...

 

Awesome! Wish I could see the full article though!

 

No man, I was just trying to zing you.

 

Good for you Scott, congrats!!! Read through it today. Great pics, car looks gorgeous!!

 

I finally received my copy!! Not only did they do the write up on my car, but I see that they reviewed Phil's (CPC Norwood) new book, Echoes of Norwood. Congrats on that Phil!

 

Getting old is better than the alternative...

 

Received my copy Thursday. Great article and photos.
Scott, you should have the article framed.

 

Congrats Scott. Great article and pictures. I only wished you lived closer so you could still attend Camaro Superfest. I would love to see that car in person.

 

Thanks. But to everyone that thinks my car is something special, it isn't. It's just overly detailed! I'm sure there are vehicles on this board in much better condition than mine. It's far from perfect and if seen in person, you'll notice that. I crossed the 20k mile mark on Monday, so now I don't have the low mile car I used to have. The car's almost ready for retirement!!

 

It's still low miles! I recall when it had 10,000 on here years ago lol.

 

....and here i thought 75,000 in the year 2014 for our thinrdgens are considered low milage! ha!

 

So this was then..... (July 5th, 2002)




And this is now!!!! (January 20, 2014)

 

Wow lol. I will have had mine for 10 years in August and it's only gone 10,000 miles since then. 67,xxx to 77,xxx.

 

Yeah, its really a piece... heck I drove it and boy is it slow... my grandma moves better with her walker. So I will offer you $1500 to take it off your hands...

Scott, Trust me I have seen a lot of 3rd gens, and very few if any have garnered my respect with how clean it is. I think your car deserves the attention it gets, don't knock it. It is super nice and I would be proud to own it, although I think pride is one of the 7 deadly sins I would still be proud of it. You have put your heart into keeping it the way it is, now go out there and wipe the dust off off the radiator fan with a q-tip before I have to slap you around some more.

 

Can't wipe it off now. When I took it in on Monday to get an alignment, the shop guys fingered up so much of the car I need to wash it. The tried aligning the front end and had to do it 4x. It's still not right, so all of the in and out, adjustments, etc, there are finger prints all over the windows, doors, fenders, hood, underhood and who knows where else!!!!

 

Cant post comments.. I am one of the few on earth who refuses to have one. I work in IT go figure.

 

20K miles?? now you are getting close to mine!
Hurts to just store them I know!

 

I bought it to enjoy and with my son being 16 now, we are trying to enjoy the car. So much time has been spent trying to keep it clean and low miles, but then can I say I enjoyed it? I'd rather drive it to enjoy it then look at it in the garage. If I die tomorrow, I won't be able to say that the car's low mileage made me the happiest. Driving it is more fun!

 

Technically if you die tomorrow, you will not be saying much of anything, at least what we can hear...

 

I am not sure, this happened to me... My Formula drove Great, it was a joy to drive, I changed the struts so I had it aligned even though it did not pull or wander.. Got an alignment and now it is all over the road, drives me crazy...

I am almost wondering if they are aligning my car (and yours) like a base, not the performance model...

Here is what I have found.

CASTER (DEG)
Street: L +4° R +4.5°
Hard Street Use L +5° R +5.5°
Road Racing L +6° R +6°

CAMBER (DEG)
Street: L -.5° R -.5°
Hard Street Use: L -1° R-1°
Road Racing: L -1.75° R -1.75°

Toe In (inches)
Street: 3/32" IN
Hard Street Use: 3/32 IN
Road Racing:
RR Short course 1/8" OUT)
RR Long Course 1/16" IN

I know the base and the Performance models got different setups...

I want to try the hard street use, I could care less about wear on my tires as I will drive fewer miles than before they rot.

 

how is it they couldn't do the alignment properly!?...and it took 4 times?! I mean Camber adjustments are simple and so is the toe, practically old school setup, just without the shims!

