IN the pony wars and street wars in, lets say 1985. Who was beating the IROC on the streets, What was the competition at the stop light wars.

In 1984 I owned a an 81 Turbo Formula and my best friend had a 68 HEMI Charger 500, I always squared off against older Fbodies......and he would square off against the heavy muscle.

I do remember a few mustang GT's and such but I just dont remember what they were really doing in the 1/4 mile and such.

 

Too bad he didn't keep that 500, that would be a quarter million dollar car now.

In 1985 you didn't have many choices as far as new cars from any camp. Slug F-bodies, slug Vettes, and slug Mustangs. If you are talking used cars, then I suppose there were still quite a few running around.

 

Don't forget the GN finally got SFI to really wake up the 3.8. The Monte Carlo SS had the L69 but I'm not sure what the performance difference was between it and the Z28/IROC ('85 L69 IROCS are really rare). You also had the Turbo 2.2 camp from Dodge in the GLH and Shelby Charger. The GLH was/is a real screamer.

 

That's true, the GN/T-Type was a good car even if they had the Buick stigma, and if you could stomach Shelby putting his name on any econo-turd to make a bucks, the GLH/"Charger" scooted pretty good.

Today the GLH/Chargers are all long gone, and the G-bodies are all in the ghetto, lol. I looked at an '84 Monte SS before I got my Camaro, but they are just ghetto cars. They were then, and that was even before the big rims/DVD players/etc.

 

My friends father is Ron Dillinger, he passed this year. He actually owned it and the family still does. His son and I use to take it out as high school kids.

 

1985 Mustang GT Page


Total Mustangs produced: 156,514
Total GT’s produced: 42,428
GT Hatchbacks: 36,879
GT Convertibles: 5,549
(For more production number details, go to our Production Numbers Summary page.)
4V - V8 GT (5-speed)
210 HP @ 4400 RPM
270 ft/lb @ 3200 RPM
CFI - V8 GT (automatic)
180 HP @ 4200 RPM
260 ft/lb @ 2600 RPM
While the Turbo GT was discontinued in 1985, the four-barrel 5.0L V-8 was upgraded once again. After Ford had promised, but not delivered, more horsepower for the 1984 GT, they finally came through by harnessing 35 additional horses for the 1985 GT 5.0L - pushing it up to 210 horsepower. The GT had finally topped the golden 200 horsepower mark! To accomplish this feat, a number of enhancements were made to the 302 HO (still topped by the 600 cfm Holley 4V with dual snorkel 460 air cleaner) including the addition of a racing-style roller lifter camshaft, stainless steel tubular exhaust manifolds and forged 8.4:1 pistons (replacing sandcast pistons) with thinner, lightweight rings to further reduce friction. Of course, these changes necessitated a revised block and heads to accept the taller roller lifters. Exhaust restriction was reduced by splitting the exhaust pipe behind the catalytic converter and adding dual mufflers and tailpipes. Automatics still came only with the lower performance 302 HO and throttle body fuel injection, even though horsepower was upgraded to 180 hp early in the model year.
Other performance improvements were made for ‘85. The '85 retained the gas struts, variable rate springs and rear quad shock arrangement that were introduced in '84, however, the front anti-sway bar thickness increased to 1.3 inches from 1.125 inches and the rear anti-sway bar was bumped to 0.83 inches from 0.79 inches. In addition, new Goodyear P225/60VR15 uni-directional Gatorbacks were mounted on new 15x7 inch wheels to match the suspension to the powerful engine. The transmission gear ratios were improved with a 3.35:1 first gear (lower than the 2.95:1 gear of 1984) in the new “World Class” T-5 and a short-throw shifter helped quicken gear selection. Axle ratios in ‘85 were 2.73:1 (standard) and 3.08:1 (optional) for the 5-speed and 3.27:1 (standard - no options) for the AOD.
The GT, available in both the hatchback and convertible, once again saw slight external changes from the prior year, with a new charcoal hood stripe (instead of the previous black one). With a new, more aerodynamic nosepiece and “GT” embossed body side moldings, the car looked even faster than before. The “blackout” treatment continued for ‘85 matched with the following colors: Medium Charcoal Metallic, Black, Silver Metallic, Bright Red, Light Regatta Blue Metallic, Oxford White and Medium Canyon Red Metallic.
In the GT cockpit, new, attractive cloth articulated sport seats became standard equipment clad in either charcoal or sand beige with red piping, adjustable side bolsters and under thigh support. Other standard equipment included AM/FM stereo radio, tilt steering wheel, full instrumentation, console, steering column mounted controls, and remote locking fuel door and trunk/liftgate release. Options available included rear defrost, air conditioning, power windows and locks, light/convenience group, sunroof, T-tops, speed control and a variety of radios. The 1985 GT was one of the most widely tested and reviewed cars by the American automotive press in at least a decade, and received almost uniformly favorable reports. Most liked the car’s 1960’s “muscle car" flavor, strong performance and comparatively low price. Sources: All photos - Ford Mustang brochures.

 

1984 GT

Total Mustangs produced: 141,480
Total GT’s produced: 32,914
GT Hatchbacks: 26,658
GT Convertibles: 6,256
Turbo GT's: 3,798
GT 350's: 5,261

