david roush

iTrader: (1)

Okay, i know some people say the cheese slid off my cracker long ago. I was checking this car out for sale.....http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chevr...67807973QQrdZ1
In which it states :" The TPI 305 reached 60 miles an hour in 6.3 seconds and covered the quarter mile in 14.8 seconds at 95.4 miles an hour. The other car with the 350 reached 60 miles per hour in 6.1 seconds and covered the quarter mile in 14.8 seconds at 96 miles per hour. Not only did the 305 get better gas mileage but virtually identical performance."............I've been reading these boards long enough to know better than that. But just out of curiousity does anyone know what the "real" 1/4 mile and 0-60 times where for the 305 TPI and the 350 TPI. I am thinking in the 15's for the 305 and 14's for the 350 maybe?

XSVortex

iTrader: (1)

5.8 to 60, 14.4 in the 1/4 for the 350 if im not mistaken.

CC89Formula

im not too sure about time differences, but in 89 hp from a 350 was only 15 more than the 305...tq numbers were probably way different though.

8Mike9

lol...not pertaining to your question, but the guy is definitely a salesman.

Notice how all the defects in the car "can easily be repaired" and "for not much money"


I also think he needs to adjust his G-Tech some, his numbers from 0-60, 1/4 and MPH don't seem to work together.

WaOnFiRe

I have a 1988 GTA with a 305 TPI, automatic transmission and 3.27 rear and I have run a 15.56 on the 1/4... Completely stock (not even a performance air filter) and with 118 500 original miles.

1MeanZ

iTrader: (9)

well there are freaks and turds everywhere you go. some 305 5 speed cars run mid 14s stock, some 350 cars cant even run in the 14s with mods, I have seen many like this. anyway, the power numbers for the good LB9 and L98 are pretty similar. the crummy peanut cammed LB9 is not subject for this debate.

LB9 230 hp 300tq
L98 245 hp 345 tq

most L98 cars would go mid to high 14s stock, but many are getting tired these days so expect to see many of these tired warriors in the mid to low 15s. LB9 cars are similar, the 5speed cars seem to stay strong for some reson, but many LB9 automatic cars are doing good go be in the mid 15s.

GOY

My old IROC with a new 355, L98 cam, Edelbrock TES, and Flowmaster catback, K&N's ran a best of 14.8@91 with it's 3.42 rear gear. (I built the engine, I know it was new, and I know it was the L98 cam.)

My 88 Formula, with 70k 305/M5 combo, Hooker headers and Edelbrock catback, stock air intake feels much quicker than the IROC did, especially in 1:1. It has the 3.45 rear gear.


BE CAREFUL WHEN MAKING THIS COMPARISON! You only mention the two engines, but don't make mention of what trans you want to compare them with. A 350/A4 will cripple a 305/A4 by comparison. The 305/M5 can vary greatly - sometimes just a tad bit slower, sometimes just as fast, or sometimes it embarasses 350/A4 cars.... it just depends on the peticular car and driver.

87TPI350KID

High 14's for an L98 tpi car are bullshi* Anyone on here knows that the L98 cars can run mid to low 14s, 13's with headers/boltons. As for that 305, stock for stock it may be close to a 350, but when you modify at all, the 305 is a pos

fireball451

Found my old time slips.
My 1991 Z28 w/ 305 5-speed that I bought new ran:
14.57 @90.82 mph
60ft was 2.16
The car was stock as it was still under warranty. If anything it had a pair of K&N filters but my other mods did not come till later in life. (no money at the time)
Unfortunately, I do not have the car anymore. Listened to the wrong person and traded it for a Z71.
Everyone said the car was a freak. I would routinely kill a couple of 350 cars my friends had. One had a 1991 and the other a 1988. The 1991 got a few mods and I still handled him. Everyone got away from me on take-off, but the little 305 reeled them in and pulled ahead everytime.
Oh man, I'm getting teary eyed. I want my little freak back!

Abubaca

iTrader: (3)

Asking what times a stock 350 and stock 305 car run is like asking how big was the fish you caught last weekend.

LB9GTA

iTrader: (1)

My stock '91GTA ,305 auto with 2.73 gears went 15.8 on the g-tech.
Now, it's slightly faster.

GOY

I ran a best of 14.8 after break in with a new engine and full exhaust. What's bull$hit about that?

