving conditon, or are converted to mechanical carb/dizzy. So let me get this straight. The first thing a performance minded gearhead does to an L69 is....rip the stock carb off it. Wow, thats a shining star of a set-up on par with TPI's record. Well not really, bet i could find 10 TPI cars running the same numbers for every 1 CCCS car (i.e. show me a 1 x 12 second CCCS car, i show you 10 x 12 second TPI cars)



No, like i said, the black eye was the peanut cam cars. Period. When every mustang driver in the world has sucked the doors off of 28 peanut cam TPI cars, there's just no way to convince them that they've only been racing the fake engines since nearly all of the TPI cars on the road are the low output variety.

bigals87z28

ed, sometime I just wana hug ya... you really know your chit.. I didnt have to read 2 lines and I already knew that you had this on lock down... your the man...

jimmy_mac

This subject always starts a debate no matter what topics it's under.

I spent many Saturdays at the strip here in Tulsa in the late 80s, early 90s which is only 700 feet above sea level and rarely ever saw a STOCK 5.7 Tuned Port badged car break into the high 14s let alone mid to low. And 93 mph where the typical trap speeds. It's hard to blame these times on drivers since they where automatics and the fresh posi units provided pretty adequate traction. The only mustangs they could beat where the AOD GTs. I'm not saying anyone is making anything up. Just that my memories are pretty clear. And I owned a 2nd gen camaro at the time so I was no Ford fan.

I'm not saying you can't take a TPI car well into the 13s, cause there are guys right here in town doing it. I'm just saying STOCK they where a low 15 high 14 low 90 mph trap speed car. And the 5-speed mustangs where consistent proven mid to high 14 second cars. The almost header looking exhaust manifolds they had, the dual pipes, and the 3.5 inch driveshafts made it look like Ford was making more of an effort to be a muscle car.

With all that said I think the mid to late 70s started the demise. If anything the era of the TPI was the road back. And not neccessarilly due to the TPI. Roller cams and smaller cc chambers didn't hurt performance, that's for sure. And the LT1 set the camaro back on top. Again induction was not the only reason. The LT1 had a larger cam and better flowing heads. And of course we know the capabilities of the STOCK LS1.

It seems like a lot of times we define a motor by its induction. I would think defining it by it's cam and heads would be more appropriate.

LnealZ28

Even further off topic, but, where does this leave performance enthusiasts who want to buy a new, American made V8 powered sports car but don't quite have the beans for a Corvette? You got it......Rustang. Or a truck. Geez. My brother is one of those people. He's ready to buy an American sports car. He really likes the newer Trans Ams but guess what? He can't buy a brand new one and won't even consider a used one. And he would buy a new one if he could. If he feels this way, imagine how many more like him have been painted into a corner by the morons at GM.

To sorta get back on topic, I tend to agree that blaming the demise of the F-body on egokiller68's slow TPI motor is silly. Blame it on the aforementioned morons at The General.
IMHO

IROCZTWENTYGR8

iTrader: (1)

Heads and cam are really important yes and get left out alot in why an engine performs like it does. But I really don't think those cars you saw were 350's. The 350 TPI Camaros, especially G92 cars, were low-mid 14 sec cars. You've never seen 1 break into high 14's?! A dude I know just ran an uncorrected 14.82@94MPH with his stock 88 IROC-Z with only real mods being 3" Flowmaster exhaust and K&Ns. And that was with the stock lousy 2.77 gears, a non-G92 car, and there was more in it. Check out this post: https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=186782 And thats with a heavy GTA.

jimmy_mac

14.82 at 94 is definently believable. I didn't say I never saw it, just rarely. And an aftermarket exhaust probably gives you a tenth in the quarter mile. Have you ever looked into the stock muffler. It looks like the exhaust runs into a brick wall. It's horrible. Usually when someone says they run a 14.82 that is their fastest time. Not the average. I'm just saying if your gonna say the typical L98 powered camaro was a 14 second car, it was more like a high 14 second car. Those black buicks that made the whining noise where legitimate low 14 second cars stock.

Ed Maher

I was going to type a bigger reply, but i just don't care. When even supposed enthusiasts will bad mouth theses cars, i guess the point is proven. TPI cars are all slow, and all those STOCK l98s i've seen both here and in real life running low low 14s stock was imaginary.

I just wish i knew why people with such defeatists attitudes are even into these cars in the first place. I didn't buy a TPI car because i thought the intake looked neat, i bought it because i knew it would run low 14s/high 13s with basically nothing done to it.. If i thought it was a 16 second slug (which all LB9s must be if L98s are 15 second cars) i wouldn't have even considered the purchase. So what's everybody else's excuse?

jimmy_mac

Handles well for a big car, already has a small block in it so there are a lot of options for increased power without a lot of money invested, best looking f-body in my opinion, and is relatively inexpensive. It's the poor man's corvette. For an all around well powered, good handling car it's still the best deal. At least IMO. And I don't consider high 14s slow. I'm not realy a defeatist, more of a realist.

Can we agree they trap around 93 to 94 mph? I have seen cars with those trap speeds hit mid 14s. But they usually have a verter and good tires.

iroc22

:sillylol: Yes and they were pathetically slow.

And as far as the LB9 not stacking up to the L69 ROTFL is all I have to say to that. I haven't even seen a L69 trap into the 90mph range while the TPI cars (especially the 5-speeds) are in the 90-94mph range (depending on year and combo). I would like to see a bone stock L69 line up against my bone stock LB9. I bet I'd know the outcome.

Ed Maher

Sure i can believe 93-94 mph trap speeds from the early MAF L98s, especially the 2.73 geared cars. The 90-92 SD cars are generally a little faster all around and average more like 95-96mph.

So i guess i was being a little generous when i said all L98s are at least mid 14 second cars. The 2.73 MAF L98s are usually more like 14.7-14.8 cars. But any dual cat L98 with 3.23s damn well better run a few tenths / mph over that. If it doesn't, something is wrong with it or the driver.

BTW, 93 mph is VERY easy to run in the 14s with. My heavy 305 convertible was running 14.7s at 93 and that was still with 2.73s in it, all stock except dual cats.

iroc22

Or the few that I have seen sitting at 97-98mph. There was this bone stock black 1LE Z28 hitting 14.3@99 mph. That's a little high for an engine rated at 245hp. And this car was definitely bone stock externally; from my own two eyes. And the owner also vouched for its bone stock condition.

How about a 93mph trap speed from a 1988 MAF 305 TPI? That's what I hit on my first night out driving my car. Although I didn't hit the 14's because I had no idea how my car acted; I will hit 14's with a 93mph trap speed once I get to know how the car acts. Oh and here's a list of my mods:


Oh wait there aren't any. It's exactly how it would have rolled off the showroom floor in 1988; except for the mileage.