(For more production number details, go to our Production Numbers Summary page.)
4V - V8 GT (5-speed)
175 HP @ 4200 RPM
245 ft/lb @ 2400 RPM
CFI - V8 GT (automatic)
165 HP @ 3800 RPM
245 ft/lb @ 2000 RPM
Turbo GT 4 cylinder
145 HP @ 4600 RPM
180 ft/lb @ 3600 RPM
The 5.0L ‘84 Mustang GT was carried over from ‘83 without significant change. The 4V 600 CFM carb, dual snorkel 460 air cleaner, 2V marine cammed 302 motor reappeared in 1984 with only a revised choke design (eliminating the use of exhaust manifold heat tubes) to set it apart from the prior year’s HO. The exhaust setup also remained the same with cast iron exhaust manifolds and single muffler with dual outlets (“Y” pipe with inline catalyst).
A turbocharged-inline 4 cylinder “Turbo GT” was also available again in 1984 in both the hatchback and convertible. This engine was essentially a carry-over of the ‘83 Turbo GT in-line 4 cylinder with its “blow-through” turbocharger, forged aluminum pistons, oil cooler and port type fuel-injection system. As in ‘83, the Turbo GT carried the same blackout trim, wheels, tires, interior and transmission as the 5.0L GT. Although the 5.0L '84 GT's changed to a hood without a scoop at the beginning of the model year, the '84 Turbo GT's retained the '83 style hood scoop presumably due to hood clearance issues with the turbo motor. The 1984 Turbo GT was only available with the 5-speed transmission and a 3.45:1 axle ratio.
One big mechanical revision for 1984 involved the GT’s suspension which was introduced as a running change early in 1984. The rear control arm pivot points were lowered 1/2-inch on the upper end and 1/4-inch on the lower end for improved suspension geometry. In addition, quad shocks replaced the old-style traction bars and the rear anti-roll bar diameter increased to 0.79 inches from 0.67 inches in ‘83.
Other big news in 1984 was the introdution of an AOD / CFI equipped GT. In mid-year, an optional 165 horsepower 5.0L engine with central fuel injection and a 4-speed automatic overdrive transmission was offered with a 3.27:1 axle ratio. The 175 HP 4V version carried over from 1983 was available only with the T-5 equipped transmission. The 4V 5-speed was available with a 3.08:1 axle ratio.
Visually, the ‘84 GT was only slightly changed from 1983. While the matte black hood treatment remained, the non-functional hood scoop disappeared (except on Turbo GT's), a front air dam with integrated fog lights reappeared (as a running change starting in December ‘83) and the rear spoiler became more rounded (also a running change which occurred early in the model year at approximately the same time as the front air dam change). The GT was still treated to the special blackout trim reserved for GT’s and was available only in the following external paint colors: Black, Silver Metallic, Bright Canyon Red, Light Desert Tan, Oxford White, Dark Charcoal Metallic, Medium Canyon Red Glow and Bright Copper Glow.
The GT’s sporty, blacked-out interior featured a console housing an electronic digital clock with day/date/elapsed time/stopwatch functions, plus the graphic warning display module that indicated low level conditions in the fuel tank and washer system, and signaled when a headlamp low beam or taillamp/brake lamp needed replacing. Low-back vinyl bucket seats were also standard and only came in the following colors: Charcoal, Canyon Red and Desert Tan. New for ‘84 was a split/fold rear bench seat.
Options for the 1984 GT’s included multi-adjustable, articulated Sport Performance bucket seats, bigger TRX wheels and tires, sunroof, T-tops, air conditioner, power windows and locks, rear defrost, interval wipers, light group, tilt wheel, speed control and a whole variety of radios.
To celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Mustang, Ford built 5,261 GT-350 models, with either the 302 HO (both versions) or the 2.3-liter turbo four. These cars started life as with the basic GT package then received a number of visual enhancements to set them apart from their standard GT siblings. Of the limited run of 20th anniversary Mustang "GT"s, most came with the 175HP/302 and 5-speed. However, some convertibles were made, and very few were equipped with the turbocharged 4-cylinder engine. These cars have proven to be very popular with late model Mustang collectors. One interesting note for 1984 is that Ford had promised Mustang GT fans a new 205-horse 302 HO to replace the current 175-horse version. Late in 1984, the 1984 GT was scheduled to be upgraded to 205HP through the use of stainless steel exhaust headers and a variety of other improvements. Prototypes developed piston problems, however, and the 1984 GT remained at 175 HP until the end of the model year, much to the disappointment of eager buyers. This only fueled the fire of buyers wanting more horsepower for their GT’s - which they finally received at the start of the 1985 model year to the tune of 210 ponies!

 

Here is some Buick Info for 1985:

1985 BUICK REGAL GRAND NATIONAL Coupe


Specs of BUICK REGAL GRAND NATIONAL Coupe, model year 1985, version for North America U.S. with 2-door coupe body type, RWD (rear-wheel drive) and automatic 4-speed gearbox. Basic specs and characteristics: petrol (gasoline) engine of 3791 cm3 / 231.4 cui displacement with advertised power 149 kW / 200 hp / 203 PS ( SAE net ) / 4000 and 407 Nm / 300 lb-ft / 2400 of torque. Dimensions: this model outside length is 5095 mm / 200.6 in, it’s 1819 mm / 71.6 in wide and has wheelbase of 2746 mm / 108.1 in. The value of a drag coefficient, estimated by a-c, is Cd = 0.45 . Standard wheels were fitted with tires size P 215/65 R 15. Reference vehicle weights are: shipping weight 1477 kg / 3256 lbs estimated curb weight 1560 kg / 3440 lbs . How fast is that car ? Performance: top speed 204 km/h (127 mph) (theoretical); accelerations 0- 60 mph 7.4 s; 0- 100 km/h 7.9 s (a-c simulation); 1/4 mile drag time (402 m) 15.9 s (a-c simulation). Fuel consumption and mileage: official: 17/24 mpg (U.S.), 13.8/9.8 l/100km, 20.3/28.7 mpg (imp.), 7.2/10.2 km/l EPA ratings , average estimated by a-c: 15 l/100km / 18.9 mpg (imp.) / 15.7 mpg (U.S.) / 6.7 km/l . To view table with this car complete performance data and technical specifications (including final drive and gear ratios, powertrain description, inside and outside dimensions, acceleration graphs etc.) and more photos, or to compare up to 5 cars side-by-side - click one of the the buttons below:
0-20 mph (s):
1.6
0-30 mph (s):
2.5
0-40 mph (s):
4.1
0-50 mph (s):
5.7
0-60 mph (s):
7.4
0-70 mph (s):
10.5
0-80 mph (s):
13.6
0-90 mph (s):
17.4
0-100 mph (s):
22.5
0-110 mph (s):
35.3
0-120 mph (s):
66.5


Gearbox:
GM Turbo Hydramatic Overdrive
Transmission type:
automatic




Number of gears:
4
Gear ratios (overall):

I
2.74 (9.37)
II
1.57 (5.37)
III
1 (3.42)
IV
0.667 (2.28)
V
()
VI
()
VII
()
VIII
()
R
2.07
Speed range

