Well guys my buddy has a 89 LO3 with less that 100k on it. It is a very good running engine and it is amazingly smooth running. The only thing done to it is an open element. I just cannot understand why it is running a 16.7 @ 81 mph. We got the best time with 2 degrees on timing so far. Having owned an LO3 I know that they are quicker than this stock, but I had a five speed. Like I said it runs great with no hesitation and a great idle. We have fully tuned the car up and repalced all the sensors. Where else could I look into this?

 

Could be lots of things, these cars had so much variability from the factory I wouldn't be too surprised to see a full weight stock L03 with tired suspension and a 2.73 open rear run a high 16 second 1/4 mile.

I would say the right combination of stock transmission, worn suspension bushings, stock exhaust etc could easily be the culprit.

Have you replaced the fuel filter and the cat?

 

According to an online calculator (We all know how reliable those are!) those times are indicating that it is making 151 hp at the flywheel.

http://www.dragtimes.com/horsepower-...power+Estimate

Another calculator I found is saying 141hp at the flywheel and 130 at the wheels.

These cars were rated stock for 170hp at the flywheel... I dont know if losing 15-20 hp over the years is within the realm of possibility or not, but these are assuming a 3600 lb car (With driver) which I think is a fairly good ballpark estimate for the weight of that car unless it's absolutely gutted.

 

Those calculators are waaaaay off, trust me. Your friends car has 100,000 miles on it with no real mods, thats a very regular e.t. for that car, hes right around 3600lbs, and 140-150rwhp.

 

The fuel filter has been changed but not the cat and why would it be so heavy.

 

sounds like your friend needs some practice. the specs on my car are just about the same as your friends except mine is a 91 bird. the only time i run that slow is when i dont catch traction and spin through first. you wouldnt think that would be a problem at the track but with an open differential and 215 street tires you'd be surprised.

 

His 60-foot would have been a very key factor, what was it....?

 

2.2 I think, I drove the car and foot braked it up to about 1300 or so and since we let air out of the tires it hooked and went.

 

that sounds absolutlely correct IMO

 

seems way too slow to me. My stock 5speed was a full second faster, the manual trans doesn't make THAT big of a difference. I would bet something is wrong with it, maybe running out of fuel up top, hard to realize sometimes. Check fuel pressure.

 

My old car--88 TBI IROC (700R4, 2.73s) ran 17.0@80 MPH bont stock....at 5000 DA (Calgary AB)

with open element, 4.3L stall, Corvette servo and shift kit it ran 16.7.

Down at sea-level (St Thomas Ontario) I ran 15.9@85mph

Mine also had about the same miles, original cat)

So somethings up with your buddys car

 

Right and like I said it is the best solid running third gen 305 I have been in, you would never think it would be this slow. If it was going to act like this you would think something in the way the car runs would be a red flag but it acts great.

 

another thing to consider if you havent already done it is the full seafoam treatment. you'll be amazed at all the gunk and carbon buildup that stuff will get out.

 

M5 cars have better gearing, in the transmission, and the rear, it can easily affect e.t. that much. In an m5 car there is more oppertunity to power shift, and come out of the hole much harder. The op could try a good tune up, plugs, plug wires, distributor maybe, oil change, and maybe make sure there is like a quarter tank or less, but you cant expect this car to run what an m5 will run. Imho I would be happy if it ran a 16.7 with in its current condition.

 

GEARS + 60'. Have a look.

2.73s + 2.2 60' will most definitely equate to a high 16 second 1/4 mile run...

 

that doesnt guarantee a high 16 second e.t. here are two of my timeslips:

1.)
Dec 13 2007
Temp: 65*F
10:22pm
this was the first time i ever went to the track. i had the open element, 6* advanced timing and the 160 stat with the car at approx. 160-170 degrees and caught a dead hook off the line.

R/T... .587
60'... 2.220
330'... 6.531
1/8 e.t.... 10.122
1/8 mph... 68.51
1000'... 13.233
1/4 e.t.... 15.857
1/4 mph... 84.9

2.)
March 14, 2008
Temp: 70*
7:54 pm

on this run all i had on the car was the 160 stat with the car running at 160-170 degrees and 6* advanced timing. no open element on this run. also caught a dead hook on this pass.

R/T... .365
60'... 2.191
330'... 6.507
1/8 e.t.... 10.104
1/8 mph... 68.48
1000'... 13.218
1/4 e.t.... 15.862
1/4 mph... 84.27

 

why would you be happy with that? its way slower then it should be. Read my post on my stock TBI car and what it ran.
Make not of the elevation(s)

In this Low revving, no cam TBI cars--I don't think autos and manuals are as far apart as you think. Certainly the gearing isn't a major difference

 

Manual cars can weigh up 120lbs lighter than autos, they usually have a very nice rear, 3.23, 3.42, a few 3.73s out there. Rear gearing alone can drop up to .5 off of an e.t. There are a few Lo3 auto cars that with low mileage, with a good tune, good traction, and fair weather that can go as low as a 15.9, however I dont consider that a common e.t. for these cars. Rated at a 16.6 from the factory, whats so hard to believe that one pulled a 16.7 with 100,000 miles on it, imho i dont think you can expect anymore out of the car, theres nothing wrong with it.

