87_Injected

I recently gave up my 87 Corvette Roadster of 10 years for a nice 87 IROC 350. I will say there is a huge difference in handling compared to my IROC. The corvette handled much better on turns and at highway speeds etc. It was almost effortless. With the IROC I feel I have to be more attentive while driving. I'm just curious as to the famous WS6 handling on the GTA's etc.. What are the differences and how can I improve my IROC's handling? The suspension bushings have all been replaced with new bushings etc.. Shocks are new as well. In fact the whole car has just about new everything since it has been restored from the ground up etc.. It just feels like something is missing. I guess I'm just too used to the Corvette handling that I have been spoiled for the past 10 years. Any thoughts?

89ROC-Z

iTrader: (7)

It was a 'vette, of course it will outhandle an iroc lol. What kind of rims and tires are you running? Too much sidewall?

chevyracingrox

a vette' is built from the ground up to handle better than pretty much anything. a corvette is a fast car you can drive on the street, a camaro is a street car you can drive fast. you could get better tires, maybe some wider tires or even lower profile. from what I hear the TA's have always been more about handling and make camaros seem unstable and cumbersome by comparison.

87_Injected

I'm running the stock 16" IROC rims.

Tires in the rear are TOYO PROXES4 245/50 R16. The front tires tires are CENTENNIAL INTERCEPTOR HR4 245/50 R16

I however would pretty much prefer the same tire brand on all 4 corners. It would make things easier especially when rotating/balancing etc..

racing geek

iTrader: (5)

For one, the vette has independent rear suspension and the IROC has a solid axle. That alone will make it seem a lot more stable, especially over uneven surfaces. Like everyone said, the designers if the vette had different goals in mind then the designers of the IROC.

Just because it was rebuilt with new components, doesn't mean the components are any good (ex. Monroe shocks/struts may be new, but they are still crap). The other thing is, maybe your IROC isn't one with the peformance suspension package. Getting matching tires will make the car more predictable if nothing else (ex. the front won't loose traction much sooner then the rear).

As far as I know, the TransAm with the WS6 package and no power options was the beat performing thirdgen because of it's lighter weight and more performance oreinted suspension. However, according the 1987 dealership brochure that I have, the 87 IROC could pull 0.88 lateral G's right off the showroom floor. Back in it's day, the 1LE and WS6 cars were considered the American Ferraris and they were just that. I think there was an article published by HotRot or CarCraft or something where all the did was change out some bushings and swap the shocks/struts for some slightly better ones and the thirdgens could actually hang with Ferrari and Lambourghini. Talk about a blow to the ego!

Mike

PS - I'll scan that page of the brochure tomorrow so everyone can see it in print.

StevenB L98/LS1

I drove an iroc compared to my 91 trans am with the ws6, i didnt see much difference, other than the ws6 was a little smoother and i didnt give much effort at the wheel when turning as to the iroc, and the comfort in the iroc wasnt up to par like my t/a is. But the iroc seemed to handle very well non the less.

87_Injected

Thanks for the info. I do have the IROC performance suspension since the RPO code I have indicated I did. I do plan on getting all 4 tires replaced down the road. As for the shocks etc.. I am not sure what it was replaced with. I do know the bushings are red and they seem to be aftermarket. The car does drive tight. There are no squeaks or rattles anywhere. Feels like a brand new car when driving. What does the brace do that sits across the engine and mounts to the shock towers that I see on some member cars? Also I am aware that some IROCs came equipped with Bilsteins? I haven't check mine yet.

Dizturbed One

A set of Bilsteins will help anyones ride. Those things are awesome.

The bar connecting the struts is called a "Strut Tower Brace" (you'll see STB for short around here alot) and would help you out alot in terms of cornering feel and ability. Edelbrock makes a really nice 3 point one for our cars.

If the shocks are all new, its loaded with new poly, and it still feels problematic... I'd look at the springs, maybe swap them out if they haven't been replaced, and check the Lower Control Arms in the rear for poly/poly bushings. If so, maybe swap over to spherical on one end, that would help with it "snapping" around if that's the problem.

If it doesn't have any aftermarket parts underneath, you could easily start improving handling on that car with a few basic parts. They're EASY to bolt on and they make a difference that won't break your wallet.