(max speed on gears,

top gear value theor.):
(km/h/mph)
I:
60 / 37
II:
104 / 65
III:
164 / 102
IV:
246 / 153
V:
/
VI:
/
1000rpm speed:
(km/h/mph)
I:
13.3 / 8.3
II:
23.2 / 14.4
III:
36.4 / 22.6
IV:
54.6 / 33.9
V:
/
VI:
/
Torque converter factor:
1.8
Final drive ratio std:
3.42



Engine manufacturer:
GM Buick V-6 231 (3800)
Engine type:
spark-ignition 4-stroke
Fuel type:
petrol (gasoline)
Fuel system:
indirect injection
Charge system:
turbocharger
Valves per cylinder:
2
Valves timing:

Additional features:
sequential injection; Garrett turbo


Emission control:

Emission standard:

Cylinders alignment:
V 6
Displacement:
3791 cm3 / 231.4 cui
Bore:
96.52 mm / 3.8 in
Stroke:
86.36 mm / 3.4 in
Compression ratio:
8 : 1
Power net:
149 kW / 203 PS / 200 hp (SAE net)

/ 4000
Torque:
407 Nm / 300 ft-lb

/ 2400

 

From ALLPAR:

The GLHS: 1986, Shelby has some huge claims, But i dont remember a single one ever performing like this:
Omni GLHS

The Omni GLHS (Goes Like Hell, Some-more) started in 1986 based on a 4-door model and had a modified Garrett Turbo I engine, a long-runner tuned intake (2 piece) manifold, and an intercooler. This engine sounds like the Turbo II, but it does not have any of the forged internal parts (crank, rods, pistons, etc.). GLHS production was only 500 in 1986. Color was only black with a grey interior. Options included an oil cooler, and roll-bar. The engine had a compression ratio of 8.5:1, a maximum boost of 12 psi, peak 175 horsepower at 5,300 rpm, and peak torque of 175 lb-ft from 2,200 to 4,800 rpm. The sole transmission was a five-speed manual with a top gear ratio of 2.57:1. The redline was 5,800 rpm; the air-to-air intercooler dropped the air entering the turbocharge by 100°F.

Standard features for the 1986 GLH-S included heavy duty, power brakes (10.2 inch disc up front, 8.0 x 1.28 drum rear); tinted glass; various trim blackouts and stripes; Bosch road lights; cargo-bay carpet; five-speed manual transmission with heel-and-toe pedals; extra sound insulation; high-back clothseats; AM stereo/FM stereo; full instrument cluster; 14:1 rack and pinion power steering; air conditioning; rear defroster; and leather-wrapped wheel and shifter. The suspension used stiffer front anti-sway bars and fully adjustable Koni iso-struts with coil springs that could be manually set up for different conditions. The rear used the usual semi-independent trailing-arm suspension.

So equipped, Shelby claimed that the 1986 Omni GLH-S could do 0-60 in a stunning 6.70 seconds, with a 14.7 quarter-mile (at 94 mph). Cornering was quite good, with a skid-pad measurement of .88g. Shelby Automobiles was able to advertise that “names like Porsche, Ferrari, Audi, and BMW all finish behind Carrol Shelby’s new Limited Edition GLH-S.” That was true, but drivers did pay a price; the GLH-S had a very firm suspension. It also had a very fair price: just about $11,000 plus destination, which was inexpensive for this level of performance even in 1986.

 

Until the L69 came on the scene, the Mustang was beating the pants off of the Camaro. Mid to low 15 second Mustangs vs 16.5-17.5 second Camaros. The L69 changed things, but the Mustang's 5.0 got beefed up to at least match it. In 85, the year before the Mustang went to EFI, they had a Holley 4bbl carb, stainless headers, dual muffler exhaust, a dual snorkle aircleaner, roller camshafts, etc. With 210hp, a World Class T5, and lighter weight it was a fair match for all but the top of the line Camaro.

The Camaro didn't really edge out the Mustang until 1987. Even then, every 5.0 Mustang with a 5spd was a quick car, while most V8 Camaros were much slower cars. Only the LB9/5spds and L98s were faster then the usual 5.0. Factor in Ford's Motorsport and SVO programs, cranking out factory performance parts, ease of modification, etc and it's easy to see why the 5.0 Mustang has a better reputation.

If you dig a bit you can find a handful of magazine articles from the time where they compared the Camaro to the Mustang. The Mustang almost always came out ahead in performance per dollar. Most of the time the Camaro in the challenge had a 5.0 because they wanted it to be a "fair" comparison, or the 5spd which required the 5.0 instead of the L98. Still, given everything, I wouldn't trash talk a 5.0 Mustang with anything short of a 89 LB9/5spd or L98 with dual cats and good gears (3.23, 3.27, 3.42, 3.45).

 

Everybody remembers the spaceship like starion turbo:
1982 was a notable year for Mitsubishi; after the introduction of the Lancer Turbo, with its advanced engine technology, the company spread the turbo influence throughout its range, with Turbo versions of the Galant, Sapporo, and even the little Colt.

Their final card was the Starion coupe, introduced - unusually for a Japanese car - at the Geneva Show. Family traits were shown by the wheelbase, which at 95.9 inches was similar to that of the Lancer, but the track was wider and the car can be viewed as a totally individual model.

The Starion Turbo was of front-engine/rear-drive layout and the all-round independent suspension used MacPherson struts with coil springs at the front, located by transverse arms and trailing links, and a similar coil-spring/damper assembly at the rear with fabricated lower suspension members.

Gas-filled dampers and anti-roll bars were fitted both front and rear. Recirculating ball steering was employed, with a power option, and ventilated discs were standard all round. An optional extra was an ABS-type anti-lock system.

The engine was Mitsubishi's well known four-cylinder with twin counter-rotating balance shafts, in its 1997 cc form. At the time, Mitsubishi opted for the Mitsubishi Astron engine with a single-camshaft head (SOHC) rather than the dual cam head, and also for a throttle-body fuel injection setup which mixed the fuel with the air prior to entering the plenum chamber. Mitsubishi's electronic control system used ultrasonic waves to measure the incoming air. A knock-sensing device was also fitted.

The engine produced 125 kW (170 hp) at 5500 rpm and 245 Nm (180 Ib-ft) of torque at 3500 rpm. Drive was through a five-speed manual box and a limited slip diff. was available as an option. The body was a 2-door coupe with a hatchback and folding rear seats.