 

A very skilled driver can make an enormous difference in an m5 car at the track. Its not uncommon for an m5 lo3 to go low 15s, they weigh less, transfer a little more power, and have better gears.

 

that 120lbs is like .10.

Secondly your using examples of rear end gears that were not available in the LO3 5 speed. I am very sure they had 3.08s with nothing else optional.

Lets look at stock VS stock. Not a 5 speed car with 3.73s

Where do you get 16.6 from??? Cite you source.

 

Like everyone else is saying, it depends on the gears too.

I know my 89 RS 305 TBI, 5 speed, not sure yet but I think 3.08's (what dealer said). Wouldn't be suprized if it was 3.42's or something like that.
Ran a best I think 16.2 with the rear tires at 30PSI.
Keep in mind I think it will run somewhere around mid to low 15's, but the second gear syncro is pretty bad, and I had to slow down to get into second.
I also have a G80. This is a video of a launch I had against a Mustang. If you watch it going down the track you can see my car lose a lot of speed.

 

I've read 16.6 @83mph 1/4 mile, and 8.6 0-60 in many different articles, but since I cant find any now Road & track sports and gt cars special w/auto. 1990 I beleive,not for sure but its on a poster I have that says camaro tech in the middle and tells a little about each gen.170hp-20%=136rwhp+3500lbs, I dont think your going to get much more then a 16.7 out of that.

 

camshaftxe,
I think he can get into atleast he 15's or should.
My car ran a best 16.2 last week having to slow down to hit second because of the sycro's

 

the camaro/firebirds with manual trans had 3.08 gears so maybe thats why its that much faster

 

2.73 to 3.08 is not a big difference at all.

 

i went from 2.73 to 3.08's in my automatic car and went from a 15.4 to a 14.7. of course the difference will be different in every vehicle caus mine has been cammed and all..but that is quite a difference.

 

hmmm im pretty sure it is u can cut alot of time off your 1/4 with gears trust me also the actually gears in the tranny are different the autos were geared to suck lol 5 speeds are alright

 

like i said i cu toff 7/10's of a second with a 3.08 swap.

 

exactly i have 3.42 posi in my firebird now havent got it to the track but i know its alot faster than 3.08 pulls way harder

 

OK, bringing this thread back from the dead .....

16.7 is right at what a stock L03 should run. I've been on these boards since 2003, and have seen this discussed, at length, dozens, if not hundreds of times.

You have an engine making 170hp in a 3000-3500lb car.

Ford, GM and Chrysler now all offer base model V6s that make over 300 hp, and much more torque than L03s. The fact is, most mini-vans from the Big 3 on the market today would give us a run for our money, if not beat us.

It's the technology. Especially head design and fuel management.

My 89 Formula with an L03, T-5 and a 3.08 open rear ran 16.70s in stock trim.

I did headers, exhaust, TBI mods, K&N filter, MSD6AL, etc. and only picked up 20 hp, and 3/10s.

I went to a 3.42 posi and got to a best of 15.62. And that's typical.

First, and most importantly, L03s are tuned very conservatively. Learn to tune it, and you can get mid-low 15s out of it with no other changes. Check some of Dewey 316's threads.

The more you do to the car without tuning, the more you lose. Properly tuned, there's an easy 200 rwhp in my current combination, and mid-high 14s.

Our cars are not out of step with the old technology econo models that came before them. My first car was a 65 Mustang with a 289 2 bbl, 3 speed, and a 2.73 pegleg earend. It ran 16.80s. It was lighter, and made more hp than my L03 Firebird. The only reason it was slower was the gear and the skinny tires.

My second car was a 69 mustang with a 351W 2bbl, automatic, and a 2.73 single traction differnetial. It ran 16.50s. It was a little lighter, and made quite a bit more horsepower than my L03 Firebird, but again, there was the rearend and the skinny tires.

My next car was a 70 Chevelle with a 350 4bbl (300 hp), 4-speed, and 3:31 posi 12 bolt. It ran 14.80s. About the same weight, and a lot more power.

When the 350 blew up, I put a 283 2bbl in it, and it ran 16.70s. When I swapped the 4bbl from the 350 over to it, it ran 15.90s.

Our 305 TBIs are the (slightly) higher tech version of the 2bb carb engines Detroit used to make, and they run comparable to them. They weren't meant to be fast, they were meant to be cheap to buy and cheap to insure, and they were.

Also, 2.2 60' times out of a third gen TBI are pretty good. With better gears and tires, you can get down to 2.1 or 2.0, but that's about it. Launch Stock Eliminator style for the best results. Stay just off idle, let the tires hook, then roll on the throttle. It feels slower, but you'll see the 60' times improve when you eliminate wheelspin.