83 Crossfire TA

iTrader: (2)

Only when you compare the same years was there really a difference… for example, my ’87 formula 350 is rated at 225hp@4400 and the same year 305 was rated at 215@4400, but the ’88 305 was rated at 220@4400 and the ’89-92 305 was rated at 230@4400. As long as they weren’t optioned badly (like 2.72 gears), the later 305 was every bit as fast if not faster then the early L98 IRL.

3.8TransAM

High 14's for a L98 is slow unless your talking mile high tracks.

Make thirdgen hook and it should get u into the 13's easy.(somewhere in the 1.7-1.8 range)

We have 305 and 350 cars with stock engines on our NW IN/South Chicago board in the 14.6 to 13.3 range with no head/cam work or crazy rear gears.

Standouts are SmurfinZ28 car that he got down to 14.3 its an 85Z he converted to stick(T5)(yes its a 305 car and still is)

Winger4800 got his 89 formula down to a 13.3 with base and runners and good tires(350 car)

My stocker 91 GTA w/ catback and 24# inj on my own tuning ran a 14.4 @94 on a horrid 2.3xxx 60ft and my gf driving and letting off thru the traps. Temp was horrid too, have pics of thermometers at the track at 115deg lol(350 car)

I'll go with CrossfireT/A, the 350 cars were faster than the 305 equivelants, but a properly optioned 305(g92) manual car would run almost neck to neck with the 350's. So the driver would prolly influence that race.

later
Jeremy

80smetalfan

*305 H.O. (High Output) TPI (Tuned Port Injection) V8 engine. The engine is mostly stock with a mild cam, the TPI runners were ported prior to me owning the car, and I would assume its putting out close to 260 to 280 HP with 290 to 310 LBS of Tourque. To anyone who immediatly disregards this car because it has "only a 5.0 engine" I'll take a quote from a camaro book written by anthony young titled camaro." The TPI 305 reached 60 miles an hour in 6.3 seconds and covered the quarter mile in 14.8 seconds at 95.4 miles an hour. The other car with the 350 reached 60 miles per hour in 6.1 seconds and covered the quarter mile in 14.8 seconds at 96 miles per hour. Not only did the 305 get better gas mileage but virtually identical performance." Tell that to anyone who tells you "It's only got a 305".

*MSD ignition was put on before i owned the car and gives it a nice little boost.

*High flow air filters Ive noticed better gas mileage since I put them on.

*Stock 2 1/2 inch exhaust, but i added a new magna flow muffler wich runs the same inch pipe dual exhaust and rips louder than my nieghbors 79' tuned vette! Plus its all emmissions legal.

*Overall the engine is very strong and starts up everytime I turn the key. I had taken the car out racing a couple times and i had a freind time me at an average of 5.6 0-60 with an average of 14.7 in the quarter running 102 MPH. The car handles like a dream, the 245/16 inch tires in the front followed by the 255/16 inch in the rear keep you huggin the road like Michael Jackson hugs little kids. Also the stock tuned sporty suspension can lead to a somewhat ruff ride but Ive noticed that while driving let alone turning at higher speeds the suspension tends to put more wieght on the oppsite side that your turning to keep more weight on the tires to help grip and stability.

Yeah, I saw that auction earlier today, kinda irratated me. Doesn't really matter, cause the guy's got an auto Lb9, and he is comparing same year and saying that any TPI 305 will keep up, but forgets to mention that the 305 in the article is a 5 speed G92, which he doesn't have. Even with his G-tech/wrist watch/butt dyno/who knows? claims, it seems his mighty modified 260 horse 305 would get handled by most L98s in decent tune. It's eBay though. I've seen L03 owners claim they have stock L03s which put out 305 horsepower, so it's not THAT crazy by perspective. At least his car is within 100 hp of his claim.

80smetalfan

In his defense, $2000 Buy It Now isn't too bad at all for the car.

-SHAMELESS PLUG- But my car for $2500 in the 3rd gen classifieds isn't bad either!

87TPI350KID

In all fairness, I was talking at sea level, I noticed you were in ohio, whats ur elevation? Maybe you cant drive, maybe you didnt hook, bad weather on that day...what was your 60 ft time?