Was it a professional shop? Did they check for looseness in any of the steering components (gearbox, links, rods, ball joints, and hub bearing tightness) then tire pressure check? Did they jounce the vehicle and making sure any unsprung weight is not on the car....
I mean these are the steps and procedures i would do (I use to do alignments all the time) before performing the alignment...Now adays alignment machines would tell the tech what to do from there. At least if it's those new designs like Like the Hunter DSP designs, etc.
I use to work on a hunter machine that had a 486 bit processing unit! But it still performed it's basic function.
Perhaps they didn't take the time to the job right the first time?...I just find it very perculiar....

 

I do not know, all I know is the car drove like crap after I got an alignment, it was great before... It would track like a dream, turn a corner and the wheel would straighten... The only thing that makes it drive any better is to put 40psi in the rear and 32 in the front.

I think they use the wrong settings on the computer, they see "Camaro" and stop there instead of looking on to the IROC or the FE2 performance suspension.

John

 

My car from the factory drove straight as an arrow, but if you looked at the front end, you could see the tires camber was way off. I wore out the inside edge of a set of tires in 8k miles. I took the car to an independent shop two years ago to get an alignment. They made major adjustments that were visible, but the car pulled left. They said the alignment was dead on.

Monday, I took the car to the Chevy dealer and they aligned it 4x. After each alignment, they took the car for a drive and it pulled left. They kept playing with the alignment settings so it wouldn't pull left and they couldn't get it done. After 5 hours at the dealer, I drove the car home with it pulling left still. They had their master mechanic working on it and he found nothing wrong. I'm going to replace the bushings and see if that helps any.

 

This sounds an awful lot like my car, in which I have replaced -everything-, and STILL pulls to the left with hard braking. Sometimes I wonder if it's just the cars themselves.

 

If it pulls left while braking, you might want to get your brakes checked.

 

Scott - yours pulls left under braking too or all the time?

 

Also Scott - I am just curious why you had it done at a Chevy dealer. People have this misconception that the dealer knows how to work on it because it is a brand dealer with a service dept. That does not hold true for a 27 year old car. The tech who worked on the car was probably a toddler when the car was new. There probably hasn't been an Iroc in the service bay for 20 years. If you had a 2013 Camaro I could see bringing it there. But at this point, they don't know any better how to service our cars then the mechanic down the street. In fact, IMHO you should have found a good tire and alignment shop to handle it as they do it all the time and probably could have figured out the problem better then the local Chevy dealer.
I have never had a good experience in a new car service dept. - ever. I think some of the service departments I have dealt with over the years are incompetent handling my new cars.
You should find another shop in your area that could do the alignment. Maybe not the shop who did it a few years ago. I wonder if the tires are worn in such a way that makes the car pull.

 

Scott: You need to talk to an alignment specialist. Preferably a guy with grey temples that still remembers the modified strut type suspension. The problem with alignment is that the factory specs aren't good, and on top of that, the computerized alignment machines will say the car is within allowable tolerance, and that's all you get. I used these specs recommended by sofakingdom on an 88 GTA and the car drives great:

As much positive caster as your particular car can get (they vary quite a bit), with about ½° more on the right than the left; shoot for about 4° L / 4½° R.
About 1° negative camber, again with a bit more on the right; about -½° L / -1° R.
Slight toe IN; about 1/32" - 1/16" (.030" - .060").

Your 87 IROC also has 245/50ZR16 tires and the large sway bars so would assume these specs would also work for you. Don't be afraid of a shop that has old equipment. As always, the key is finding a guy that knows what he's doing.

 

Well said Vincent.

Scott, I dont know how often you take your IROC to cruise ins or shows, but the best way to find competent people is ask around at these events. Most of the older dudes will know good paint, alignment, repair places, etc. Asking around will usually get you some names. The dealership is the worst place to go; shameful your car was returned to you full of fingerprints.

 

My car pulls left all the time while cruising. The reason I took it to the dealer has many reasons. The shop I took it to years ago is a great shop and the guy that owns it restores old muscle cars and such. He's not cheap, but he does good work and knows how to adjust carbs and tune newer cars with EFIlive. He has a '70 Chevelle SS, '67 Camaro, '97 Camaro RS, 2003 Supercharged Tahoe and who knows what else. His alignment machine is down so he couldn't do it. The dealer pricing is the same as the independent shop and I thought it was just an alignment! The dealer didn't charge for the work since the car still pulls. They also said if I get valid settings from the forum to bring the settings up and they'll try 'em. I did mention in another post that I commented to the service writer that the car is probably older than the tech working on it. He assured me that their master tech, an old guy, was working on it. Again, I asked how hard can it be to align a front end?

