Have seen some cars listed for sale, i know there is so many variations, and uneducated owners, even camaro white book does not list it, but 305 H.O.? is that a factory option for 92, seen some with other years, but just wondered. thanks!!

 

After the L69 passed away, the LB9 (305 TPI) was labelled the "HO 305" because the LO3 (305 TBI) was the "LO 305"

 

Technically TPI cars are HO motors. The motor was the HO form of the engine. It just had fuel injection as opposed to a computer infested carb.

 

I have been hereing strange information that the 84 H.O was quicker than the 86-88 LB9 Autos. Is that true??? I don't see how a car with 270 lbs of torque can out perform cars with 295-300 lbs of torque...at least in a street race.

If the HO is a stick...I don't see that as being too big a deal with a auto owner (LB9) power shifting.

 

Correction, 240 lb foot of torque. Man I wish I had that 30 lb's though .

 

I don't see how a stock 84 HO could outrun a LB9 car. Not assuming both cars are in good shape and good state of tune with drivers of equal skill.

 

The HO's were faster than most of the TPI 305's. Check out the numbers sometime.

 

It's not just the hp and torque you need to look at, but the drivetrain too. The HO cars had 3.73's stock.

 

86-89 lb9 cars witha 5 speed had a hotter cam then automatic equipped lb9 cars

 

I read somewhere that the quarter mile times were not as good as the LB9 305's.

 

The HO cars had 3.73 gears and a powerband that was good all the way up to 6000 rpm. The TPI cars were only good to about 4500 rpm and usually had 3.08 or 3.23 gears.

 

3:73 rear end aside...this still sounds a bit suspect.

Torque on the street wins races and TPI is very quick off the line in either 305 or 350 form.

Question: Who races their LB9 autos in 3rd gear without the speed shifting???

 

All the magazine tests I've seen have placed the carbed HO cars ahead of the MAF TPI 305's. The HO's run with the maf L98's.

The L69's had ALL the go fast pieces GM offered at the time. Many LB9's lacked the potential that the L69 carried.

 

I'll agree that the L69 was a fast motor for, but C'MON! An L69 5spd car is probably faster than anything up to and including a peanut cam TPI automatic, but NOTHING beyond that. And especially not the LB9 SD 5spd cars. 225 hp vs. 190...and the real kicker..300 lbs of torque vs. 240. The 3.73 gears dont make up that much of a difference versus the 3.42's.

Maybe an L69 5spd will run about the same as an 85 TPI auto, or a little faster if the guy is powershifting like a madman. But it cant touch a 5.7 TPI auto in good running condition.

here's a rough comparison:
L69 5spd....15.2-15.5
L69 auto....15.4-15.7
LB9 5spd....14.6-15.0
LB9 auto....15.0-15.4
(non peanut cam)

 

Look at it this way. There was an article when the '84 Corvette came out, and the HO Z28 blew it out of the water on the strip and the road course.

I still think that the L69 was under-rated at 190hp. It was ALOT faster than the 205hp Corvette was.

 

As I recall, both the Crossfire Vette(not exactly known as a screamer) and the HO Z28 were both low 15 sec cars in 1984.

 

The HP and torque ratings don't really show the cars' real potential. My 87 IROC (rated at 225hp) with 11k miles will hold even with a 93 Z28 (rated at 275) up to the 1/4 mile. My IROC will also hold it's own against a 69 Z28 (rated at 290) at cruising speeds. It's based on many variables. The HO L69 was a fast car. I had an 82 Z with CFI and a friend had the 84 HO. There was no comparison. The HO was FAST.

 

Actually, in my 84 with a 5 speed...when it had the stock 3.73's it ran a 14.94@92mph. That was 100% bone stock with 115,000 miles on it. Now I have my 4.10's and am running 14.70's with traction problems. And I can run with a stock L98 all day long. And yes, I powershift every gear at 6,000rpm. Wait till I rebuild the motor and throw a cam and some Torquer 305's on it.

 

You can't really compare a new cars HP vs. an older cars HP. because now horsepower is SAE NET vs. the 1960's/70's gross. I read an article form an old Car and Driver or Motor Trend from about 1990, they were comparing a 1990 TA vs a 69 TA 400, and the corrected net horsepower of the 400 CI was 240 HP, Pontiac rated it at 335 HP I believe. And besides, as much as people don't want to admit it, new cars kick the crap out old muscle cars. I love muscle cars, but new cars have technology to get 300HP and 20 Mpg out of an engine that is 350 CI, and also run 13's in the 1/4.

 

I was using the comparison of the 69 to my 87 because everyone knows that Chevy underrated the 69 Z at 290. These cars were easily pushing 400 with the factory headers. I was stating that hp ratings mean nothing.

A little off topic, but the LS1 in the Camaro is rated at less than the Vette, yet I know people that have dyno'ed their brand new cars and the Camaro put out more to the wheels than the Vette.

 

Exactly right. Yes the 69's were rated at gross hp, BUT those 302s have been proven to make over 300 net hp. 400 seems a little optomistic, but they were over 300 for sure.

And lots of the LS1 Camaros and Firebirds that have been dyno'd actually made more hp at the rear wheels than the hp they were actually advertised at.

But the L69 cars were the fastest of the 5.0L f-bodies and could keep pace with an L98 without too much trouble. I do think that the L69 cars were under-rated by GM for two reasons:

A) It was only 10hp less than the Corvette (a GM tradition)
B) It MURDERED cars with substantially more hp and torque, like the LB9 and the Corvette.

 

Yup, the 302's made more like 400HP at 7,000RPM.

The 305 H.O. is a good engine, but keep up with an L98?? A good L98 G92 Camaro or even some of the lighter Firebirds should be able to pull really low 14 sec. runs, MAF/SD years regardless. I don't think a 305 H.O. would ever be able to do that or a 6.0 sec. 0-60. More like high 14's and a mid 6 sec. 0-60.

 

You're not making any sense. The LB9, particularly the 90-92 speed density versions, are the fastest of the 5.0 liter F bodies. Close behind were the 88-89 MAF cars..then the L69.

I also have no problem believing the L69 had 190hp due to that fact its not HO counterpart, the LG4 only made 150hp. The L69 was use in the 82 Vette, for California models only, to meet emissions there. It was rated 190hp.