87TPI350KID

Is it wrecked, or has it been fixed?http://i15.ebayimg.com/01/i/04/ab/46/b5_3.JPG

Abubaca

iTrader: (3)

Maybe it's just that you CAN drive. ..and more power to ya! I've seen LOTS of stock L98s run high 14s. Sadly, I've even seen 15s. I've also seen low 14s. L98s are know to be VERY different from car to car. It's a friendly conversation, no need to be cranky.

8Mike9

Tis true, but I think some of the issues on the car in the ad (for me anyway) are things like:

Has some body work before from the previous owner, but only slight bubblng now....should be easily reapaired"...

Also..."have a bent spindle, doesn't affect anything, but have a new one...all you have to do is weld it in...should be easy"

I paraphrased the quotes in the ad, but you get my gist...there were others as well.

Also, what doesn't add up is the guy posted "stock times"...

Then he runs a faster 0-60 than "his posted stock times" at 8 MPH better than "his posted stock times", yet ET are just at "his posted stock times".

I'm telling you, the guy sellnig the car is out to hook some unsuspecting guy with the shiny paint and "what it could be" for much more than it's worth.

If it were so easy to fix the things listed, why not get it done and sell it?

Oh, wait, I've an idea...could it be because he'd have so much more into it than it would be worth?

Definitely a car that needs to be checked out in person and not bought on the reliance of the sellers "word"..

GOY

I was consistantly in the 2.1's with the 60's. A few times I slipped into the 2.2's and worse, and sometimes in the 2.0's, and twice into the very very high 1.9's (such as 1.99 or 1.98). I held the T/C between 1600 - 1800 RPM at launch, which is about as high as I could go before the rear would let go. Basically, it was always up the the tires, and what kind of mood that were in.

It was around 75 degrees, low humidity. Other than the launch, what is there to driving an automatic? Stand on the pedal and hope for the best. Maybe I just don't have the inside track on launching auto's ? Either way, with a full exhaust, factory spec'ed 355 with an L98 roller cam, and the iron version of the L98 heads, I was crossing the line between 14.8 and 14.9 or slower with little tire slip off the line. If I blew a launch I was in the 15's. The car was pretty much stock other than the exhaust.

That having been said, the 70k old LB9/M5 Formula I have feels like it really has a job to do, peticularly if I shift it a little earlier than I thought I would for the combination. I tried to hold out to 5200 RPM or so between shifts, but if I found if I shift right at around 4800-4900 RPM, I'm normally back to around 3 grand between first and second, and it seems to pull almost as hard as it did in first. Same goes for the later gears, but I'm normally around 3200-3800 RPM between those gears. Either way, it very effectively keeps my LB9 happy, I and have all the confidence in the world it will do better than 14.8 once I get it too the track.

I wish I had a L98/M5 combo (how nice that would be), but fact is, this peticular LB9/M5 feels a lot stronger than my last L98/A4 combo. They were both MAF/165 cars, with close to the same rear gear. Sorry if my experience does not agree with your opinion about the topic. That having been said, the State makes sure I can drive a car, very well, in all weather conditions.

Tibo

iTrader: (15)

This is turning into one of those threads where all people do is argue how fast they went.

Anyway......The 350 would beat a 305. The 350 would also be better to buy because you could get better performance out of it. Bragging about gas mileage is fun till you get beat in a race. The SBC 350 has many more aftermarket parts than a 305 does.

GOY

87TPI350KID

99% of everything that goes on a 350 will work on a 305...

GOY

Glad to see that I wasn't the only one that caught that? About the only thing that won't work is a big valve'd head. There's no law the says you can't put miniram's, superrams, turbo's, stroker kits, etc etc etc on 305's.... because it's a 305. LOL. Not too many people have yet... but I'm still waiting for the day when someone says screw it, and puts a superram on a 305 just to **** off "L98 or die" types.

That being said, I won't replace my 305 with a 305, but with only 70k miles, who knows what may end up on that 305 before it's done serving it's time.

Abubaca

iTrader: (3)

What will work on a 305 and what was intended for a 305 are different. You can bolt a 4" custom exhaust to a stock LB9 too, but would you?

The thing I hate is that the times that I see 305s run aren't nearly as fast as I always HEAR about. Not pointing anyone out, just speaking generally. But it's not just the 305. I hear L98 guys talking about beating LS1's and stuff like that all the time.