Swaybars w/poly bushings and endlinks (bushings are probably done if they did a poly swap, but bigger bars are an easy upgrade for cornering)
Steering brace (you should already have one since it's an IROC, but I'd check)
Strut Tower Brace (again, big improvements in the corners here)
Panhard Bar w/poly bushings (adjustable if you're lowered, and adjust it to center your rear end between your tires and chassis)

Suspension is easy and pretty bolt on for these cars. You'd have to let us know what you already have to try to help more.

racing geek

iTrader: (5)

ok here is the page I said I would scan...



As a reference, I also did a search on Google and found out that the 1987 Ferrari Testarossa was only capable of 0.90 lateral g-forces when it came off the assembly line. If I remember correctly, you could gain 0.02-0.03 by simply going with 275/40/17 street tires all around instead of the 245/50/16 that came from the factory on our cars. I think the Koni/Bilstein shocks also brought it up another 0.02-0.03.

Here is a link to the website I found the info at...
http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z...estarossa.aspx
It can be found in the sentence above the title, "Design," which is half way down the page.

I'm looking forward to testing my car this summer.
Mike

91_5.7_TPI

iTrader: (2)

Like Mike said, if the new struts are Monroes or Gabriels, they're still junk. My first piece of advice is to get a set of KONIs of Bilsteins and then go in for an alignment that's more aggressive than stock.
My brother had a 91 Corvette and had ridden in my car a few times when I was playing. I asked once if he wanted to race a local mountain road, he said he knew my Camaro would win. Not sure how much merit that carries, but my car has the stuff you see in sig and his was stock. The feel will be different between the cars, but the handling should be comparable.

383roller

dag gum! same Gs as a Testarossa there is one around where i live maybe i could embarrass him next time i see him. My car has the Blisteins is there another shock that will out perform them?

91_5.7_TPI

iTrader: (2)

Are you talking about the Bilsteins from the factory? The standard Bilsteins are out-done by the HDs I would guess, and the KONIs are adjustable and have better vavling than the HDs. Then there are Penkses, etc. But that's $2000+ for shocks sets.

383roller

yes they are factory, thanx for your input

91_5.7_TPI

iTrader: (2)

Well, if they are the stock pieces, new Bilsteins or KONIs will really improve the car's hanlding.

racing geek

iTrader: (5)

I just took another look at the link I posted and realized it says the Testarossa was capable of almost 0.90 lateral G's. This means our cars could very well have been able to out handled a Ferrari when it was bone stock!

383roller

thats hard to believe when the ferarri is mid-engined

91_5.7_TPI

iTrader: (2)

Yes, but there's more to handling than the skidpad. You have to take into effect the weight transfer amongst other things.

Firebat

iTrader: (7)

Check out this magazine article: https://www.thirdgen.org/besthandlin...driver-may1984

But yeah, pretty much what everyone else is saying. Wonderbar, STB, poly bushings, good struts, aftermarket lowering springs, panhard bar, LCA's, LCA relocation brackets. One thing that I want to mention is to replace the steering box with a quick ratio steering box or even just replace it if you already have one that has high miles. Also, replace the steering rag joint.

GICATA

My brother-inlaw has a newer 'vette (I cant remember what year/version) and it feels tighter than my WS6 T/A. I really feel there is too much flex in the F Bodies. Adding frame connectors, strut tower bar, boxed lower rear controll arms, tube front A arms, panhard bars and torque arm along with quality shocks/struts and tires/alignment will make a new car out of a stocker. GM went kinda lame on these I feel, but they were still really great cars. Though maybe not Corvette killers.



edit: what he said ^

91_5.7_TPI

iTrader: (2)

I don't know about boxed lower control arms. Not the best option in this area. And the suspension components, allignment, and tires won't do anything to reduce chassis flex.

kevz28carter

does anyone have pics of sfc installed?

chevyracingrox

how can boxed lower control arms improve handling?

mnorton

You can't rotate the stock IROC wheels. They are Front and Rear Pairs.

chevyracingrox

i don't but go to spohn's website and they have pictures of their product installed.

