In December 86 I bought an 85 LB9 Z28 , non T top car, for ten K, with about ten K on the odometer.

I do not have any of my old time slips, but my recall is it was a good 15 0 E T stock if I got a decent 2-0 or less 60 foot on the stock street tires. I NEVER had street Dr tires or slicks.

With a 200$ chip and20$ test pipe, 14'7s at best.

I HAD IT FOR 5 years, I could also get about a 14'9 I. My wife,s 1990 Eagle T S I 5 speed.

Anyways, I have had guys tell me my memory is off , they were only 17 sec cars stock, or guys telling me they ran 13s in theirs stock.

I am calling B S on both the low and high E T s.

I STICK by a 165 pound guy with under a third a tank of gas , no spare, no mods running 15 flat, and gaining a few tenths for 220$.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR OPINIONS on these times , am I a crazy 45 year old dude with bad memory, or do I remember right?

 

A V8 could probably get a 15 second pass easily. A V6 car would have been closer to 17's. I doubt any production third gen, bone stock, was able to run 13's right off the showroom floor.

 

I think I remember the Z28's ran in the high 13's.

I know for a fact our Balwin OEM ran mid 12's.

 

I have a 1999 Issue of Car and Driver with tests of Camaro SS vs SVT Cobra. Camaro ran 13.9 in their testing. (Cobra ran 14.1) Based on that, and what I remember, I'd expect a mid 80's Z28 to run high 15's. Mid 80's you were lucky to get over 200 hp at the rear wheels

Found this

1985 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z 5.0L V-8

Specs of Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z 5.0L V-8, model year 1985, version for North America U.S. (up to September) with 3-door coupe body type, RWD (rear-wheel drive) and manual 5-speed gearbox. Basic www.automobile-catalog.com specs and characteristics: petrol (gasoline) engine of 5001 cm3 / 305.2 cui displacement with advertised power 115.5 kW / 155 hp / 157 PS ( SAE net ) / 4200 and 332 Nm / 245 lb-ft / 2000 of torque. Dimensions: this model outside length is 4877 mm / 192 in, it’s 1849 mm / 72.8 in wide and has wheelbase of 2565 mm / 101 in. The officially claimed value of a drag coefficient Cd = 0.34 . Standard wheels were fitted with the tires size: (see standard and alternative tire sizes ...). Reference vehicle weights are: official base curb weight 1445 kg / 3186 lbs . How fast is that car ? Performance: top speed 213 km/h (132 mph) (theoretical); accelerations 0- 60 mph 8.6 s; 0- 100 km/h 9.1 s (a-c simulation); 1/4 mile drag time (402 m) 16.5 s (a-c simulation) (see detailed performance data ...). Fuel consumption and mileage: official: 15/24 mpg (U.S.), 15.7/9.8 l/100km, 18/28.7 mpg (imp.), 6.4/10.2 km/l EPA ratings , average estimated by a-c: 16.1 l/100km / 17.6 mpg (imp.) / 14.6 mpg (U.S.) / 6.

of course this is just 1 site, I'm sure there were z 28's cracking 15 sec 1/4 times in good conditions etc. They just weren't as fast as we'd like to remember, not till the 90's anyway

this is supposed to be a compiled list of times from C&D also
2010 SS - 13.1@109
1968 Z28 - 13.77@107.39
1999 Z28 - 13.8@104
2010 LT/V6 - 14.5@99
1983 Z28 - 15@93
1999 RS/V6 - 16.1@87
1985 Berlinetta - 17@81

found this also
Camaro - Firebird - Mustang Documented "factory stock" 1/4 mi. times