The problem I have with getting recommendations in my area is that I'm the outsider being from up north. In my area, everybody seems to be related somehow. I got a recommendation on rebuilding my AC and it was just short of a nightmare. It's hard locating reputable people when so many businesses have family relations.

Another local shop that I just started to use because I've known the owner for 10 years turned out to be costly. I took my wife's car in to get a rattle under the hood looked into and he said it needed a water pump. I told him to fix it and check the car over. He told me the car needed new hub assemblies. I had no idiot lights until I picked up the car and on the way home, I get ABS and traction control lights. I replaced the hubs myself and would you believe the axle nut was removed by hand? No tools! Now the car has no heat. I checked into it and it seems the hoses are clogged going to the heater core. I think he added the wrong coolant, it mixed with the DexCool, and now it sludged up. Plus, the shop owner betrayed my trust in another issue involving many people, so I am back to the first shop and waiting for his alignment machine to work again!

The only problem I've had with the first shop was a bird crapped on my car while it was there, they tried getting it off the car before it damaged the paint and they actually scratched the hood, really good. The bird ate something nasty. I wasn't happy about it, but the shop owner told me about it and said that they wanted me to buff it out since he felt I would do a better job.

 

The repair trade is designed to extract $ out of the average commuter. They want their late model econobox fixed fast & cheap so they can get on with the most important activity in thier life - staring at thier phone. Gritty bird droppings and fingerprints on glass are of no concern to anyone involved.

Third gens have now transversed into specialty territory. If you have a good one and you can't fix it yourself, find someone that knows how to deal with these things. 60's muscle cars were made of steel, with a minimum of non-biodegradable plastic that has proven to be quite durable. Conversley, 3rd gens are mostly made of brittle plastic that shatters when you squeeze it. Even low mileage cars occasionally require an invasive repair procedure. If you can't do it yourself, better find someone that knows how to handle these things with kid gloves. Regular auto repair shop or dealership will cause more damage than than you took it in for in the first place. It's not that they do it on purpose, it's just that being careful is outside of thier area of conciousness. The guy with the Camaros sounds like the one to go with.

Every two years, I have to take the cars in for mandatory emissions tests. I cringe when I hand over the keys and watch the guys drive it in and pop the hood. Feels like my wife is sitting on the guy's lap. I just couldn't imagine how stressful it would be to have some guy replace a clutch or a timing chain.

 

Scott - it's tough finding reputable repair shops up north too. I won't even bring my cars for oil changes because I wind up with stains in my driveway when they don't clean up their mess.

 

so, i stopped by my local barnes and nobles today and searched high and low for the mag....well it looks like I snoozed and i loose. The March edition is already out...
At least on their website, it's kinda viewable...in any case congrats again scott...

 

I heard! A friend from NJ called me on Tuesday to inform me that she checked everywhere in NJ and couldn't find one either. She said that she called Hemmings and was told that they send only three copies to each store. She ended up ordering one direct from Hemmings and they gave her free shipping!

 

Nice article Scott....

I also got mentioned in that edition with my '69 Pro Stock car

http://www.hemmings.com/mus/stories/..._feature7.html

 

And now for the story: Courtesy of Hemmings

Out of the Darkness!
Chevy expanded the 1987 IROC-Z28's small-block horizon, fueled the horsepower war, and sparked a lifetime of third-gen ownership



Feature Article from Hemmings Muscle Machines
February, 2014 - Matthew Litwin

When the motoring press proclaimed that Chevy was reintroducing the division's 350-cu.in. small-block to the third-generation Camaro in 1986, poetic strings of words--"herd of horsepower" and "mind-bending torque" in one periodical--sent shockwaves of joy through performance pony car enthusiasts. Finally, a form of mechanical justice was being served, as the Camaro and the 350-cu.in. small-block were being reunited to once again battle the Ford Mustang's might with 230 horsepower and 330-lb.ft. of torque.