Guest

Depends on the Ferrari

All serious thought, I drive alot of exotic cars and raced Vettes for years. I have driven many Vettes regualrly from my 68 C3 to my Brothers 64 Roadster C2, to my other relatives C4&c5's to my Girlfriends C6 including my Vetruck. I have raced Panteras, Lotus Elans, Numerous Porsches as well as wildly built Vw's...and leading right down to my NASCAR stuff with the truck I crewcheif on and the Superlate model that I was the first person to ever drive one on Toyota Speedway as well as numerous times since in truck, Legends, etc....With all that said, street car to street car there still has not been a car I have driven that can out handle the little V6 Camaro I built for my ex wife.Since we are talking lateral g's, I will relist what many of you have seen me post in the past that I have pulled a 1.07g on a skid pad and a 60-0 in 102ft in that car "on 245/50-16 street tires".(220Treadwear)

The GTAs aren't sh*t stock with the ws6 package because the car is so damn heavy. Thats why the ride smooth. Its just like the cadillacs, they too are heavy with creature comforts the up the sprung to unsprung ratio and render a good ride. Put a GTA on a skidpad next to an IROC and the IROC will beat it hands down. Now take the WS6 springs and put them on a lighter weight car with good dampers and you are starting to have something. ps- how do I know about Cadillacs? I own an 85 Eldorado. Heavy with big swaybars- it just gives the impression it handles well, but it don't.

Dean

ps, I'll be up at Laguna Seca running this Ferrari on the track this weekend
pss- I drove this badboy around Newport Beach for about an hour about a month ago and all I can say is even the guys were checking me out- I was like," What the f^%k you looking at?!"at every light.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

Dean knows his stuff when it comes to cars and handling.

Guest

I post a little bragging rights for any sceptics also. Heres a shot sequence of me on California Speedway where we dived off into the 2.8mile roadrace course infeild. I was passed by a full race vintage GT40 racecar on race tires. I am in a 135rwhp V6 Camaro with street tires. In the first pic you can barely see the nose of my Camaro entering the 60 mph left hand 180*sweeper (Turn 5). I actually gain distance on him and when we straighten up he puts down the 500+hp and shows how much he is actually trying when he leaves me on the straights. I can only vaguely regain distance in the corners.

This sequence goes to show just what a street car on street tires can actually do if you have the knowhow and the money. I just lacked power in this car because B.S. calif smog restrictions. It was in FACT my ex wifes grocery getter- it was our minivan so to speak.

ps- I have another sequence footage where I literally "eat for lunch" a BMW M3 coming off the high speed bank and slowing into turn 3-4 chicane.

Guest

Thanks Allen, but we all know I have my weaknesses when it comes to building HP. I seem to always screw with the slow cars and needed to learn how to keep them fast by not having to slow down to turn.

To answer the original posters question about his Vette Vs his current Camaro, the C4 Vette was alot better balanced of a car F&R proportion with less roll, wider tires, better steering system, overall weight placement (i.e.-polar weight). My Camaro handled well because...well... it really wasn't the same car that rolled off the assembly line. I did not just alter the suspension, I started with an already better bias lightweight V6 and still further stripped and reproportioned weight and unsprung ratios as well as polar weight. My car steered like a jetfighter. Only one member here ever rode in it (Georger Laura) and he declined to drive it after I ran him around for a little test drive to show him what it would do. I all do respect to George, he adimently told me he would be afraid to try that himself driving it that it was beyond him. George was an engineer for B&M and he and his wife were both drag racers.

My Camaro WILL outhandle the $300,000.00 Ferrari I am pictured in above. They brake about the same. They Ferrari will eat me for lunch in HP!, and that is what sucks. But I if I spent the other $275,000.00 on my motor and sequential 6speed.....Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.

customblackbird

iTrader: (15)

i also read an article on how the 3rd gen camaro beat the new C5 vette/ferrarri/mazaratti/ and all the others. they had a stock IROC and upgraded it with subframes, lowering springs, wonderbars, poly bushings and blisten shocks. spanked everyone but the vette in one field but it was right behind it.

as far as the best handling cars out of the 3rd gens i would have to say it was the firebird formula/formula 350s with the WS6 suspension. its a stripped down model of the TA with nothing but performance in mind. stiffest springs, best shocks, biggest motor, best gears, same quick ratio turning, 4 wheel disk brakes, biggest sway bars and the biggest tires they had at the time, 16" rims 245/50r16s. they are lighter than any other production firebird/camaro with a V8 but retained all the best performance they had to offer.

independent rear suspension isnt all its cracked up to be. straight axles are no slouch and in fact are in some ways better than IRS. the new mustangs are straight axle rears with a panhard rod!

