When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
History / OriginalityGot a question about 1982-1992 Camaro or Firebird history? Have a question about original parts, options, RPO codes, when something was available, or how to document your car? Those questions, answers, and much more!
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Stove pipe...I'd add it. Your in Chicago. If like me, you try to stretch your cruising season into the fall, you can have some pretty cold mornings of starting. It really helps cold weather driveability during the warm-up cycle to have that warm air available.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by burnout88
Hey, Charlie you may want to consider throwing a chip in that LG4 with a 160 thermostat. I did that on my 85 LG4 and it responded very well. It was quite a noticeable improvement. A set of 1.6 roller rockers will also bolt on with ease and help give the car some more useable rpm. Both are hidden mods that won't hurt the value of the car.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by chazman
BTW, who knows what this is? I can't find where it should connect, just found it hanging between the alternator and AC compressor.
Just shooting from the hip here, so don't take this as gospel... But I'm thinking that's probably one of the diagnostic ports used for setting the computer controlled carb... But then the one I'm thinking of had a green shell if I remember correctly. If you don't figure it out soon, hit me with a private message to remind me and I'll pull out the 87 Camaro Electrical Diagnosis manual and see if I can find it.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by Drew
Just shooting from the hip here, so don't take this as gospel... But I'm thinking that's probably one of the diagnostic ports used for setting the computer controlled carb... But then the one I'm thinking of had a green shell if I remember correctly. If you don't figure it out soon, hit me with a private message to remind me and I'll pull out the 87 Camaro Electrical Diagnosis manual and see if I can find it.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by chazman
Once I get that bracket painted and everything else cleaned up, I just need to get 3 screws, a clip and a vacuum line cap and I'll be good to go. I'm kind of looking forward to seeing how it drives with it on.
Not sure why'd you'd need to cap a vacuum line... The thermac for the HO aircleaner connects the same as the LG4.
On my 83 it didn't make a sizable difference at around town speeds, but on the interstate you could tell it was breathing easier. The primaries on a Q-jet are so small, the only time the extra air should make a difference is WOT anyway.
It looks like your passenger's side duct is riding high. Like it's above the overflow tank. On my 83, it was enough lower I had it routed under the A/C line. Of course the A/C lines on the 83 LG4 come across the top, and the L69 lines dipped down to clear the tube. Just be sure that the duct doesn't touch the hood or you'll rub through it in no time. My A/C line definitely rubbed the hood.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
I wonder if your passenger's side tube might be slightly too long. It seems a few years back there was a tube for another application that sorta fit, that people were using on the L69 aircleaners... Left and right, I remember were definitely different part numbers.
One more pic... I can't really tell from comparing photos, but here's a closer photo of mine. These were NOS ducts when I put the HO aircleaner on my 83 circa 1996.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by Drew
Not sure why'd you'd need to cap a vacuum line... The thermac for the HO aircleaner connects the same as the LG4.
On my 83 it didn't make a sizable difference at around town speeds, but on the interstate you could tell it was breathing easier. The primaries on a Q-jet are so small, the only time the extra air should make a difference is WOT anyway.
It looks like your passenger's side duct is riding high. Like it's above the overflow tank. On my 83, it was enough lower I had it routed under the A/C line. Of course the A/C lines on the 83 LG4 come across the top, and the L69 lines dipped down to clear the tube. Just be sure that the duct doesn't touch the hood or you'll rub through it in no time. My A/C line definitely rubbed the hood.
Really old pic, like 20 years old, but FWIW.
It is riding high on that side. There is something keeping the air cleaner base from sitting flat on the carb. I'll look at it later.
It looks like one vacuum line at the front of the carb has no provisions for the HO air cleaner. I'll check again.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by Drew
I wonder if your passenger's side tube might be slightly too long. It seems a few years back there was a tube for another application that sorta fit, that people were using on the L69 aircleaners... Left and right, I remember were definitely different part numbers.
One more pic... I can't really tell from comparing photos, but here's a closer photo of mine. These were NOS ducts when I put the HO aircleaner on my 83 circa 1996.