Snicker at those output figures if you must--it's easy in these times of 320-hp V-6 base engines--but allow us to put those seemingly mild stats into their proper context.

Factory performance across the board had sunk to new lows by 1981. The Camaro Z28, then still based on the aged 12-year-old F-body platform, turned out just 175 hp with its best engine option, the 350, and could no longer be backed by a four-speed (for that, you had to take the 305). At Pontiac, even the Oldsmobile 403--which had stood in for the Pontiac 400 in some previous Trans Am applications in an effort to maintain a 6.6-liter displacement--was gone, leaving the 4.9-liter 301 V-8, which in non-turbo form mustered just 135 horses. Ford's

Mustang, then in its third Fox platform season, fared no better. Its 302 had been superseded by a diminutive 255-cu.in. version of Ford's small-block V-8, managing just a wheezy 115 hp. Not even the Corvette, Chevy's perennial hotbed of all things performance, was exempt. At least the Camaro's California-spec 305 V-8 from 1980 was gone, but, sadly, the remaining 350 with computer-controlled Quadrajet couldn't crack 200 hp, weighing in at a scant 190 hp. In short, the effects of oil embargoes and emission regulations had yet to loosen their stranglehold on factory engine output, leaving the performance scene with a fairly bleak landscape and what seemed like an even dimmer future. Yet even in those dark days, the muscle car faithful held out hope...and some of them worked in Detroit.

The new frontier of performance would require new technology to enable increased engine efficiency. To that end, Buick had introduced a turbocharged 3.8-liter V-6 for 1978. Although boost maxed out at nine pounds, it still provided 165 hp and 285 lb.ft. of torque; by 1981 engineers tweaked output to 170 hp in the Regal and 180 in Riviera trim. Pontiac, too, incorporated a turbocharger onto the 301 V-8, bumping its output to 200 hp and 340 lb.ft. of torque in the '81 Trans Am. Electronic engine controls factored in the Buick and Pontiac efforts, and would prove to be the key to the next generation of muscle cars.
So the stage was set for potential progress as the 1982 models rolled out, giving the public its first look at the long-overdue redesign of the Camaro and Firebird it had so optimistically anticipated. The modern, forward-thinking, aerodynamic, (marginally) lighter third-generation F-body platform was markedly different from the previous models, with its fully unitized structure, hatchback body configuration and slick profile.

The Z28 variation featured five-spoke alloy wheels, a ducted hood, ground effects and a ground-hugging suspension with all-new chassis geometry, all seemingly very progressive.

Yet, as striking as the new Camaro was, earning a coveted Car of the Year title, many felt an injustice was done to the Z28 when word spread that its best engine option was... a 305. Granted, it had "Cross-Fire Injection," Chevy's attempt at harking back to the exotic cross-ram intake offered over the counter in the day of the late-'60s Z/28, but this new fuel-injected 5.0-liter made just 165 hp. Harrumph.

Meanwhile, Ford had reignited a fire of its own with the return of the Mustang GT, also marking the return of the 302, now also labeled a 5.0. Though the Mustang made slightly less output with its 157-hp two-barrel carbureted "high-output" engine, its power-to-weight ratio--read 0-60 and quarter-mile ET--was generally better than the F-bodies.

It may seem inconsequential now, but the new F-body, the media accolades and Ford's 5.0 Mustang all conspired to spark a new horsepower battle between the two automotive titans. For 1983, the new H.O. version of the Chevy 305 in the Camaro, which relied on a Quadrajet for air/fuel metering, stretched the power rating up to 190 hp; Ford's 302 jumped to 175 hp, thanks to a Holley four-barrel. There was even bigger news from GM for '85: Chevy's Tuned Port Injection (TPI) system debuted, and on the Camaro's 305 it rang out 215 hp; Ford's 302 output increased to 210. Ford added its own port fuel injection for '86, finally prompting Chevy mid-season to do what everyone had been waiting for: Install the Corvette's 230-hp, 350-cu.in. TPI engine into the IROC-Z28.