Some 174 inches long, it had the angularly sloping front end and retractable head lamps then fashionable on up-market Japanese sports coupes through the 1980's, and performance to match its racy looks - a top speed of 220 km/h (136 mph) and a 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) time of 7.6 sec.

Equipment was very complete, with an adjustable steering column and seats which adjusedt in no less than six different ways. The front seatbelts were mounted in a unique manner in the doors, improving access to the rear of the car, and trim throughout was very good, with leather seats.

During production, the Starion was produced in both a narrowbody and widebody, in later years ('86.5-89). The design proved durable and few changes were made between models, with only simple improvements demarking the change from one model to the next. In the United States market, there was only one major change when the car was upgraded to the ESI-r (Conquest TSi) model; this model featured an intercooler and five-bolt wheels, replacing the four-bolt wheels it had inherited from the rear wheel drive Mitsubishi Galant Lambda.

Production ceased entirely by 1990, and its successor, the GTO was fitted with the mechanicals of the recently demonstrated Mitsubishi HSX Sports Coupe concept vehicle. Many of the performance features of the Starion were integrated into later vehicles and can be found in the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, in the Mitsubishi Galant VR-4, and the Mitsubishi Eclipse.

Australian Starion Turbo Models:



2.0 L 4G63 engine. Australian vehicles were mostly similar to the European TURBO specification. The J codes below denote the model version, and are found on the Australian Vehicle Information Plates.
JA - 1982–1984
JB - 1984–1985
JD - 1985–1987

 

Yup I remember that. You had to have an IROC with the new TPI to give a GT the business. GT had those slapper bars on them too. Were the GT lighter? I do remember the tpi IROC in 85 getting some gt butt though. 85 was a good year for the bow tie stock vs stock. In my neck of the woods all the chicks likes the IROC LOL. The gear heads went for the GT's

 

In 85, the only difference between a 5.0 LX and a GT, was some minor interior trim differences, and fog lights on the GT. The LX could be had in a coupe, which was lighter then the hatch back, but the GT is still 200-600lbs lighter then an Iroc in stock trim.

The Starion/Conquest had a couple problems. First they were HEAVY. In wide body form they were usually decked out with leather seats and gadgetry (like a GTA) that made them even more porky then usual. The EFI system was a bit iffy, and the Mitsu engine wasn't the best. The tiny turbo didn't help, and not all were intercooled. They're viewed kind of like the later DSM, all the time bomb mystique with none of the performance. Anymore, you see more of them in various states of disrepair on classifieds, or sitting in the junkyard than you'll see on the street. The local yard here has three of them, almost complete cars. A buddy of mine had one sitting in his driveway for 2 years while he tried to find a transmission. The car was in very nice condition, but had passed between 3 or 4 people in our social circle because it was always broken. It ended up getting sold to a guy with another Starion rotting in a stand of trees.

Cool cars, but not really a threat and even simple service parts like shocks or struts are hard to find.

 