87_Injected

Thanks for the interesting articles and responses everyone. The only other thing that came to mind that I am disappointed with on my IROC.. Is the fact that if I have to make a U-turn at a stop light to the opposite oncoming traffic... My IROC will not make one correctly and makes it too wide that I have to stop the car and put it in reverse to be able to get out. It will turn too wide onto the grass or even hit a curb in which I don't let happen. My corvette was able to do these things without much work. It would make a u turn like any other car would. This IROC prevents me from doing so. What is the first thing that needs to be done here to fix that? It is annoying enough that if I ever had to make a u-turn.. I would avoid doing so and and just end up making a left hand turn into a parking lot to turn around completely.

GICATA

By affording less flex, you can also move the mounting point (relocation kit). Anything to tighten these cars up!

383roller

power brake it until you see smoke, then release the brake while turning the wheel, the back end should come around enough to where your nose is facing the other direction, but seriously someone on here knows what you need to have more turning radius.

Guest

Problem witht he steering radius is you just do not have alot of room inside the front fender wells for wide tires to turn. They basically built the steering links to accomidate the room availiable and they built the 16" cars with larger stops on the a-arms to limit the throw slightlky further 1) because of potential inner fender contact, and 2) because the ackerman angles fail after about 3/4 lock to full lock and the tires toe in and scrub against radius paths with the wider tires showing this more previlant. They only engineered the ackerman to what they needed and the spindle mounts would have to be shortened in throw, the stops be ground down, and the inner fenderwells relieved for more clearance.

Dean
ps- the drift guys have proven this affective in modifications they have performed equally to this suggestion to get more steering angle.

87_Injected

I guess that explains it then. I will just have to live with it.

87_Injected

1MeanZ

iTrader: (9)

OK the wrong answer alert is flashing and I can't ignore it. For handling you do NOT want boxed lower control arms unless you are running spherical rod ends instead of bushings. In order for the axle to rotate freely in the car each control arm needs to twist slightly. If they can't twist, the rear will bind and will make the car snap loose. Unless you are a hardcore drag racer, boxing the stock lower control arms accomplishes nothing.

GICATA

Okay, so it seems I'm talking out of my tailpipe...sorry I don't mean to blab about things I don't know enough about. I come more from the drag racing side and have always been led to this mod. I wanted to replace the arms on my TA...but not for the curves I guess?

So the vehicle wants flex in a rotational manner at the axle, but no flex in a horisontal manner? Doesn't the Torque arm (axle to trans) keep this from happening? Does the upgrade aftermarket adjustable torque arm afford less flex and cause problems as well? Help!

Sorry I seem to be on a learning curve here too.

1MeanZ

iTrader: (9)

I posted about this because I made the same mistake, thats how I learned not to do it. When you go around a corner the car leans over. One side of the axle goes up in the car, one side of the axle goes away from the car. So one control arm tilts up, one tilts down, but they are attached to the same axle, so they must be able to twist slightly in order for the axle to rotate in the chassis. If the control arms can't twist at all, the car will lean until the arms get in a bind and then stop. Once the rear is in a bind, it can't roll anymore and the roll stiffness has increased tremendously and the car will be terribly loose, meaning the tail will spin out. For drag racing boxed arms and poly bushings are OK, but for cornering, you want to control your rear roll stiffness by adjusting rear sway bar sizes and spring rate, not by allowing your rear suspension to bind.

91_5.7_TPI

iTrader: (2)

I can think of about four or five threads where I've explained why poly bushings/ boxed control arms are a bad idea for a handling car.

chevyracingrox

has anyone heard of welding square tubing into the original control arms? my friend did that to his street stock because it got bent. it was an 80s monte or malibu chassis, with four control arms, 2 upper and 2 lower. we didn't really get to try it out though. we used the tubing for a strait edge, straitened it out, and welded it in for reinforcement. would that give a similar effect as boxed?

racing geek

iTrader: (5)

Yup

GICATA

I will go lok these up...a Lambo/Porsche guru and I have been entertaining this conversation to the end that it's more a driver preference, ie. tight/loose driving car.