The 350 TPI wasn't totally new to Chevy. Introduced to the Corvette in 1985, the core of the system was the Bosch "hot-wire" mass airflow sensor that worked in conjunction with an electronic engine control module. In a nutshell, it measured air flowing into the throttle body, helping the computer determine how much fuel the injectors required. The "Tuned" part of TPI was the intake runner lengths, designed to take advantage of ram tuning to build extra mid-range torque, which proved superb for an era where extra horsepower was hard to come by.

The same year, the IROC-Z--introduced as an option package to the Z28 in celebration of the Camaro's selection as car-of-choice for the '84 rebirth of the International Race of Champions racing series--became the premier Camaro. Its graphics, 16 x 8-inch aluminum wheels, P245/50VR16 Z-rated Goodyear Gatorback tires and body extensions gave it an apropos racy presence. Hidden were a plethora of high-performance suspension modifications: increased spring rates, special front struts, five degrees more caster on the front wheel alignment than the Z28, a front frame-rail stiffener, rear Delco-Bilstein gas shocks, larger rear stabilizer bar with stiffer bushings, special jounce bumpers, improved steering box and a .50-inch lower ride height than the Z28. The IROC-Z alone found 21,177 customers in '85, and another 49,585 in '86.

As to the impetus for marrying the 350 TPI to the IROC, then-Corvette and Camaro product engineering manager Paul Huzzard cited renewed interest in performance, difficulty in supplying the 305 TBI (Throttle Body Injection) engine to meet demand and Mustang's sequential port-injected 5.0-liter 302 as motivating factors. When tested by Motor Trend (May 1986), a 0-60 of 6.4 seconds and a 14.43 @ 94.6 MPH quarter-mile were published. There was one catch: The IROC 350 wasn't available to the public, despite rumors that Chevy was ready to produce about 1,000 examples. Instead, 50 to 74 were built, all of them test mules, including those thrashed by journalists (reportedly, none survived beyond the testing phase as they were considered experimental and subsequently destroyed by GM). Instead, the 350 TPI (coded L98) saw its IROC production debut in 1987, albeit with cast-iron cylinder heads instead of aluminum (as on the Corvette), and with a slightly reduced 225 hp. Still, it was sheer joy for the faithful, even though it added $1,045 to the IROC's already steep bottom line.

It was into this realm of rejuvenated horsepower that Scott Moyer came of age. Then living in northwestern New Jersey, his introduction to the Camaro came while working at a local farm in his early teens. "The farmer's daughter's boyfriend bought a new 1980 or '81 Z28. He came over every day and eventually took me for a ride. I loved the look and feel of it. A few years later, I started looking at the same-year Camaros for my first car; however, my father would not let me get one more than five years old. He wanted me to have reliable transportation--something I could afford to drive and own, and not leave me stranded. By '85, he said the '80 Z28 I located was too old, so I took a loan out and bought an '83 Z28 I found at a dealership instead," remembers Scott.

Sadly, time with his first Z28 was short-lived. After just 10 days of ownership, an 18-wheeler ran through a yield sign. Scott tried to stop, but the collision totaled the third-gen steed, forcing him to seek out a replacement; this time, a 1982 Z28 equipped with the Cross-Fire Injection 305, but it came with its own set of problems.

"I was dropping it off at the Chevy dealer almost on a daily basis for continuous problems with the Cross-Fire. Even though they were able to duplicate the engine issue, they could not figure out how to resolve it. Chevy eventually sent me a letter stating they would replace the engine outright with a new one; however, I had already traded the car in."

 

After two years in the service, and having relocated to Minneapolis, Minnesota, Scott found another third-gen Camaro to use as a daily driver. "It was 1993, and this time I found a low-mileage '88 Sport Coupe. After moving to the area, I had wanted another, but I owned it only about a year-and-a-half. Living there, you really needed a 4x4," laughed Scott. His third-gen Camaro ownership wasn't over, however, for he stumbled upon our feature car--an '87 IROC-Z--in June of 2000.
"A deal on another third-gen fell through. Irritated and surfing the Internet at midnight, I saw a new post in Rochester; the mileage and price made me wonder if it was correct. In the morning, the seller told me that others had already called, so I asked him not to sell until I get there. That's when he started asking me what my intentions were. I told him I was looking for a low-mileage Camaro to be used as a show car. That hit a nerve with him because that's what his mother wanted the car to be."