Excellent recap of 1985:
1985 - the Year American High-Performance Returned Written by Pete Dunton October 12, 2009 Everyone has heard the saying – “it is always darkest befor e the dawn”, for American performance car fans the period of the mid-1970s to early-1980s was a very dark period. During this time engine displacement shrank faster than the current price of a Federal Reserve note. Horsepower dropped to correspond with the massive displacement drop. 1970-1971 V8 powered performance cars had on the average 300+ horsepower, by the early-1980s performance V8s were at least half that horsepower. The rumors were flying by the early-1980s that even the remaining passenger car V8s (which were all small displacement V8s by this time), would soon bite the dust. There were rumors of a V6 Camaro to replace the V8 powered Z28 and a future Mustang GT with no V8 option. It was very bleak news at the time. Every performance car fan was just waiting for the next shoe to drop and with it the final blow to the performance car.
Horsepower dropped generally by 1982 to its low-point. For 1982 the top motor in the (new third generation) 1982 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 and Pontiac Trans Am was the 5.0 liter (305 CID) Cross-Fire Injected V8 rated at 165 horsepower (20 horsepower more than the base 5.0 liter LG4 4bbl V8). This was a drop for the Trans Am which the previous year had a 4.9 (301 CID) turbo V8 that produced a healthly 200 horsepower. The Camaro Z28 also saw a drop from its top 1981 motor – the 5.7 liter (350 CID) LM1 V8 which produced 175 horsepower. However there was a silver lining in this dark cloud, a performance drop was not really seen on the Z28 for 1982 (in fact it was a slight performance bump) due to the 1982 Camaro shedding around 500 lbs vs. the 1981 Camaro. On the Trans Am it was another story the 1982 Cross-Fire Trans Am performed on par with the much heavier 1981 Turbo 301 Trans Am.
Meanwhile at GM’s archrival Ford, a newly revived Mustang GT was released for the 1982 model year with its top motor being a 5.0 liter (302 CID) High Output (H.O.) V8 producing 157 horsepower that came equipped with a maditory 4-speed manual transmission. Though the revived Mustang GT had 8 horsepower less than the Cross-Fire Fuel Injected GM F-bodies (Z28 and Trans Am) it accelerated slightly quicker than the pair due to a slightly lower curb weight and the fact that the F-bodies were saddled with a mandatory three-speed automatic transmission. On the 1982 F-bodies you had to go with the 145 horsepower base LG4 5.0 liter V8 to get a manual transmission option.
Right around the 1982 Mustang GT’s performance territory was the 1982 Chevrolet Corvette with its 200 horsepower Cross-Fire Injection 5.7 (350 CID) V8, Road and Track Magazine tested one back in 1982 and obtained a 16.1 second quarter mile time along with a 0-60 mph time of 7.9 seconds. Car and Driver magazine (in the August 1982 issue) obtained a 0-60 mph time of 8.1 seconds and quarter mile time of 16.2 seconds for the 1982 Mustang GT. In the same test a 1982 Z28 (5.0 Cross-Fire Injection) obtained a 0-60 mph time of 8.4 seconds and a quarter mile time of 16.4 seconds. Worth noting Motor Trend magazine (September 1981) tested a pre-production 1982 Mustang GT and obtained a phenomal 0-60 mph time of 6.9 seconds and a (more on par with other magazine tests) quarter mile time of 16.1 seconds.
Even so American performance cars back in 1982 generally went 0-60 mph in 8 and 9 second range and for the quarter mile the range was 16-17 seconds. This was fast for this time period when most cars took over 10 seconds to go from 0-60 mph and well over 17 seconds to do the quarter mile.
For 1983 and 1984 horsepower went up slightly. By 1984 the Camaro Z28 and Trans Am had as their top motor, the (L69) 5.0 H.O. 4bbl V8 (introduced in mid-1983) rated at 190 horsepower. The 1983-1984 Mustang GT also saw a nice bump to 175 horsepower for its 5.0 liter H.O. V8. The 1984 Corvette was also up, moving to 205 horsepower (5.7 liter Cross-Fire V8), however this new C4 (4th generation) Corvette performed a lot better than the 5 horsepower change would have you believe with a quarter mile time of 15.1 seconds and 0-60 mph in around 6.7 seconds. The improved aerodynamics of the 1984 (C4) Corvette verses the 1982 (C3) Corvette certainly helped in this performance achievement (there was no production 1983 Corvette).
For performance fans the uptick in horsepower by 1984 was a welcome change. However the Corvette and Trans Am both received horsepower bumps in the late-1970s only to have horsepower slide back down a few years later. So the increases obtained for 1983 and 1984, it was feared at the time, may only be short lived.
Then 1985 arrived and new apex would be reached one which would mark the return of true high-performance for multiple American performance cars, a phenomenon not seen since the early 1970s.
First the Corvette would get an uptick of 25 horsepower which would give the Corvette its highest horsepower rating in eleven years. The change was due to the replacement of Cross-Fire Injection with a new type of fuel injection – Tuned-Port Injection (TPI) which on the same spec 5.7 liter V8 gave the Corvette a total of 230 horsepower. As expected with the new TPI motor the 1985 Corvettes 0-60 mph and quarter mile times decreased to 5.7 seconds and 14.1 seconds respectfully. And it marked the first time in eleven years that the Corvette broke into the 14 second range for the quarter mile. Last Corvette to do this feat was the 275 horsepower 454 CID V8 equipped 1974 Corvette.
The GM F-bodies also broke into some serious performance territory for 1985; the Trans Am, Camaro Iroc-Z (a new for 1985 top-of-the-line performance Camaro), and Camaro Z28 - all received a hot new high-performance 5.0 liter TPI V8. The Iroc-Z and Z28’s 5.0 liter TPI V8 was rated at a very healthy 215 horsepower – good for 0-60 mph in 6.9 seconds and the quarter mile in 15.0 seconds. It marked the first time since 1974 that a Camaro produced over 200 horsepower. The 1985 Trans Am with its 5.0 liter TPI V8 had similar performance however it was rated at 205 horsepower. The 10 horsepower deficit was due to the Trans Am’s more restrictive airbox design. The Camaro had a nice wide opening in its front-end (gave the airbox nice flow of cool air) while the Trans Am’s beak was closed for improved aerodynamics hampering airflow when compared to the TPI equipped Iroc-Z and Z28.
GM was also enjoying resurgence among its performance rear-wheel drive two-door G-bodies by 1985; the Oldsmobile 442, Buick Grand National, and Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS were modern versions of the vintage two-door GM A-body muscle cars (Pontiac GTO, Oldsmobile 442, Buick GS, and Cheverolet Chevelle SS). These cars had the long hood short deck lid design theme of the old muscle cars with a modern flair. Unlike most performance cars at the time like the GM F-bodies, Corvette, and Mustang GT; the G-bodies could fit five adults comfortably and had a large trunk capacity. In other words the performance G-bodies were family friendly.
The 1985 Olds 442 was a modern rendition of Oldsmobile’s most famous muscle car bearing the same name. The familiar graphics and general look were there. The 180 horsepower 5.0 liter (Olds 307 CID) 4bbl V8, was not too shabby giving the 442 a 0-60 mph time of 9.1 seconds and a 16.6 second quarter mile time. The 1985 Monte Carlo SS used the 180 horsepower L69 5.0 liter (305) 4bbl H.O. which oddly enough was rated 10 horsepower less than the L69 equipped 1983-1986 F-bodies. The L69 powered Monte Carlo SS went 0-60 mph in 7.8 seconds and the quarter mile in 15.9 seconds. The real surprise among the performance G-bodies was the 1985 Grand National, under the hood was not the traditional V8 but a petite Sequential Port Injected turbo 3.8 liter (pushrod) V6. Buick by the late-1970s had put all its performance eggs in the turbo 3.8 liter V6 basket. It was a bold move however with the 200 horsepower 1985 Grand National hitting 0-60 mph in 7.5 seconds and obtaining a quarter mile time of 15.7 seconds it was quite apparent that this bold move had payed off. By 1986 the Grand National received an intercooler and horsepower went way up and performance also greatly increased pushing the Grand National into permanent legendary status.
Unfortunately, the GM performance G-bodies’ success was short lived by 1989 they were all gone when the rear-wheel drive G-body platform was laid to rest.
In 1985 Pontiac did not have a performance G-body, its G-body - the Grand Prix was relegated instead to sport luxury duty. However Pontiac had something even better - the new 1985 Fiero GT that came standard with a 140 horsepower 2.8 Multi-Port Fuel Injected V6 (also optional on the 1985 Fiero SE) which was a whopping 48 horsepower increase over the 2.5 liter Iron Duke four-cylinder powered Fiero. A 1985 Pontiac Fiero GT went 0-60 mph in around 8.0 seconds and quarter mile in about 16 seconds.
Ford of course was not about to sit on the sidelines while GM’s performance cars were going horsepower crazy. The 1985 Mustang GT also had a big bump in horsepower jumping 35 horsepower to 210 horsepower. Behind the jump were some performance tweaks to the GT’s 5.0 liter H.O. V8 such as hotter heads and a new roller cam. The net result was a 6.4 second 0-60 mph time and a quarter mile time of 14.9 seconds. The Mercury Capri RS which shared the same platform as the Mustang and was Mercury’s performance car also received this new 210 horsepower motor and performed on par with its Mustang brother.