My suspicion is that my tubes may be from the crate 350 kit from the late '90's early '00. They have the heat shields installed.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by chazman
It is riding high on that side. There is something keeping the air cleaner base from sitting flat on the carb. I'll look at it later.
It looks like one vacuum line at the front of the carb has no provisions for the HO air cleaner. I'll check again.
The vacuum source should hook up here...
The interference might have something to do with the heater or AIR injection lines. 87 GM went to the bypass valve setup on the heater, and gussied up the AIR valve a bit. Seem to remember magazines moving things around a bit to make the HO aircleaner fit.
Originally Posted by chazman
My suspicion is that my tubes may be from the crate 350 kit from the late '90's early '00. They have the heat shields installed.
That's about when I bought mine from the dealer. You mean the plastic shields stapled to the bottom?
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by Drew
The vacuum source should hook up here...
That's the one I was going to cap!
The interference might have something to do with the heater or AIR injection lines. 87 GM went to the bypass valve setup on the heater, and gussied up the AIR valve a bit. Seem to remember magazines moving things around a bit to make the HO aircleaner fit.
That's about when I bought mine from the dealer. You mean the plastic shields stapled to the bottom?
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by DynoDave43
Stove pipe...I'd add it. Your in Chicago. If like me, you try to stretch your cruising season into the fall, you can have some pretty cold mornings of starting. It really helps cold weather driveability during the warm-up cycle to have that warm air available.
Looks good, btw.
I might. I can't imagine driving it if it's cold enough to need put the top up, though.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
I got a minute to peer into the books... The 87 Camaro Electrical manual, 4bbl carb diagram (book says VIN G, but you know how that goes) shows a blue wire for the dwell adjustment of the mixture control solenoid.
Also found a reference to the AIR diverter valve being in the way of the dual snorkel, but the article was Hot Rod's F-Notes, a TBI Camaro. In that case they just moved the valve. Not sure that 87 would have the same problem since the valve is positioned by a bracket instead of the hard pipe bolted to the smog pump. I'm not sure why, but the diverter valve assembly and mounting bracket specifically are different part numbers for 86/87. So maybe... FWIW
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by Drew
I got a minute to peer into the books... The 87 Camaro Electrical manual, 4bbl carb diagram (book says VIN G, but you know how that goes) shows a blue wire for the dwell adjustment of the mixture control solenoid.
Also found a reference to the AIR diverter valve being in the way of the dual snorkel, but the article was Hot Rod's F-Notes, a TBI Camaro. In that case they just moved the valve. Not sure that 87 would have the same problem since the valve is positioned by a bracket instead of the hard pipe bolted to the smog pump. I'm not sure why, but the diverter valve assembly and mounting bracket specifically are different part numbers for 86/87. So maybe... FWIW
So, I should stop looking for it's mating connection?
Yeah, the diverter valve is in the way for sure. I was able to twist the tubing this morning before work and it's now positioned better......
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by chazman
So, I should stop looking for it's mating connection?
Yeah, the diverter valve is in the way for sure. I was able to twist the tubing this morning before work and it's now positioned better......
Yep, if it's the one I'm thinking of, it just chills until someone hooks up the Sun Diagnostic machine the size of a living room with millions of twinkling lights like something from Star Trek.
I think this one was for setting the oscillation overthruster, or testing corporate average fuel economy. Or maybe it was the machine that "computer selected" the coil springs?
The reality almost makes the sci-fi look less absurd.
I'd probably zip tie or electrical tape it to another harness, if there's any chance for it to hit something hot or moving that could cause damage.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
First spin around 'hood. Initially some bogging off the line, but I guess the computer carb learned fast. Pulls harder above 3500 RPM with nice induction noise. Too bad it doesn't have 3.23 gears.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by Drew
Also found a reference to the AIR diverter valve being in the way of the dual snorkel, but the article was Hot Rod's F-Notes, a TBI Camaro.