1967 Chevrolet Camaro SS-350 15.4
1969 Chevrolet Camaro ZL-1 11.68 (Ultimate Performance Cars '05)
1972 Chevrolet Camaro 17.6
1972 Chevrolet Camaro 17.2
1972 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 15.5
1974 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 15.4
1975 Chevrolet Camaro 350 17.4
1975 Chevrolet Camaro RS 16.8
1982 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 17.0
1983 Chevrolet Camaro 17.5
1983 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 H.O. (L69) 15.0
1985 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z (5.0 TPI/auto) 15.2
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z (5.7 L98) 14.9
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z (5.7 L98) 15.3
1988 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z (5.0 TPI/auto) 15.5
1990 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z (5.0 TPI/auto) 15.0
1990 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z (5.0 TPI/G92) 14.7
1990 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z (5.7 L98/G92) 14.4
1990 Chevrolet Camaro RS (5.0 TBI) 16.2

 

And another site with these specs, Seems to be that a 1985 Z/28 will run real high 14's to high 15's. OP memory is right. Cars with a few miles on them often run better times, so high 14's seems believable to me

Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z 5.0 (1985-1987)
Country USA
Top speed (mph) 150
0-60 mph 6.6
1/4 mile 14.9
HP 215 @4400rpm (Net HP)
Torque lbft 295 @3200rpm
HP per ton 138 (Net HP)
MPG UK/US 20.1/16.7
Engine capacity CC/CU 4998/305
Engine type V8 Tune Port Injection
Aspiration Normal
Compression Ratio 9.3:1
Valve Type/No Overhead 16
Transmission (manual/auto) Manual
No of speeds 5
Wheels driven Rear
Brakes F/R Disc/Disc
No. of Seats 2+2
Length (in) 192
Width (in) 72.8
Height (in) 50.3
Kerb Weight (lbs) 3430

 

what year was the baldwin built? didnt know they built a thirdgen?
i know LT1 cars would run high 13's stock. my stock LS1 m6 went a 13.4x @ 105.

 

Thank you for the great info.
I can't be all that crazy.

A couple of hours away is a 85 hard top IROC I am trying to find out more about before making the trip.

Although, any hard top 85 to 90 TPI would probably get my attention. Been dying to pick one up again for ages, although another orphan in the driveway would get my wife pretty fired up.

 

My TBI 305 90 RS ran 16.50s dead consistent. That was a pile. a TPI 305 would have murdered it.

 

No way in ungodly hell did a 1968 Z28 run a 13.77. That was a 302 powered, 290hp car with a 4 speed. Even if it was underrated, that's 290 GROSS horsepower. Love 'em to death, but no way they are that quick. On any planet.

 

As far as i know thats what they ran. Other larger cubed cars back then ran way better. They lacked torque, but made up in the revs spinning to 7800.

 

Yeah.you caught me.It was a 69....

 

Don't sell the 4.0 SBC's short. Old man had a used 69 Z28 from about 71-73. It would give you a ride just like our 440 69 Daytona.



He raced dirt circle track and hit the strip once in a while. It would beat 396 SSs (except the top of the line 396s, L34 or L98 I believe), it had a little weight advantage.

The 302 was either under rated, or shipped a little detuned. This had a cross ram (which I think was dealer ordered, not original to the car), headers (again not sure if came with on), and an ignition system like the fancy 69 Corvette FI 327. I believe stock cam and heads were also same as the 327 L76/L84s, which, if I am keeping the math straight, had the most net HP of any SBC stock, non induced factory Chevy engine for decades until the LS series. If I have the math wrong, maybe the best 5.7 TPI or LT out performed them, but I do not think that was the case.

The 69 Z28 was very light by modern pony car standards.

In HS in the early to mid 80s, old GM Chevelle, Tempest/Lemans/GTO, Skylark, Cutlass/442 cars in good running, nearly stock form were about 15 second cars. Good tires and some advanced timing and pulled belts could drop a lot of time. Someone with one of those cars running low 13s had a hell of a nice car, and not the friendliest / easiest street mannered car.

Strip only cars were a different story. A two door post lemans with nothing but a drivers seat, stripped heater, radio, wiper motor, etc. and a worked 455 from someone's totaled Catalina could be a monster on the strip even if you had to trailer it there.

