Which is more rare an 85 TA with tpi or an 85 TA with L69??

 

L69

 

TPI A4 ONLY 16,869
HO M5 ONLY 1,665
LG4 A4 & M5 25,494

I passed on an 86 L69 T/A only 26 made (I KICK MYSELF)

John

 

wow i didnt know that Thanks

 

A 1985 L69 with Recaro seats is the rarest of them all.

http://community.webshots.com/album/130666614IefAmT

So rare I have to make one up, cant find em anywhere

 

Id rather have the L69. Not to mention the L69/5-speed combo would walk all over the LB9.

 

I have both, sorry a 85 LB9 will smoke a L69

Next time I race the wife I will let her drive mine, she is not good at speed shifting

 

Id have to see that in person to believe it.

 

Here we go agian with TPI Sucks.... A 1985 LB9 is rated 215hp with the a AUTO, runs low 15s... A L69 runs Low 15s as well with a 5 speed and 190HP Id say its a good race

 

I concour--several magazine raod tests I have of the two--the LB9 is a tad quicker. But we all know 5 speed is more fun to drive

 

the L69 may run with the 85 LB9, but the 86 and later peanut cammed LB9s might be a different story, one that favors the L69. I'll race an L69 with my 86 LB9 IROC if anyone has one and wants to try it out.

 

Rarity I would say the L69.

But the TPI would smoke it in a race

 

Good luck finding an 86 L69, only 26 Trans Ams... (dont know how many Camaros)

John

 

We bought one new back in June of 85. Sadly it was totalled in 1989. This was my favorite car ever. I've had LB9s, L98s, LT1s and my current LS1. This car was my absolute favorite. I loved when the secondaries would open up. The past few years I've been trying to find one to purchase. I've had almost no luck. Every now and then one shows up on e-bay, but it is usually trashed out.

 

74 L69 Camaro's in 1986

I too find it hard to believe that an LB9 would outrun an L69. The LB9 had a 3.23 rear-end (3.42 optional) and the L69 had a 3.73 rear-end. The 5 speed is also a big advantage over the Automatic. Admittedly, the 85 L69 and LB9 had the same cam, but in a 1/4 mile the manual goes through 4 gears (read power bands) vs 3 for the automatic. My L69 was running with a bad choke which was fouling the plugs and I still ran a 15.14 at the track. Tire spin was killing me that day and I actually bogged the engine to get that run. With better tires, who knows. Let me fix my choke and replace the plugs and I'll take you on any day.

 

Bah. I had an 84 with the T5 and the L69, and it was slow as hell. 120,000 miles. And that's WITH a full tune up and a Flowmaster. I ran high 15's consistently. It had a peg-leg 3:73, then a 3:23 posi. Not much of a difference at the track, though I don't remember the ET's.

 

Then a bit of advise for you, sir......learn how to drive. I can pull high 15's out of an L69 in my sleep. LOL! I suppose you think your 88 LB9 is pretty quick.

 

His 88 could be very quick, it has a 5 speed, its all in the gears right?

 

I dont think so....Ive never seen a TPI 305 run quick N/A.

 

Heh, then you haven't been to the track lately

I have seen many do 14's with a 305 TPI. Not sure what mods, but I do know the cars were LB9 T5 cars.

You old fogeys are just affraid of computers in your cars!

 

I dont consider 14's to be fast, or even quick. BTW, im not at all a "fogey". Im in my mid 20's, and I go to the track every week with one of the three cars in my sig. I have been racing since I was 15. Im now in my mid 20's, and Im a driveability tech at a GM dealer....so computers do NOT scare me. Also, in case you didnt know, an L69 also has a computer.

 

This is always the thing... people go on about the LB9 being so fast and then comment on the mods done. If I wanted to mod my L69 I'd be in the 13's or 12's, but I kept it stock. I bought this car in 1989 and until 1993 or so, there were only a handful of cars that could beat it. The two most notable that come to mind were a 68 Camaro and a 70 Chevelle. Maybe it's the 3.73 gears, but I could even outrun vettes up to about 87 or so. I know the later L98's will dust my L69... I have a 92 Z28 that ran 14.1 stock at the track, but when they first put them in the cars, they were crap.