Bah! Bring it to the track!

GOY

Without hesitation or a second thought, and with total disregard for self-pronouced exhaust experts. And I would love to do it at the track, to put a rest to that idiotic backpressure argument.

I'd do it tomorrow or Wednesday at Norwalk if someone has one to loan me, just to prove the point. 3 inch Edelbrock to Joe Blows mandrel Bent 4 inch exhaust.... let's do it!

(I'm completely serious - no sarcasim at all)

Tibo

iTrader: (15)

You knew what I meant. Lets see you put a 2.02 valve head on a 305 and run more than .450" lift. Will not happen. The cam will not be much either. You can put things on a 305, they will fit, but will not give you the results as a 350 would. If people are going to say they run ___ or they would do ___, fine, but I am with Abubaca on this.

GOY

Tibo - the point was that a 305 will gain power from pretty much every mod you can do to a 350, outside of the one mod that is physically impossible! Do you REALLY feel a minram'ed 305 could make no use of a large lift cam and that the cam is reserved only for 350's or larger?

As far as "or they would do _____" and saying now it doesn't matter, well.... that's not exactly putting "Your" money where your mouth is, now is it?

("Your" is used because I realize there are two different people. Either way, my offer still stands. Shifty is a respected mod from Ohio who could witness it if he's avaliable. We'll get a digital camcorder for everyone else, and I'll donate the car/tools/gas/cost of track time on wednesday; all that's needed is a 4 incher to barrow, not keep.)

Any can email me at godoveryou@aol.com if something can be put together.

GOY

D/P

83 Crossfire TA

iTrader: (2)

Big valved heads can be installed and made to work well, it’s just not the easiest thing in the world and probably not something that you want to try with an assembled block (the notches required would be very difficult to measure and cut).

As far as the rest, basically figure that as far as flow numbers, the parts will just work at about 15% more rpm then they did on the 350, while things like harmonic and ram tuning will still happen at the same RPM. From the parts that are available, in a lot of cases this is actually an advantage, since a lot of stock(ish) parts are really a little too small for a 350.

sure… build up that LB9 to take advantage of that kind of flow… for that matter, even stock the only issue is that it will weigh more then the 2.75” single that would have been fine for that car.

Yea, but that’s the case with most 3rd gens… the fact is that there are a lot of people claiming all sorts of things with all the available drivetrain combinations and it’s pretty rare to see them at the track that they’re not running 15’s. I like to think that a large part of that is that third gen owners tend to fit in 2 categories, the older ones that don’t have a lot of time to hang out at the track and the younger ones that really don’t know that they’re doing.

GOY

I agree with everything you said, except that. A mod and I have gone back and forth on this once before. There is a thread that showed a 3 inch exhaust provided the same power output (within a few HP) as an exhaust cutout on a slightly modded 3.4 LITER FBODY! So in other words, the 3 inch was just barely large enough for that, yet I'm supposed to swallow that as "Being good" for my large V8 application? The thread can be found by searching "v6 we were so right" in the exhaust forum, or I can find it and copy a link into this thread.

Anyway - I recently finished the book Thermomechanical Fatigue Behavior of Materials. The majority of the book discusses unrelated issue's - it deals with the stress exhaust tubing/material/construction suffers, but once again, it was another source that confirmed my suspicion that the logic of applying fluid dynamics to heated and rapidly cooling gases is flawed greatly. There was a great deal that covered the rate at which air traveled, and also confirmed that the ONLY time backpressure is a good thing, what so ever, is directly out of the exhaust port to channel the movement of air to prevent it from stalling. In relation to that, a temporary and very weak "Suction effect" can occur to pull more air out of the chamber, but this is usually very minimal and certainly is only affected by the first few inches of exhaust tubing. After that, the more space you can get to flow a rapidly cooling and slowing gas, the better. Which relates directly back to my instinctive thought that 3 inch systems are a terrible investment, dollar per pony in comparison to larger exhausts, even for the smallest (5 liter) v8 applications. I wouldn't own one except every Fbody I've bought had one on it already.

So really - I don't think an Lb9 needs to be "Built up" at all to benefit from a 4 inch exhaust. In fact, if built up too far, I think a 4 inch exhaust would start to become a liability - even for a 305. The L98 would benefit from one even more... but that's not really the point I'm discussing anymore.