According to Scott, "Nita" Nereson went to Clements Chevrolet-Cadillac wanting a future collectible car, so she bought the Camaro with every available option. That meant her IROC-Z came with a Bose stereo system and leather interior--both firsts for the third-gen icon. And because of the 350 TPI, it also came with engine and transmission oil coolers, and the Borg-Warner high-performance axle with Posi and a 3.27:1 gear. The TH700-R4 four-speed automatic was also mandated. IROC option package three and a series of other extra-cost items (refer to the spec page for further details) pushed the sticker price to a whopping $21,019. The pricy performer was then driven only 6,300 miles in 13 years. Sadly, this was in part due to Nita losing her battle with cancer.

"Her son Josh then inherited the car. In storage most of the time, the check engine light was on, there was a transmission leak and the tires had dry rot. His friend, who was going to an auto trade school, guessed repair costs would be roughly $2,500, and at 19 years old, Josh opted to sell it instead. I told him I would take care of everything that needed to be done, gave him a check and drove it home."

Scott quickly resolved the mechanical issues--new tires, a new transmission seal at the yoke and a new EGR valve, for considerably less than the estimate given to Josh--before detailing every crevice of the IROC-Z, even going so far as to remove the seats to clean the carpet below.

"The best part of the story is that Josh went to the 2001 World of Wheels in Minneapolis and saw the car there. He looked at me and asked, 'Is that my car?' He was actually in tears because he didn't think the car was worthy of being a show car, but after seeing all the detailing I did he said it looked better than it did when it was brand new. To him it meant something," says Scott.



Careful detailing and maintenance aside, Scott did add one item to an otherwise unrestored factory original IROC-Z. "The only option Nita did not spring for was the $210 rear window louvers (RPO DE1), which were not part of the three available IROC option packages (another IROC-Z first). I went to the Chevy dealer with the GM part number; they did a nationwide search and found only three sets available in the country. I called those three dealers and found that two sets were damaged and/or had parts missing. The third set was the only one that was complete and that's what I have on the car."

In 2002, Scott--now thirdgen.org's history and originality forum moderator--relocated to Apopka, Florida, taking the IROC-Z with him on a trailer, where the climate is actually friendlier to the Camaro during the winter months than the blistering heat of the summer. That doesn't mean it's not enjoyed.

"My son, Nicholas, and I drive the car from time to time; it sits too much as it is. [Editor's note: As this story went to print only 19,900 miles were showing on the odometer.] We've participated in several shows over the years, such as the Camaro Superfest in Michigan before we moved, Classic Chevy International Worldwide Camaro Winternationals, the inaugural National Parts Depot Octoberfest meet, and several local events, cruise nights and third-gen/F-body meets. In 2011, we drove up to Indianapolis to run part of the Power Tour. We've had a lot of fun on these trips," says Scott, who adds that he intends to continue both enjoying and preserving his piece of the factory performance renaissance.

Owner's View
Looking back, when I started thinking about my first car, I was looking at all kinds of vehicles initially: Mitsubishi Starion, Chrysler Conquest TSI, even a Toyota pickup; basically the hot cars of the era. But I kept telling myself that I liked the look of the Camaro, so I bought the Z28--an icon and hot car in its own right. Taking the loan out at an early age, the car was always washed, waxed, cleaned and detailed because I had to work hard for it. It taught me to appreciate what I have, and it carried over to this IROC-Z. They are fun cars to own, to drive, and there are a lot of people who either had or wanted one; they bring back memories, and as a result are getting recognized again, this time as collector cars.--Scott Moyer

Club Scene

Vintage Chevrolet Club of America
P.O. Box 609
Lemont, Illinois 60439
708-455-8222
www.vcca.org
Dues: $35/year • Membership: 8,000

www.thirdgen.org
Online-only GM third-gen F-body technical data and forum

PROS
+ Exceptional originality
+ First third-gen with 350
+ Competitive power for the era
CONS
- Rarely find one this clean or original
- Short on power by today's standards
- Still an underappreciated muscle car