That's interesting, as it's what I will be facing. I intend to eliminate the diverter valve and AIR pump. What worries me more on the TBI cars is the A/C compressor is on that side. My gap from overflow bottle to compressor is not nearly as large as from bottle to alternator in this application.
Originally Posted by chazman
First spin around 'hood. Initially some bogging off the line, but I guess the computer carb learned fast. Pulls harder above 3500 RPM with nice induction noise. Too bad it doesn't have 3.23 gears.
Yes Dave, I installed the stovepipe.
Gotta go....
Glad it made a difference. I figured it would let out more of that glorious Q-jet moan at WOT.
And I'm glad you added the stove pipe. I'll sleep better now.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by Drew
Also found a reference to the AIR diverter valve being in the way of the dual snorkel, but the article was Hot Rod's F-Notes, a TBI Camaro. In that case they just moved the valve. Not sure that 87 would have the same problem since the valve is positioned by a bracket instead of the hard pipe bolted to the smog pump. I'm not sure why, but the diverter valve assembly and mounting bracket specifically are different part numbers for 86/87. So maybe... FWIW
Makes me think that the LG4 might be more responsive to tweaking than the L03. The whole part 1 was a waste of time.
Yep, that's the article. Nice to see it in color. One of the books on my shelf is a series of articles from Hot Rod magazine, focused on Camaro articles. Only sad part is it's black and white and the quality isn't the best. Still, it beats holding onto 20 magazines for 20 pages of info.
Yep, the L03 is a pig. The LG4 is just limited by being a 305.
Pretty much every magazine article or car tv show build up of a L03 ends the same way - in disappointment. They just aren't a great choice for mild bolt ons.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Drove it around tonight. My butt dyno says it's at least a couple of tenths or so faster now. I'll drive it around like this for a while. Maybe I'll put the stock air cleaner back on and hang the H.O. set up from my wall as garage art.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
That looks great! I really like the door edge guards that are thin and color matched on the 1986 and 1987 Camaros like yours. It doesn't break-up the body lines like the black ones on the 1982-85 Camaros.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by yo soy el warg
That looks great! I really like the door edge guards that are thin and color matched on the 1986 and 1987 Camaros like yours. It doesn't break-up the body lines like the black ones on the 1982-85 Camaros.
Thanks! I agree, the colored door guards look better than the earlier '85s.
Regarding the HO air cleaner, I had a chance to put some miles on it today and I think I understated it's effect earlier. You can feel it at any RPM where you are into the throttle heavily enough to open the secondaries. You can feel it and hear it.
And although this is the baddest LG4 ever made.....it's still an LG4, with an automatic....and a 2.73 rear end. If you want to maneuver through traffic with authority on the expressway, you need to flog the old girl pretty hard.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by chazman
And although this is the baddest LG4 ever made.....it's still an LG4, with an automatic....and a 2.73 rear end. If you want to maneuver through traffic with authority on the expressway, you need to flog the old girl pretty hard.
Nearly spit coffee out at the keyboard on this one! LOL!
Another thank-you for the removal of the decal - not a fan of the mis-aligned decals myself.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by PurelyPMD
Nearly spit coffee out at the keyboard on this one! LOL!
Another thank-you for the removal of the decal - not a fan of the mis-aligned decals myself.
You know Chris, if you are happy to cruise around at part throttle with the top down and enjoy the sun and view, this is a smooth, torquey - yes - lovely motor. Honestly, I find no fault in it. It's the rear gear and transmission calibrations which conspire against it.
The trans shifts perfectly but is calibrated to get to overdrive as quickly as is possible. Combined with a 2.73 rear, and you find yourself below 1500 RPM most of the time.
Hence the need to flog her if you want to slice through traffic.
In other news, my son and I took my black '89 out for a spin yesterday, https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/auto...ut-some-2.html , what a different personality. It's Goodyear F1s can barely scrabble for traction at lower speeds and it can definitely keep up with modern traffic.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
I've always felt the LG4 and LO3 are fantastic cruisers. They're smooth and quiet, with plenty of power for most situations. They're just lacking when you want power RIGHT NOW!