Hell, compare that to now, with a GT Mustang 12.9, Camaro SS 13.0, or Challenger RT 13.3 cars right off the lot with AC, CD players, air bags, sound proofing, sun roofs, etc.

 

i gotta agree on the weight of a '69 camaro.... gotta be light. we havent weighed it, but a friend of mine has one with a 388 and out of the box dart heads/intake/solid roller streetable cam. full exhaust, 215/70/15 winston winner tires. that thing RIPS. it is much faster than i ever thought it would be. 7.50s@95 in the 1/8 on those little turd tires. looks like the usual cruiser/car show type car.

 

Remember, this thread is what a third gen from the factory should have run. First second and fourth gens are completely different.

A late 60's muscle car was a performance car if it ran 13's from the factory when you consider the technology back then. A bunch of todays production cars can do that plus have leather seats, cruise control, power brakes and steering etc, etc.

 

That's what I am trying to say.

A third gen may have been a 15 sec. car stock, but so were a lot of the classic muscle cars. Those much lower ETs were not what you would get from a stock magazine article from around mid 70s or 80s up. "stock" had a different meaning.

I have some vintage car magazines on my shelf, poured through my old man's when I was little, and spent a lot of time reading them in school for free instead of studying (thanks library!)

A stock ET/TS in a modern magazine article really is pretty stock.

A "stock" article back in the muscle car era may have involved pulling belts, advancing the timing, leaving behind the spare tire and jack, and even a tire change (or spraying the hell out of the tires with that sticky grip). Hell, one GTO article DeLorean slipped them a car with a 428 instead of a 389. It seems that they were "stock" if you did not swap on headers, a bigger carb, and change the rear end gearing.

Also manual trans times were obtained in ways you do not see so much now.
At a minimum they power shifted, keeping the car floored and just a quick stab at the clutch while shifting. They even flat out just raked the gears some, only used the clutch to get moving in first, keep the gas floored after launch and just slammed the shifter up shifting after that with no clutch.

Yeah, everyone thinks they are bad a. and can out shift/perform an auto. Most can't. And those that can and hit the strip a lot go through manual trannys waf more than you do autos.

Anyways, just wanted to clarify, the vintage muscle car era times were often not obtained in the same "stock" way the articles in the third gen era were writing about. And if you account into giving them a more aggressive tune/chip and no catalytic converter instead of the emissions/mpg handicap they had, that would have been a decent boost to the 200 rwhp or so they had.

Yep, 75-85 99% sucked for the stock level of factory performance in American cars. 85-95 90% sucked but the TPI showed promised, got us into LT era, and another 5 years or so and we got our LS on.

Those TPI engines may be nothing compared to a new Camaro,
but they in my opinion were not bad compared to the run of the mill V8s of the muscle car era. There were 307s, 327s, 350s, etc. let alone 6 cylinder cars. We often forget no all cars were COPO or Baldwin or had the top of the line 302, 396, etc. Most GTO and Firebirds were not HO, RA, RA2, RAIII, SD or RAIV cars.

 

L98's can run high 14's to low 14's depending on the year, and condition of the car. Many of the mag tests were not performed on a drag strip so track prep was nill. Many tests also didn't pre-load the suspension with a little power braking before launch. All of those contribute to slower ET's.

I've seen bone a bone stock 89 GTA go 14.4 @ 95mph, I've also seen others perform similarly. And some with nothing more than a tune go bottom 14's near 98mph. Look at the mag tests hosted on this site, the results can vary.

The youngest thirdgen is now 21 years old, so some are run down, most are modded in some way, and few are well maintained stock cars.

 

I remember reading about a 1987 Monte Carlo SS. It came with a 305 and only ran 15.0. The Monte is heavier than an f-body and the 305 is so underpowered. for such a large car. It never really deserved the SS badging but the car still looked nice. Hard to say what kind of performance it would have had with an L98 engine.

Although I don't think I have any articles for third gens of that era, I'm sure the L98 in a third gen could easily get into the 14's right off the showroom floor but I doubt they would have been in the 13's.