91_5.7_TPI

iTrader: (2)

In these cars, it will cause snap over/under-steer if you can generate the grip needed to force the bushings to deform. If you're a driver that prefers snap over/under-steer, thn, yeah, I guess it's driver's preference.

Guest

Most driving preferences are a result of drivers being used to driving a car of a certain characteristic for years. Its what they know, its what they are used to, they can generally NOT addapt to another vehicle setup unless it is setup properly and they are retaught to driver correctly.

A good driver can drive anything decent adapting to control the car with pedal skills. When you no longer have to bandaid fix a yaw ratio characteristic with driver skills the car will elivate in cornering capability- at that, you then need to redirect pedal skills and learn how to adjust the car to reduce the next level of effort.

I can get into anything and in five minute and the right roads get back out and tweak what is needed to progress balance. But I am more rare with engineering , setup, and driving skills- I am my own driving engineer so to speak. I have had many people I have driven their cars and they think they are pushing it to the best it would ever go- then I show them whats wrong, why its wrong and what the chassis is unloading etc as a result of the car and driver combo.

In conclusion, I truely believe in all my years of experience that telling someone the car does not match their driving style is a politcally correct way on not hurting their feelings. I set the car and tell them to learn to drive it...after I lead by example and show them what it really will do after I am done with it.

The guy with his car and his driving style is a mid pack car. The guy with the right style to drive the correct setup will win every time. I truely believe there is only one right driving style...period.

My opinion (but based on years of experience)

ps- funny story, we had a little fun banquet for our race series last November. Out of 23 drivers that showed up (mine winning 3rd place in the championship in NASCAR Supertrucks AND being a 10 time IKF champion in TAG karts, I took 4th place overall in a little K1 championship where we had two runoffs switching karts for fairness. I was one of two crewmembers out of probably 100 crewmembers there that made the mains. I also weight 230lbs- 1st and second (Conner and RJ) both weight 135lbs, Scott D weighs about 180lbs. I was .6 off the leader and .15 off Scott at the checker overall. I beat my own driver by 1.8 seconds on a 34 second course. Again, My driver was a 10 time IKF champion, but he could not adapt his driving skills to manipulate these karts because he can only drive his. I am working carefully on this to correct him BUT not to step on toes or egos- alot of money at stake in our series and at of people looking for fall guys to point fingers at when things don't go the rock star drivers way. I take my stabs when appropriate and am earning respect the slow hard way keeping my mouth shut to what I see is obvious.

Now to defend my driver, and explain why I back him and believe in him...is bacause at the ripe young age of 19 he is smoother than anyone I have ever seen. That is experience which is AMAZING at 19 yrs old, but is also in a very relevant way in hindering his progression also. Why? When it comes to swithing into the next level (moving up in the ranks of NASCAR) he tends to hide what wrong with the car rather than not worrying what people watching are thinking and pointing out whats wrong with the car by a tad bit of overdriving at first to check on the cars nature. He is used to a certain pecking order and is a little too reliant on his father speaking for him since they race Karts together for 15 years with the dad setting the kart (not too many setting and the kid always basically having the same kart which was balanced well from the getgo and he had talant and smoothness yet never ever had to fight adverity of a bad vehicle. When I cam on board last year, I was new to NASCAR altogether (I come from a road race background, not circle track) so I was on a big learing curve myself. To top that off, I had a kid driving for me that hat had never raced anything but a gokart leading up to that aand did not have the knowledge to know what to tewll me he needed. THEN, he would never drive the car hard enough to pinpoint what it was doing wroing becaue he was so smooth that lap one looked the same as lap 100. The truck we bought was used, and it took me 6 races to figure out it had major setup problems from the last driver when we took possesion and left there baselinesetting to work off of......Anyways, when it finally dawned on me the kid was tanlented enough to overcome changes and make the damn truck look the dsame lap after lap and would tell me he did not feel differences in the changes I made- it clicked on me he instintively was working the pedals, but mentally did not relise what he was doing and the lap times remained the same as a mid pack car. I then the next pratice session through major crap at the car just to throw him off (I through a 2* spread in the caster and offset the rear 2" out and he cam in kind of mad saying he had to turn the wheel right going down the straight. Well "no sh*t" I responded. Finally glad to get some imput. We prgress from there and learned to read the little things that he overlloked and would not realize of tell me in the begining. We podiumed two races latter and got our first win on race 11.