You know... No one would know if sneaky-like those 2.73s turned into 3.73s... Every time I see a clean Camaro with a full-retard pricetag, I get a little closer to modding my RS... A gear change here, a crate engine there, who else would ever know? It'd arguably increase the value on a 50k mile original convertible... Right? Or would it spoil those smooth 305 cruising manners? Hmm... Just thinking out loud.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by Drew
I've always felt the LG4 and LO3 are fantastic cruisers. They're smooth and quiet, with plenty of power for most situations. They're just lacking when you want power RIGHT NOW!
You know... No one would know if sneaky-like those 2.73s turned into 3.73s... Every time I see a clean Camaro with a full-retard pricetag, I get a little closer to modding my RS... A gear change here, a crate engine there, who else would ever know? It'd arguably increase the value on a 50k mile original convertible... Right? Or would it spoil those smooth 305 cruising manners? Hmm... Just thinking out loud.
My personal opinion is, if you are going to be into 30-ish year old cars, you need to accept them for what they are in order to be happy. Let's face it, even the fastest of our cars when new, can be taken down by a well driven modern minivan...and I'm okay with that.
I sort of went down that path with my '83 CFI. I figured, how cool would it be if it had a freer flowing exhaust? Did that, actually in a few different versions. Or how cool would it be with a stick? Did that too. It was fun and all. But in the end I pondered just where exactly am I going with this?
It was interesting driving both this '87 and my black '89 yesterday. Both have very different personalities and that's pretty much the beauty of having more than one car. Neither will ever be a 12 second car, and I'm okay with that too.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
This is going to sound weird, but I miss not having dramatic before and after pictures with this car. For example, the paint on my purple '92 was horrible. Hundreds of stone chips on the hood, paint blemishes, the clear coat had dirt, hairs and goodness know what else in it.
After I touched it up, wet sanded and buffed...Holy Smokes! what a difference. Very satisfying!
This car, well the finish started off pretty nice - so not as satisfying, (like I said, weird). I clayed it, no dirt in the clay, but I clayed anyway. Buffed with Megs 105/205, you really can't see much of a difference in pictures. A little bit in the sun.
See, not very dramatic....
BTW, those numbskulls at ASC didn't bother to clearcoat the vertical surfaces of the spoiler. Ask me how I know?
In other news, my yellow '85 is probably lonely at my parents house.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by chazman
This is going to sound weird, but I miss not having dramatic before and after pictures with this car. For example, the paint on my purple '92 was horrible. Hundreds of stone chips on the hood, paint blemishes, the clear coat had dirt, hairs and goodness know what else in it.
After I touched it up, wet sanded and buffed...Holy Smokes! what a difference. Very satisfying!
This car, well the finish started off pretty nice - so not as satisfying, (like I said, weird). I clayed it, no dirt in the clay, but I clayed anyway. Buffed with Megs 105/205, you really can't see much of a difference in pictures. A little bit in the sun.
See, not very dramatic....
BTW, those numbskulls at ASC didn't bother to clearcoat the vertical surfaces of the spoiler. Ask me how I know?
In other news, my yellow '85 is probably lonely at my parents house.
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
I hope you video recorded the install of the new decals. We need to make sure that was done right. Youtube maybe with about three or four angles will do....
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
Originally Posted by F-body-fan
I hope you video recorded the install of the new decals. We need to make sure that was done right. Youtube maybe with about three or four angles will do....
Ha! That sounds like more work than actually applying the decals!
Re: 1987 IROC-Z convertible. Are 4 IROCs too many?
I have to come clean & admit I "photo shopped" that one.
Just wanted to get a reaction. I was trying to make it crooked too, but could't figure that out.
I should have put it on the fender, that would have been funnier....
So whomever's car that is it was actually in the right place. Surprising how legit it looks & I did it in about 60 seconds in mac preview. It was one the first images to pop up using google so it fell victim....
Last edited by F-body-fan; 06-22-2017 at 05:44 AM.
06-13-2017, 12:23 AM