83 Crossfire TA

iTrader: (2)

I’d like to see your thread but don’t have time to look for it now, and don’t always have an internet connection at work so by the time I get to looking I may forget… I’d appreciate a link.

Not to pick on you, but faulty experiment design leads to faulty conclusions, but at least you made some effort to get numbers. What you left out is that any tube with a flow through it will have some harmonic tuning involved and changing the length will change the results. If you wanted to model what was happening you’d also have to add in density changes due to cooling which will not effect the tuned frequency but will effect the velocity in the tube.

Secondly, a 3” tube is significantly different then a 3” muffler, and different mufflers appear different to the exhaust flow. The thing is that people seem to always get hung up on tube diameter or cross sectional area but don’t seem to worry much about the muffler that they put in that tube, which usually has a significantly lower airflow then the tube connected to it.

I could show you something that comes slightly closer to covering these concerns that I could use for a reasonable argument that the stock exhaust, 2.75” cat back on my ‘97 WS6 TA is not a significant restriction for the stock, 305hp engine or even that same engine with enough spray to make it run 11.5@119... I took the stock exhaust and cut it right in front of the muffler and welded in a 3 bolt flange so I could remove the muffler/tail pipes at will. I ran my best time NA and on the spray with the muffler on, I was always about .15s behind with the muffler/tailpipes off the car even though if nothing else the car should be lighter and I don’t think that anyone would argue that the stock muffler and dinky tailpipes would flow better then the intermediate pipe. When I added a short section to make a bolt on tailpipe (so the total exhaust length and cross sectional area remained roughly similar to that of the complete, stock exhaust I was able to come very close to tying my best times with the full, stock exhaust.

Sure, but try to argue that with 99% of the people on most message forums.

um, a woefully incomplete description. Exhaust ports are a scary thing when you try to apply what most people think they know. In this case restriction isn’t what you’re after, but instead you’re after acceleration that comes with a smaller passage which under the right conditions will result in a situation that most people think of as scavenging which in extreme cases can be pushed to the point where you actually get increased flow by doing what appears to be restricting the port.

I would argue that space is nowhere near as big an issue as shape… if you were interested in some really extreme results along those lines you might want to look into some of the research done with turbocharger turbine outlets… McInnes’ patents and Turbonetics’ ripoff of his work. Vizard and a few others have published information that starts heading down this path but never quite makes it, and I’m not really sure if they didn’t understand where they were going or if they decided that “If I go there no one will ‘get’ what I’m getting at anyway, so I’ll dumb it down for the article.”

I agree, it would be from the perspective that you’re looking at it from, but I would suggest that there might be a different approach where you might find that it is not.

GOY

The conclusion they came up to was that an exhaust should grow in diameter at a greater rate in relation to the rate that the exhaust cools at the point in which the engine in most often used. A single rate of size growth was inappropriate, because it would create changing enthalpy do to the pressure create by the wall of the tubing.

There are two known things about exhaust gases. First, they cool, and cool quickly. Second, gas expands when it cools, requiring more space to flow through. Joule-Thomson cooling occurs when a non-ideal gas expands from high to low pressure
at constant enthalpy. I don't think you will find many people arguing that gas flowing through a straw has more pressure than gas flowing through a hose. Unfortunately, since you can't run 8 ever enlarging tailpipes, the JT effect will have to be accepted - or at very least considered. Since there is no way to keep the flow of exhaust gases adiabatic, the only choice to provide more space to allow the reflection from the closest most heated molecule of gas with the closest most cooled molecule of gas to receive additional energy which will be redistributed with time between all molecules of gas due to their mutual collisions down through the exhaust.

So if pipe size must be kept constant, it is only wise to provide the most space possible towards the end of the pipe, under the assumed knowledge that gases will cool while interacting with the ambient tempature of the air and pipe they flow through; making the idea of building pressure at the start of the pipe irrelevant. If the exhaust gases could be kept at the same tempature throughout the travel, a smaller pipe would be sufficient. Unfortunately, there's no amount of header pipe wrap that can do that.

Also - this is why your muffler removal was important. It shows what is happening at the end of an exhaust route has a HUGE impact on the system as a whole, because at the end, gases are their coolest and slowest, making any restriction and huge task to overcome.