He is getting better at responding, but it is still taking him too long to adapt to something new if and when he moves up in ranks. I need to be able to work with him to give him the tools he needs to better himself as a driver when it comes to quickly learning and adapting. He gets it, but is taking too long to do so by proof of the K1 story above last November after the season.

Guest

What My driver is learning and how it would apply to and could posibbly help anyone here trying to find out whats wrong with their car.-

Best advice I can give anyone on the above subject is that I see time and time again when a person will get into a vehicle (anything) and try to drive it how they think they know it should drive 'right off the bat without testing it'. Now put that into a competitive situation and 3laps into som,ething you are falling behind because the car is not working to your style.

Better advice. Imediately test the vehicle in every corner changing constantly your style as you go. What do I mean by this, I will give a basic personal answer then get back to the track condition-

ex. - When I first get into a car I am not familiar with in the rain, I will immediately test the car's reaction in swerving and braking in the wet under slow back street conidtions to verify panic stop taction and manuveabilty before I would ever have to find out the hard way in an actual accident or hopefully prevention of one. I quickly overdrive the car so to speak to see just what I have for safety and to make sure everything including tire pressure feels right.

Now on a track, if the first corner does not feel right, I will jam up the next with the brake pedal to get it to rotate, i will jerk the wheel not smoothly to purposely unsettle the vehicle to see its atitude- Most vehicles are always tight and understeer notoriously into a snap loose conditon. You then keep changing your line turn after turn until it responds correctly to being overdriven but maintains adequate exit speed, back off a tad and smooth it out and you now have adjusted your driving style to the car......rather that the other way around in still fighting to get the car to run the line you think it should and continue with your frustration.

In doing so, you will essentuate the cars characteristics and will faster learn through manipulation on generally ONE SETTING AT A TIME how the vehicle next reacts to those changes. After years of experience, you will learn what change affects nothing else, and what change affects 3 other things where they need to be changed in order not for them to change- I know that probably doesn't make sense to some of you, but it IS what happens. You sometimes have to change some things so they do not change when you change something else first.

Guest

Now back to the IROC and the GTA. I posted all of this for a reason, to explain the cars as basic as I can. Some may not like this, but this is the fact.

The GTA is a heavy car, but has the stiffer spring package to compensate.

You take both cars with the same size and brand tires- Goodyear Gatorbacks 245-50-16 fron that era.

One car is about 3400lbs (IROC)
The other car is about 3800 lbs (GTA)

Supensions weights are about the same other than spring rate, otherweise all other componants are very close to equal in geometry and unsprung weigh.....OTHER THAN THE WHEELS. GTA have about 2lbs lighter per wheel. Slightly higher unsprung ratio which is good for ride and handling characteristics.

Chassis weights the GTA is much heavier by I think aprox 400 lbs (I am not going to bother researching this but I am sure someone else will correct me if I am too far off in memory). This also makes the GTA with a higher sprung to unsprung ratio which again does in fact inprove overall handling and ride quality.

So whats the problem? The false pretense that the GTA feels better that it handles better.... so it must corner better. Wrong.

The probelm lays in the extra weight on the same tire lateral grip. that 400 extra pounds increases the slip angle of the wheels contact patch and will sooner break traction than the IROC. Weigh is your enemy...period.

The IROC may not feel as stable because it is more agile. Less weigh and can reach to changes quicker, but sometimes felt as more darty. The GTA is more stable but will have less change of attitude and feel more predictable and less darty due to greater creature weigh as well as polar weight or inertia that willnot change direction as easy.

In other words, you can YANK the steering wheel of the GTA more without reprocussions than you could with the IROC. This is why many people think the GTA will outhandle an IROC and the WS6 pckage is thought to be so great with the higher stiffer spring rates. More weigh means more body roll so the GTA had big swaytbars- HOWEVER,, why are they both on the same shock valving though the GTA is heavier and stiffer springs. With that said, the IROC will in fact stock for stock trasition quicker. It hasmuch better chassis weigh control being lighter. It pulls a higher lateral g, so the same driver in each car will think the GTA feels easier because it will reach mechanical grip loos more predictably but sooner, where as the IROC will maintain grip longer but release mechanical grip less predictable or more twicthy.