This was not the whole picture, Ford had a hot new 205 horsepower 2.3 liter turbo four-cylinder powered 1985 SVO Mustang (a 30 horsepower bump from the 2.3 turbo in the 1984 SVO). It handled and braked better than the Mustang GT and its powerful turbo 2.3 put most performance cars to shame while sipping fuel compared to the performance V8 and V6 motors of this era. The 1985 SVO’s 0-60 mph time of 6.6 seconds and a quarter mile time of 15.1 seconds proved it meant serious business.
Chrysler was dancing to the beat of its own drummer during this time. Gone were the high-performance V8s which were part of Mopar muscle car era mystique. The 5.2 liter (318 CID) V8 was all that remained for passenger car use, and that was a low compression 5.2 2bbl V8 powering the rear-wheel drive Chrysler Fifth Avenue. Instead the Chrysler Corporation was placing its performance mark with front-wheel drive performance cars powered by its 2.2 turbo four-cylinder. Two of the hottest cars in the 1985 Mopar lineup where the Omni GLH and the Shelby Charger (Carroll Shelby was working with Chrysler back in the 1980s giving them a high-performance helping hand). Both the Omni GLH and Shelby Charger had the hot 146 horsepower version of the 2.2 liter turbo. The 1985 OMNI GLH went 0-60 mph in 7.5 seconds and hit the quarter mile in 15.8 seconds which made for one very fast little car. The Shelby Charger had similar performance. Also worth noting there were a 1985 Dodge Daytona Turbo Z and Chrysler Laser, both were front-wheel drive cars that competed with GM’s F-bodies and Ford’s Mustang GT (and the Mercury Capri RS), and were equipped with Mopar’s hot 2.2 turbo rated at 146 horsepower.
Certainly 1985 was a great year for American performance car fans, it was a year where horsepower soared and marked the final end of the horsepower low point of the mid-1970s to early-1980s. It would prove to be a lasting change with American performance cars which contined to climb the horsepower scale the next 25 years. Without the year “1985” – today there would not be a 425 horsepower 2010 Dodge Challenger SRT8, 540 horsepower 2010 Ford Shelby (Mustang) GT500 KR, 422 horsepower 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS, or a 638 horsepower Chevrolet Corvette ZR1.
Indeed 1985 was a fantastic year!


.

 

K Frames broke all the time too

 

Assuming you mean the Starquest... Wouldn't know... The car was in the circle for the better part of a decade and was only road worthy for about 9 months before the auto trans puked.

There are a lot of head to head challenges in the old magazines where they compare the FWD Dodges (Charger, Daytona, Lasers, etc) to the Camaro/Firebird and Mustang. None of them were all that memorable. By the early 90's there were still a ton of FWD Chryslers around, but they dropped like flies. The junkyards around Sioux Falls had piles of them. They weren't quite as bad as the hatch back econo cars... They stacked Omnis, and Horizons, 3 deep. It's funny how those cars went from being daily drivers you'd see every day on the street, to being completely wiped off the face of the earth.

 

I agree about the GT, but the problem was the frame cracks - specifically around the steering box. So, lo-and-behold, for peace officers, the B4C.

The discussion about Ford vs GM is almost as old as the hills, but it does make for fun reading.

Just need to look at the media section for the past magazine articles. Reading the articles suggests that in reality the cars were very close overall performance wise. The edge was usually given to Ford on price.

 

Hey guys read this! I never knew some of the info he writes in here:

http://www.oldcarmemories.com/content/view/48/113/


For the 1982 third gen trans am here is another write up fro msame author: It really is stuff I remember

http://www.oldcarmemories.com/content/view/49/113/

 

The articles here are a good start, but they don't show the full picture. For example, the 1988 test (https://www.thirdgen.org/rt-camaroiroczvsmustangho-1988) compares a 5.0 5spd GT, 5.0 auto LX coupe, and a pair of Irocs with both the L98 and LB9/5spd. The L98 only came out a tenth ahead of the GT, with the 5spd Iroc a tenth slower then the GT, and the heavily handicapped LX is only 4 tenths behind the fastest car in the test. If that LX had been a 5spd it would have murdered the Irocs.

That kind of thing shows up in the tests all the time. To really get the picture you have to read a lot more than what are hosted here. As much as people like to say the LB9/5spd is as fast as the L98, it's always slower in magazine tests. Many of those tests compare the 5spd 305 (even the TBI 305) to the Mustangs 5spd 302, making for a skewed test. Compare an L98 to a 5.0 5spd Mustang and you've got a different test.

One of the tests hosted here (https://www.thirdgen.org/camaro_Mustang_cc_may_1992), even goes as far as comparing a 92 1LE Camaro to a run of the mill 92 GT, and the GT came out ahead (because the Camaro is only a 305). Make that GT an LX or a 93 Cobra and see how bad that Camaro would get beat. Make the Camaro an L98 and it'd be back on top. That same article shows they tested a Formula LB9/5spd and ran a bit faster than the Camaro, flying in the face of the myth that the Camaro was always faster. Interesting how the numbers can be presented to skew the outcome, or the cars can be carefully selected to build in an advantage to one or the other.

 

1st gear in the gt was a granny gear on the 92 tests lol

The IROC's always seemed to out handle them.

 

If you were looking to buy a 5.0 Mustang, all you had to do was choose a body style, a transmission and if you wanted to get the optional 3.08 gear.

If you were looking to buy an IROC, well, hopefully you did your homework, because getting/ordering a fast one was ALOT more involved.

5.0 Mustangs always felt fast and fun to me, but a little nervous at high speed. 5.0 Mustangs generally could not hold a candle to an IROC-Z in the handling department though.

When my '89 IROC was pretty new, I did happen to pull up to a stoplight next to an '88 or '89 Mustang GT 5 speed. I really didn't want to race him, but I was kind of ready to at the same time, if you know what I mean. The light turned green and he launched hard out of the hole and jumped about a car length ahead of me. In that split second, I said screw it, and punched it. By the time I hit second, my front bumper was even with his rear bumper, as I was reeling him in, my left ear was next to his rear tire as he chirped third, by the time I reached the top of third gear, I was almost a car length ahead of him. The Mustang driver seemed pretty confused - wondering how another 16 second IROC, just walked him from a car length behind and blew passed him. By this time, we were going at a pretty good clip and we could see that the light ahead was turning red and we both hit our brakes. It was obvious that the Mustang just plain didn't have the braking power to stop, lifted off his brakes, and ran the red. I was able to stop, but my right front brake pad emitted a small cloud of smoke as I came to a stop. Dangerous, stupid and yup, thrilling.