 

Is that so? Why, because the later cars ran about 2-3 tenths quicker when new and had practically the same 0-60?

The early G92 L98's were capable of 14.4's and such, sometimes better, sometimes not. They also had the more compensating MAF. The later cars obviously had more power do to exhaust and cam changes, etc., but they weren't that much faster. I've seen the later cars run 14.4's too, they don't all get 14.1's. Although weight and options is definetly a factor.

As for 85 LB9 vs. L69, I think a Manual L69 will beat the LB9 Auto. I don't know about a race with both being Auto's, the LB9 would probably win.

Also, to the guy that said 14's aren't quick, they are on the street and especially to people that don't have 10 sec. cars as you do. If low 14's/L98's aren't quick, than H.O. cars must be seriously slow, which is contrary to what many like to post.

 

I think a car that runs 14's is pretty quick WHEN compared to the average car on the street. And certainly for the late 80's--14 sec was a damn fast car from the factory.

Now if your comparing to to someones souped up track car then your comparing apples to oranges.

BTW--my 87 AU4 IROC-Z ran 14.5--3.45s/LB9/no options.

Every single match up I have in road tests has the 85 LB9 beating the L69. Although only one solo test of a L69 curiously got a 15.0!

 

As the original owner of one back in the 80s, I can say that on the street, my completely stock L69 was quite competitive with the cars of that era. Me and my friends all had some of the hotter cars of the time. I would run about a fender behind the stock 5.0s and 350 Formulas. It wasn't until later on when my friend Dan bought a Grand National that I really got taken to the woodshed. Of course these are stock v. stock situations with cars that were new or fairly new at the time. Obviously I had my share of problems with some of the older muscle and modified cars.

 

Someone on the NW IN/South Chicago boards got a 14.7 out of an auto 305 HO car.

Believe his name is Matt84T/A?

I'll try and get him to come post on this one.

He is not someone prone to lying or making up stories and niether are his friends.

Car ran pretty good the couple times I was in it, but my butt isnt a timing device so I wont proclaim seat of the pants times.

I always wanted to look at it and see the block say 5.0 on it, but he has been gone to school...

So it could be a freak or a engine someone has played with or swapped(he says its a 5.0)

later
Jeremy

 

Perfectly said. 14's is decent for a stock 80's car, when most were much slower!

 

Shoot, I remember back when my 4300# riv was running 15 sec flat, I used to go through motor trend and look up the 1/4 mile times they were getting for the new cars... I remember only 4 or 5 of the entire list being faster, (other than exotics like Ferrar's, Lamborgini's & Porche's) and that was back in 1990...

Fast is always reletive.
To me "fast" is anything below 13 flat.
Quick is 13 - 15
Anything above 15 should be faster, anything below 11 should not be on the street

As for 305's, there is a thread in the TPI board where people are talking about NA TPI 305s (LB9)'s and I think I see some people have better than 13's with a 305... not bad IMHO. Modifeid of course.

John

 

 

Part of my comment about them being so much slower is because of where I was at when I ran against them. I was stationed in Hawaii and the track there was not up to the standards you find in the continental states. Examples: A friend with an Acura Integra Type R that ran 13.9's when he was in FLorida could barely break 14.8 in Hawaii. That my L98 could run a 14.1 there mean it was pretty damn quick. Other L98's I saw out there were running between 14.7 and 15.2 An '89 305 carb that I owned for a while did a best of 15.88 there and that was with taking the tire pressure down to 18. Leave the pressure alone and you're running mid 16's from the tire spin.
Now, take for example the Dodge Ram 5.9 that was supercharged and running a best of 13.88. I ran a bracket race against him one night and while I launched 1st, he verrry slowly caught up to me. It turned out to be one of the best races of the night.
Many years ago, when I was in California and had only had my L69 for a year or two, I ran a mid 14 with it (time and lack of timeslip keep me from being exact). Funny thing about it was that I had my brother watch it when I deployed and when I got back I went for a ride and on a normal takeoff (for me anyway) ended up burning rubber causing him to tell me to take it easy. I told him the car never launched like that and he told me that one of the spark plug wires was half grounded against the block so he replaced them. Never got the chance to run it at the track after that, so don't know how fast it could go, most of my 'racing' was on the street against whoever wanted to play. It was a favorite of mine to accelerate normally through 1st, then let the engine whine in second when next to a car I wanted to take on. Invariably they'd hit the gas, thinking I was already working the engine pretty hard, but I still hard a good 1/3 of the pedal left. Even with them punching it first, I could still take them when I floored it.
So, when I say they were crap, I'm talking about personal experience in relation to cars that I compared mine to. After all, 1/2 sec or more slower for the 'same' engine to me is crap.