1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
225 horsepower @ 4,400 RPM
330 lb. ft. torque @ 2,800 RPM
1/4-mile: 15.23 seconds @ 91.2 MPH*

Price
Base price: $12,819
Price as profiled: $21,019

Options on car profiled: AM9 split folding rear seat back, $50; AR9 gray custom leather bucket seats, $750; B2L 5.7 liter (350-cu.in.) TPI V-8, $1,045; B48 Deluxe luggage compartment trim, $84; CC1 Removable glass panels w/locks, $866; C49 electric rear window defogger, $145; D27 locking rear storage cover, $80; G80 limited-slip differential, $100; J65 power front and rear disc brakes, $179; KC4 engine oil cooler, $110; MX0 automatic transmission w/overdrive, $490; QDZ P245/50VR16 radial tires, no charge; UU8 Delco-Bose music system, $613; U75 power antenna, $70; ISC IROC option package #3 (includes: IROC-Z performance package, air conditioning, tinted glass, Comfortilt steering wheel, front and rear carpet floor mats, intermittent windshield wiper system, power door locks, power windows, power hatch release, body side moldings, electric speed control w/resume speed, auxiliary lighting, Halogen hi/low-beam headlamps, six-way driver power seat, auto ISRV mirror, electric twin remote sport mirrors, interior roof console, electric tuned AM/FM/cassette stereo system with seek/search, graphic equalizer, digital clock and ERSS), $3,204; 74U Dark Red Metallic paint, no charge; destination charge, $414. (Note: DE1 rear window louvers, $210, added by current owner and not reflected in final sale price)

Engine
Type: Chevrolet "small-block" OHV V-8, cast-iron block and cylinder heads
Displacement: 350 cubic inches (5.7 liter)
Bore x stroke: 4.00 x 3.48 inches
Compression ratio: 9.3:1
Horsepower @ RPM: 225 @ 4,400
Torque @ RPM: 330 lb.ft. @ 2,800
Valvetrain: Hydraulic lifters
Main bearings: 5

Fuel system: Tuned Port Injection (TPI) electronic multi-port fuel injection
Lubrication system: Pressure, gear-type pump

Electrical system: 12-volt
Exhaust system: Cast-iron manifolds, single high-flow catalytic converter, large-diameter single pipe and cross-flow muffler, dual tailpipes

Transmission
Type: GM TH700-R4 four-speed automatic
Ratios:
1st: 3.06:1
2nd: 1.63:1
3rd: 1.00:1
4th: 0.70:1
Reverse: 2.29:1

Differential
Type: Borg-Warner "9-bolt," 7.75-inch ring and pinion with limited-slip
Ratio: 3.27:1

Steering
Type: Recirculating ball, power assist
Ratio: 14.1:1
Turns, lock-to-lock: 2.26
Turning circle: 36.7 feet

Brakes
Type: Hydraulic, four-wheel disc, power assist
Front: 10.50-inch disc
Rear: 10.50-inch disc

Chassis & Body
Construction: Unit-body construction
Body style: Two-door coupe
Layout: Front engine, rear-wheel drive

Suspension
Front: Independent; modified MacPherson strut, coil springs; 34mm anti-roll bar
Rear: Rigid axle; torque arm, coil springs, two trailing links, Panhard rod, 23mm anti-roll bar

Wheels & Tires
Wheels: Cast-aluminum five-spoke
Front: 16 x 8 inches
Rear: 16 x 8 inches
Tires: Goodyear Eagle VR (currently BFGoodrich G-Force)
Front: P245/50VR16 (currently 245/50ZR16)
Rear: P245/50VR16 (currently 245/50ZR16)

Weights & Measures
Wheelbase: 101 inches
Overall length: 192 inches
Overall width: 72.8 inches
Overall height: 50.3 inches (loaded)
Front track: 60 inches
Rear track: 60.9 inches
Curb weight: 3,478 pounds

Capacities
Crankcase: 5 quarts
Cooling system: 16.28 quarts
Fuel tank: 16.2 gallons
Transmission: 4.7 quarts

Calculated Data
Bhp per cu.in.: 0.64
Weight per bhp: 15.46 pounds
Weight per cu.in.: 9.94 pounds

Production
During the 1987 model year, Chevrolet assembled 137,760 Camaros, of which 38,889 were IROC-Z28s; 12,105 were built with the L98 350-cu.in. TPI engine.