Back in the '80's and early '90's I drove every combo of 5.0 Mustang, from the '82 GT to the '93 SVT Cobra. They were all fun, even the 2 bbl, 157 hp, '82 with it's 4 speed manual overdrive, but the SVT was the best out of the bunch.

Strangely, I'm finding myself looking at early Fox 5.0's and SVO's lately. Wonder how the Camaros would feel about a Mustang garage mate? TRX tires would be a problem.

 

Was that actually published somewhere? Dude needs to get a proofreader.

 

Chazman, I think one of those turbo cars would be nice, but most of those lasted as long as the dodge turbo omni
I looked at a turbo coupe last month, trashed

 

This is kind of a neat project car right here: http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...91#post1307991

BTW, I used to have a non-turbo, 1984 GLH. It was a fun car, but started self-destructing after about 40K miles.

 

I think the TBird Turbo Coupes lasted longer as the owners may have been more "mature"

 

It's not hard to find Turbocoupes with over 100k miles and still going. Mine had about 160k, all hard miles, when I parted it out. I beat the **** out of the engine for a few years in my Mustang before it started to rattle. It still ran fine, the noise just bothered me and I didn't want something catastrophic failing at 6,500rpm. The turbocharged 2.3 is overbuilt in some ways, but they have a few weak links. The heads all need hardened valve seats, and the rods get questionable north of 300hp. That doesn't stop them from running unlikely 1/4 mile times. People on Turboford.net have gotten into the 12's on stock long block 2.3s. With the exception of the SVO, and the few turbo GTs, the rest of the 2.3T cars can still be had cheap. Beater Turbocoupes can be found for under a thousand easily, XR4TIs aren't much more... There are a lot more of them out there than you think.

 

In the 80s, the fastest regular production musclecars were L98 G92 F-Bodies and 5.0 LXs. If you had that configuration in an 87-90 IROC-Z, 91-92 Z28, or 87-92 Formula, it was a drivers race against the competition. Kinda like it is now with todays Camaro SS and 5.0 Mustang. It was a back and forth kind of thing. Although, our cars destroyed them in every other category easily, unlike today.

 

I considered buying an XR4Ti in the late '80s. I still have a soft spot for them. Neat cars, but their looks may not be for everyone.

 

Yeah, the current big boned, MonteCamarlo, definitely takes a back seat to the Mustang in most performance categories.

 

Good news,

I wrote the author of www.oldcarmemories.com I told him how much I appreciated his writing.

He is doing an article on the importance of the 85 IROC and will be showcasing my 85!

I better get decals on!

 

This is a cool discussion! I joined this forum to learn about third gen cars since I've been driving Mustangs for years and I need something different. I've owned about a dozen Mustangs over the years. A vast majority of them have been 84s. I still have 3 of them. 2 GT 5.0s (one hatchback, one convertible) and a 2.3 turbo convertible (21k miles). I've had my first 5.0 since 92. I drove it into the ground and restored it, it lead to the others. But now I want to branch out, into the cars that I thought were cool when I was in high school.

Anyway, in 92 5.0s and Z28s and Monte SSs were the thing to have at my high school. I test drove them all with my dad. I really wanted a Z28. We drove several but the 5.0 always felt faster. So, that's what I went with. All the Camaros that I drove were carb'd 5 speeds as is my Mustang. But as long as I have had the Mustang, I still remember the Z28s I drove as handling better and stopping better. My mustangs stock breaks really are garbage and a bump in corner can get hairy in a hurry. The styling is a matter of taste I suppose, but that was what drew me to the Camaro, I thought they looked better. I guess I may find out what they are like to work on if I get one, the Mustang has been fairly simple, even the turbo one.

I drove a few Shelby Dodges back then too. They didn't seem to compare to either the Camaro or Mustang in my opinion. Although I'd sure like to have one now.

 

Lol, I just noticed your FEP reference. Are you over there too? There seems to be a few more people than I would have expected that like both cars.

I dig the turbo in that thread. I've had 3 turbo GTs and still have one. Hell, I just sold on in Sept to raise some cash for a third gen, or a turbo Dodge, or a Thunderbird SC or TC or.......

 

I only lurk there, but I find that site very interesting. Where in southern Wisconsin are you?

 

Mustangs always had the nuts to get across the street and down a little further but fter that every single Z28 would catch up and the Z would always handle better than a GT.

It was popular in North Dallas to "rat Race" from keg party to another and no mustang around could hold a candle to a Z or TA

 

I didn't really lose too many of that type of race back then. Although, I had cheater slicks on it then (it has TRXs on it now). It also has Eddy aluminum heads and decent exhaust on it. The factory setup was still single exhaust on an 84. I kept the stock intake and Holley 600. I tried to hide everything I did except the exhaust. It's been a fun car. Pretty much it just holds down the garage floor these days though. I think it would look cool parked next to a Z28 or TA.

 

You had eddy alum heads back in the the mid 80's or is this recent? Aluminum heads back then was some high dollar stuff

 

I got them late 90s. They weren't cheap when I got them. I have way more in it than it's worth. Don't plan on selling it though so I guess it doesn't matter.

 

Excellent! Stripes are going on too?

 

Yes they are!