Here's the link to that v6 thread: https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=300497 Correction on my part: if the cutout was open, she only gained 1 ft/lb. Either way, shows that a 3 inch exhaust was just the right size for her mod'ed 3.4L v6. If someone take their 5 liter to 5,000 before shifting, they are displacing more air than the 3.4 liter at 5600 RPM - where she was making peak HP. Keep in mind - she' was using stock heads, and a 2.8L intake. Let's not even compare the air an L98 or larger would be displacing.

walrus108

I remember skipping class to go read an article (CAR and Driver?) about the new formula and GTA for 1989 when I was a freshman in H.S.
The formula was a 5l 5 speed TPI with 3.45 gear. The GTA a 350 A4 with 3.27. I don't remember the exact times but the 5l was the quickest. I loved these cars even back then and remember that every year that they tested them the 5l 5 speed was the quickest. It was always very close. The faster times for the smaller motor was attributed to lighter weight, better gearing and less power loss through the tranny. I bought a bone stock 88 5l tpi 5 speed trans Am that was basically a base optioned formula with a TA appearance. Most of these cars were bone stock in those days. Two diferent formula 350's, one 89 one 90, regularly lost to my TA 5 speed. It wasn't even close. From a stop or roll they lost. Those were owned by some friends (actually their parents cars) and were low mileage bone stock well maintained cars. They were only a few years old back then. So I think it was known back then that the 5l 5 speeds were quicker stock. Everybody still wanted a 350 5 speed though! Another compare. These days I drive a stock 89 GTA 350. It has no where near the ***** of my old 88 TA. The 88 at 20 in 1st if you punch it it would go sideways a little and you would launch HARD. My 89 GTA, while it is fast, doesn't threaten to spin at that speed and launches much softer. My GTA has 80,000 Florida (no cold start) miles on it too so it prob isnt too tired. It feels very typical to what I remember from when they were new. I know my 5l 5 speed was a REALLY good one but it was stock for sure and NEVER came close to losing aginst many other stock 350 models. Just my 2 pennys.

Abubaca

iTrader: (3)

We went back and forth on exhaust size??? Hmm, I don't remember that. Not saying we didn't, I just honestly don't remember it.

david roush

iTrader: (1)

Okay , when i started this thread, i was trying to find out the info like you see in a road and track magizine. Such as.... (ex) a stock 91' camaro rs completes the 1/4 mile in such a time and has the capabilities of 0-60 in this many seconds vs the stock 91' camaro z28 which completes the 1/4 mile in this such a time and has the capabilities of 0-60 in this many seconds. I know it would be hard to find this out since it was long ago but just threw it out there anyways. I didn't mean ,well, i can bolt his on and i can bolt that on and go faster in a 305 that a 350. Anyways thought i would put this in and try to stop this train wreck, it's slowly sounding like a bad eposide of deperate housewives.Not that i ever watch that show but if i did, i have visions of this.lol

GOY

Yeah, I changed it to "A mod" because there's a certain MAP addicted mod with a name very similar to yours... I mistook the two of you for about 5 or 6 hours, and then instead of popping his name in there, just left it at "A mod," in order to avoid any "Fire fighting."

Sorry for the confusion .. but yeah, I'd still slap a 4 incher on

85rocker

When you compare the L98 cars with the LB9s keep in mind the A4 weighs about 400lbs and the T5 about 76lbs.

Pretty substantial difference when you are trying to make the 1/4...

8Mike9

Naw, autos only weigh about 100lb or so...or else I'm much stronger than I give myself credit for ...maybe another 25 or so for a converter

87TPI350KID

Wtf? Shut up.

85rocker

if you have a point to make argue the point

GOY

The 700r4 weighs 146 lbs dry, and 162 wet....
The T5WC in the 88-92 Fbody weighs 76 lbs dry, and 83 lbs wet...
The Tremec 3550 weighs about 115-120 lbs, depending on gearing/application.

I'm not sure where you got your weight numbers 85rocker, but the weight of the 700R4 is nothing close to 400lbs dry, wet or otherwise.

85rocker

Well I am glad to hear that. Currently I have a 700R4 sitting behind a 350.

Where did I get it? I read it in one of the car mags a few years back never doubted it. Silly me

Just out of curiousity they also stated the T56 weighs around 400lbs is that not the case?