It takes a better driver to pilot an IROC--BUT PEOPLE PLEASE READ THIS: That is not to say that IROC drivers are better than GTA drivers. THis is merely a conparison of two factory cars that are now 25 years old and in no way handle like they did new. Plus the fact that neither of these will hold a candle to the aftermarketr products of today with the right setup know how. The older I get I would perfer the luxury of the GTA like I am actually embarassingly admitting I am enjoying crusing my Eldorado sugar caddy. I get back into my truck and it feels like a damn racecar, then I get tinto my racecar Vette and think holly .... yeah, I am getting older and stating to enjoy luxury to race about 25/75. I never thought I would like not having my eyeballs jar in their sockets, but you do eventually change in life.

Guest

There's only one problem with that theory, GTA's are not that much heavier.

Guest

Fair enough Chris. I guess I posted it so I went ahead and resurched it and we meet about half way.



1989 camaro iroc (LB9/700r4)......3250

1989 pontiac gta (LB9/T5)...........3363

Website says automatic option over T5 adds 101 lbs. taking the GTA to 3464. aprox 200-250 lbs based on options on each. Most GTA's I have seen seem to have power everything (seats, t-tops, power windows, automatics, full interior comforts. I am talking the sought after collector car known for Pontiac luxury and performance. Their flagship GTA that was the best rival for the Chevy Corvette of 1989. IROC's were more commonly billed as the
5speed lighter no frilles car with manual seats etc were the fast desirable ones everyone wanted even though yes some autos were also made. Maybe its me but I have always looked at the GTA's as sport luxury fully load cars and the IROCs as the imatation race on Sunday sale on Monday car with the stick shift. I would assume most people of that day thought the same as I did. I can see where perception may have changed now, but in 1989 thats what the appeal was for each. The younger crowd wanted the 5speed IROC, the older crowd wanted the auto fully loaded GTA's.

I was wrong at 400lbs. Thought I remembered seeing the GTA's were heavier at about 3800. maybe it was the later convertables. Anyways, I was wrong year for year but 200lbs is still substantial enough to make a big difference. Run a 1/4 mile by yourself, then run it again with a 200 lb passenger, then run it a third time with a 250lb passenger. you will see a substantial difference just off of acceleration. Then take into affect braking, and lateral weight. I still stand ny my posts, just not as great a margin as I suspected but the IROC is still lighter and more nimble.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong again, but...

...isn't the expensive sought after cars of both today still the same. The 5speed Iroc hardtop and the fully loaded automatic GTA fully loaded withwith t-tops being the top money fetchers?

Guest

Some are heavier. My 86TA is a heavy pig. Its loaded with every option, so not real surprised. The GTA's came pretty much optionless (everything was standard) so yes they had just about everything under the sun. I have some seats in my garage and the GTA seats are ridiculously heavy... to the point that I'm not in agreement that the wheels and lack of t-tops or convertibles was a weight thing, because the seats are just stupid heavy and they really didnt need to be.

A member here did a comparison and tried to figure out the spring packages GM used and for the most part it was random, but generally they were the same on both chassis with the same level suspension. I'd say the largest departures were the shocks and sway bars, and the wonderbar on the Camaro. So between that and probably 100-200lbs, thats the handling difference.

customblackbird

iTrader: (15)

so then if u think the lighter IROC is more of a nimbler handler than the GTA. i beleive that also. weight has a huge difference on overall handling. with me in the car and with me and my brother/dad in the car my car totally changes even in handling. Also we are both under 200lbs. still u can see and feel a difference.

so the iroc being lighter i would believe would handle better than the Heavier GTA but what about the lighter than both formulas? they had the same WS6 suspension but weighed less than both. they were the lightest 3rd gens and were GMs supercar. also the only ones able to hang with those pesky 5.0 fox bodies that weigh like nothing.

i also believe that ppl dont "drive" cars but the cars tell the drivers how they want to be driven. every car is different and handles differently, its the drivers talent to be able to drive that car to its upmost ability by learning from the car. i thought the formulas weighed in the 3100-3300 range. but they were lighter than the IROCs for sure.