 

That's a pretty broad generilization with a bunch of factors involved. Early L98's and later L98's are almost never a full 1/2 of a sec. apart being in the same condition/weight. If they are, there's usually another reason for it. I'd say more like .2/.3's or so at the most. Having G92 means alot too.

 

Pardon my ignorance here, but what exactly is G92? I know it's listed as a performance rear axle ratio, but how would I tell if it's on my car? How much of a difference does having the G92 make?

 

It's an RPO code. Should be in the console on the RPO sheet.

Automatics could have from 2.73 - 3.27, and from 3.08 to 3.42 with the standard. I think the dual catalyitic converters was also a part of it.

 

G92 includes good gears (like 3.27's) instead of "economy" gears, (like 2.77's) POSI traction, 4 wheel disc brakes, an oil cooler, and for 87-90 the better BW 9-bolt instead of the 10-bolt. 89-92 it also included dual converters which increased power about 10 HP and TQ or so. Check out the Tech Data on the main page also.

An L98 car without it is more like a high 14-sec car instead of a low 14-sec car. 87 was the only year that all 350 cars had all of those things mandatory, (except dual converters obviously) every other year it was an option. It sometimes can help explain an unusually slow example or magazine tests that don't quite seem up to what the cars can do or what people commonly say they can. It's important and desired. Sometimes people neglect to factor this in. It's also what helped make the later LB9 M5 cars the fastest 305's that were offered during the Third Gen.

 

I guess that explains it, my '92 Z28 from the descriptions you guys give has the G92 option on it cause I know it has Posi, the oil cooler, 4 wheel discs and the dual cats.

 

My cousin had a LB-9 in 85 when they were new and it was a Z-28 not the Iroc. It would outrun an 84 Z-28 H.O. auto pretty easily. We stayed ahead of him the whole time beating him about 2 or 3 cars at the end.

Now when we ran up against a 84 H.O. with a 5-speed we would come out the same time and then each gear shift with the 5speed the 84 would pull away just a few feet more. By top end the 5-speed H.O. had about a car on us at the end of the 1/4 mile. These cars were all stock in 1985. My cousin did not know the first thing about working on an automobile but knew how to race one.

These car did not have K&N filters, headers, cat backs, sticky radials, adjustable pressure regulators, different injectors, MAF mods with the screens took out, metering rod changes in the carbs, aftermarket intakes, aftermarket pulleys, aftermarket camshafts, ignition upgrades, suspension mods and non-stock rear gears. How many guys are posting times they run with these mods above. If you have any of these mods your not stock are you?

The stock 5.0 litre Mustangs in 1985 were pulling about 3 or 4 car lengths on a LB9 in 85. All these runs were with all stock cars and Eagle Gt tires which in 1985 the LB-9 could spin pretty easily off the line in our car. My cuzins LB9 was hitting 15.40's in the 1/4 with the slippery Eagle GT tires of the time. Mutstangs were hitting 14.90's. I seen a lot of these cars running at Kil-Kare dragway from 1983-now. In 1985 a 14-15 second car was pretty quick in the day. Now though that is pretty slow. Just the sign of the times.

1987 I think from what I seen at the track, the F-body's and the Mutstangs picked up a little. I think the G-92 option cars really made a good run against the Mutstangs of the day. The non-G-92 cars were hard pressed to see the tail lights of Mutstang unless it had a 350. Just my .02

 

I have raced at Kil-Kare

John