Performance
Acceleration:
0-60 MPH: 6.68 seconds
1/4-mile ET: 15.23 seconds @ 91.2 MPH
*From Motor Trend August 1987, that tested a regular-production '87 IROC-Z28 with the 350 TPI engine as part of a seven-vehicle comparison test.

 

Great article and history Scott. I am sure you are glad you acquired her and never sold her. I feel that way with my 82 TA.

 

Fantastic article! Though I'm sure there was an article out there that had one running the usual 6.0-6.2 0-60 and low-mid 14 second 1/4 mile that they could have used.

 

scott can you laminate that for me? hehe...

interesting to note about the transmission capacity. Techincally , only the stock trans oil pan holds that amount (4.7 qts) but the full transmission case can hold about a total of 14 qts. If you ever done a full drain and fill on these systems it takes alot of fluid to fill rather then a filter replacement and fill.

 

Thanks for posting article, great story and great car.

 

Great article ! My neighbor who has a subcription told me about it and loaned me his until I can get a copy.

 

Chris, I agree on the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. They stated that the '86 350 was tested at 14.4 and 6.4, but then they ran the '87 information from another test they found from '87.

I received a plaque in the mail from a company called "In The News" where they got the original article from Hemmings and reprinted it on a board. It looks really cool. I added it to my man cave!

 

Fantastic read and great little piece for the man cave.

 

Two more Hemmings articles:

Lost cars of the 1980s - 1LE:

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2...et-camaro-1le/

Hemmings find of the day - 1982 Firebird:

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2...tiac-firebird/

 

Thanks for posting the Hemmings links.....

Nice article on the 1LE .........

The original owner of my 89 G92 told me a simular story when I asked him how he went about ordering the car. He said he had to do alot research to know how to order even the G92 as that triggered other options .... he knew about the 1LE but needed A/C.
He said the salesman that placed the order learned from him how to order the car. He had ordered a 69 new years before and was a member of the US Camaro club. Both cars were bought at Lyman Slack Chevrolet in Portland Oregon, a dealer known for selling performance Chevy's and parts.

 

I didn't read the 1LE article in depth too much, but it's interesting to see how it's image is starting to get built up. Not to bring it down (I love 1LEs), but isn't it basically a Z28 with all of the max performance goodies, no AC, and bigger brakes? I get this a lot owning a B4C. People think of the Blue's Brothers scene... "Cop tires, cop suspension..." More like Z28 tires, Z28 suspension, etc. And that in of itself is significant, as you'll find plenty of IROC-Zs or Z28s saddled with rear drums or no 3.42/3.45 or no N10 or the wrong engine/transmission combo... they make it easy today - just choose SS, SS 1LE, or ZL1 and you automatically get the most performance that model provides.

What's also interesting is reading the comments on Hemmings. There is a discussion about how a Camry would beat the 1LE in a straight line. What's funny about that argument is it would also probably beat a bone stock 60's muscle car with its gross HP rating and bias-ply tires, but the perception is that 60's muscle is untouchable.

 

wow scott that car is super clean makes my iroc look filthy!!!!! just a thought not shure if someone has already said this but your pull might be in the tires not the alignment have you tryed crossing the front tires & see if it pulles to the right if it does its the tire & no alignment will fix it

 

Ordering a G92 without A/C triggered a 1LE and few more things than you mentioned.... Aluminum drive shaft and baffles in the gas tank are two....

The speed compairisons to modern day cars doesn't make sence to me .... of course their faster. But it isn't all about speed.

 

As Drew used to say, the 1LE is is just the brakes. All of the other options were available on the regular Z28/IROC-Zs. The only thing that makes it special is the fact that it was designed by the factory as a SCCA race car.