I even just bought 5 new cassette tapes on ebay like night ranger, def leppard, madonna and van halen circa 1984

 

It is easy to generalize when talking about how the 3rd gen cars stacked up to their competition, as the car covered an entire decade in its run. In fact, year by year, there was constant change in the street rankings of these cars. I bought a new 82 Z with an LG4 and 4 speed. Had friends with the CFI cars of the same year. They'd run with plenty of the older hot rods, and could handle most of the new stuff of the day, too. Owners of older F cars of every description would HUNT US DOWN like rabbits and usually beat the snot out of us on the street. You could not handle a 350 2nd gen car, any 400 or 403 Pontiac TA, either. You had to hide from the Datsun 280 ZX Turbo cars, too. They'd lay down 15 sec et's at will, and would run out to 135mph or so. You could run with and handle na 280 Z cars, Mazda RX7's, etc. Mustang/Capri 5.0 cars would dismember you, too. In 83, the L69 put the Camaro back on top of the heap. They were scarce, however, and more or less unseen around here. The 5.0 got more dangerous with the T5 BW replacing the SROD mid year, plus the bump to 175 hp with the Holley 4 barrel. CFI and LG4 cars were everywhere, and still suffered on the street. By 84, the L69 saw wide use, and things got better. A 5 speed L69 car was at least a match for the 5.0 in 83 and 84. By 85, things changed again. TPI replaced the L69 for the most part as the top motor choice at GM. The Ford jumped to 210hp. I'd sold my Z in 84, and switched sides to Ford in 85 with a 5 speed 5.0. My friends did, too. Despite what the press showed at the time, the 5.0 started a domination of the street that still has legs today. My GT went 15.50's at 91 mph bone stock, and 14.0's at 97 mph with no cats, pulleys, Edelbrock manifold, and carb work. Suddenly, WE were hunting 3rd gens. Only 350 auto Z's were of any concern. With mixed emotions, I mopped the floor with a friend's LB9 5 speed 87 IROC--several times. By the late 80's, we were largely racing 5.0 against 5.0, as most of the other street competion was irrelevant. A large part of this rests solidly with the dealers who ordered these cars to begin with. Any 5.0 with a stick was a runner, but IROC and TA cars always seemed to be stuffed with 5.0 autos just loaded with options. It was unusual to see a GM F car equipped for speed, but not so with the Fords. In a side note, Buick was always a serious threat from 84 on. The hot air cars would run with our stock 5.0 carbed cars to about 85 mph or so, then slowly fade from there. The intercooled 86 and 87 cars were, simply, devastating to a stock 5.0. However, few Fords stayed stock for any period of time, and the Buicks were always scarce, too. Generally, they were not a factor in a typical night's action, but had to be reckoned with if one turned up. Hope I didn't bore you, here. Thanks, Rudy.

 

A friend of mine is a Admin on foureyedpride.com..

 

Good post.

You are correct about the way that dealers stocked these cars. Ford dealers might only have had stick 5.0's in stock, with few if any autos. Chevy dealers would only have auto IROC's in stock. If they had a stick, it was because it was from an order that went south, and it usually was with the base LG4/L03. On the Mustangs the 5.0 was the base motor.

 

I'm not sure why a performance axle ratio was so hard for dealers to order. In 2002, when ordering my Firebirds for dealer stock my AT cars always got the optional 3.23 ratio...even my V6 cars got the performance package because it was CHEAP.

I can understand why my 88 TA is stuck with a 3.08...according to my Pontiac literature, a 3.42/3.45 ratio with an LB9 stick required losing A/C. No idea why, but that's what it says. A well-optioned TA needs A/C, IMO...I'm not a 1LE leg humper.

With that said, there is no reason my AT cars should've been stuck with 2.77 gears...I can feel where it holds both back a little, especially the 305. The IROC has enough torque to overcome the gear, but the 305 doesn't. I'd kill to have a 3.27 in either one. There is a shot my TA might be getting my buddy's old L69 10 bolt...debating if I want to refurb it before putting it in, or leave it as-is. Our recollection from back in the day was that it seemed fine. I dare say 3.73s will wake it up Its just hard to start cutting into a car that has survived all these years in a completely original mechanical state..

 

Never saw one. And I made it my avocation to stalk all the Chicago area Chevy and Pontiac dealers at the time, specifically to see what Camaros/Firebirds they had in stock. Sticks? Fugetaboutit! IF you saw a stick at a dealer, it was a customer's car.

Basically, off the lot, you were pretty much guaranteed to get a slow 3rd gen. If you wanted to go fast, you needed to order one, AND you needed to understand HOW to order the right combo. OTOH, anyone could walk into any Ford dealer, sign on the dotted line, and pull out with a tire frying 5.0.

 

ANy of you guys catch the 1st gear ratio of the ford 4 speed? 3.35 or something

 

And 4th gear was an overdrive ratio. Big gear spread. But I'll tell ya, in 1982 that 157 hp package was something. And they had big street cred too. I remember test driving one when they first came out, and the rear end went slightly sideways when I shifted into 2nd. I thought, Oh My God, this thing is fast. Nowadays a bare bones econobox could run it down.

Getting back to how the majority of 3rd gens were equipped....

My '83 Crossfire for example. It has a 2.93 rear end. I mean a 3.23 would have cost something like and extra $27 (or whatever). Who in the know wouldn't order the car with the better gear for essentially nil extra charge? People who didn't know, that's who.

Look at me, I'm Mr. sticks or nothing, and yet 66.67% of my 3rd gens are automatics. That tells you how tough they are to find. Honestly, when I think about it, I could count on all my fingers and toes how many LB9/T5s I've seen in the flesh. Maybe only half of them had the optional 3.42/3.45 gears. They were exceedingly rare back in the day, let alone now. That's why it sickens me, when someone parts a perfectly serviceable example of these cars with rare powertrain combos, rather than saving it.

 

I feel fortunate to have my combo. It feels very fast.

 

I was wondering about that when I saw your yellow IROC thread... figured you would have held out for a stick. You know since it's a 305 TPI you could easily convert it to a T5...

 

My preference woud have been a stick. An '85 L69/T5 or an '87 LB9/T5. In the end though, I wanted a yellow IROC, and was just looking for the best car for the money.

 

I commented to GM years ago about the same issue of options on cars.

In 2000, I went and looked at a new Camaro SS. I told the salesman what options I wanted and he couldn't find one anywhere in the multi-state region. My options, outside the standard give me's of power windows, locks, etc, were TTops, 6 speed and fabric. That's it. Every single SS appeared to be fully loaded. Then in 2003, I walked onto a Ford lot to look at a Mustang. They had a burgundy GT with the MACH sound system and 5 speed. It also had power windows and locks, but that's standard today. I could've had that GT for $19500. In 2003!!! Better options and better pricing. I see why so many people like Mustangs.

My friend at GM said that the dealers order the cars, not GM. So that tells me that every Chevy dealer stocks up on the fully loaded cars for a larger profit. Another sad thing learned about the mighty Chevy dealers!!!