And finally, you can't make a fair comparison between the rear end gears in autos and manuals. Autos generally have stiffer low gears that manuals. It's the final drive ratio that matters, and I'd bet they're pretty close.

 

The T-5 has almost the exact same 1st gear ratio as the 700r4 and closer gear spacing. The 700r4 is KILLED by the 1-2 upshift, especially since the TBI governor upshifts around 4,000-4,500 stock and drops the engine back to 2,500-2,800 rpm.

As for the 60' time....2.2 is a little lacking for a sports car. My crew cab truck and fullsize van are both in the 2.2-2.3s 60'. With stock gears.

 

Actually, that's not correct. The 700R4 has a first gear ratio of 3.06, while the T-5 has a first gear ratio of 2.95. That's an appreciable difference. The World Class T-5 in Mustangs came with 2.95 first gears, and 3.10 first gears. They regularly take out perfectly good 2.95 transmissions to replace them with the 3.10 transmissions to get the improved launch. While the numerical differences seem small, you have to remember that those differences are greater than they seem, as they are multiplied by the ring and pinion ratio.

Since the 700R4 has a stiffer low gear, it has a taller ring and pinion. As I said, you cannot make a direct comparison between an automatic's differential ratio and a manual's differential ratio, as the first gear ratios in the transmissions are different. If you simply took a base model automatic car's 2.73 ring and pinion out and replaced them with a manual's base model 3.08 ring and pinion, you would see a measurable increase in performance.

2.95 * 2.73 = 8.054

2.95 * 3.08 = 9.086

You are sort of correct, in that a sports car should do better than 2.2 60'. However, when it comes to a 170 hp "sporty" car with a 2.73 open differential and relatively thin, relatively hard compound tires, 2.2 60' is actually better than average. Go search the TBI board and see for yourself.

And comparing your pickups and vans to Camaros and Firebirds is comparing apples to oranges. My 96 Jeep Cherokee is bone stock except for the 29.5" tall tires and Wrangler MOAB wheels, and it DESTROYS my Firebird out of the hole, pulling it by two or three carlength in first gear. I put it in AWD and I can brake torque it all the way up until the converter stalls (and beyond) and ROAR off the line with no wheelspin at all. I've never taken it to the track and tested it, but I'd be willing to bet my 60' times with my Jeep are under 2.0.

So what?

We're talking about TBI Camaros and Firebirds here, and in stock or near-stock trim, with stock or near-stock tires, TBI Camaros and Firebirds post 60' times in the 2.5-2.1 range, depending on the driver. Again, there are TONS of posts in the TBI section documenting this.

There's nothing wrong with OP's pal's car. It runs right about what it should.

 

Here's a simple way to determine what your gear ratio is:

Having a 3.08 gear ratio means your pinion will turn 3.08 times for every turn of the ring gear, so your driveshavt will turn 3.08 times for ever turn of your wheel.

Put the rear of the car up on jackstands.

Make a mark on one of your tires.

Make a mark on your driveshaft.

Put the car in neutral.

Slowly turn the tire through exactly one rotation.

As you turn it, have someone count the turns of the driveshaft.

If you have 3.08s, the driveshaft will rotate just about 3 1/8 times.

If you have 3.42s, the driveshaft will rotate just under 3 1/2 times.

If you have 3.73s, the driveshaft will rotate right at 3 3/4 times

etc.

 

I guess you are dismissing my runs? My car ran 17.0 up here in Calgary, ALberta. Physical altitude of 3300 feet+ the usual weather conditions equals 5000 DA.

I dropped 0.3 seconds with the addition of 4.3L stall converter, shift kit, Corvette servo and open air element.

I ran 16.7 AFTER at an DA altitude of 5000 FEET!

Racing the car at St Thomas, Ontario--I ran 15.9. No other changes.

I just felt inclined to reply. I put alot of passes on this car--raced it at 4 different tracks.

A bunch of numbers--I do have time slips too. Just keep in mind those mods netted me 0.3 seconds. Add to the 15.9 for stock time at sea-level. 16.2 for stock auto TBI car. 3400lbs too.

If 16.7 was a normal sea-level time--theres no way I could run a 17.0 stock up here. Be more like 17.6

 

not too mention even car magazines--did not get such slow times as 16.7 secs. Typically they get slow times.

 

Well not every engine is built the same so id expect some motors to have a little more HP than others. Might be the difference. But you also gotta take in to affect the weather and all when you are running. We will just say expect a 16.3-16.7 for a stock tbi car and leave this thread alone

 

No, I'm not dismissing your runs.

And I don't see anywhere that I said 16.7 was nomal at sea level.

Are you dismissing all the posting in the TBI forums from members whose stock and near-stock TBI cars run mid 16s-low 17s?

There is no accurate formula for correcting times for sea level. That's crap that car magazines started to make their project cars seem faster. It runs what it runs, where it runs it.

I put over 100 passes on my car at Atlanta Dragway (elevation 1002 feet), which is actually just over 100 miles North of Atlanta. It was consistent. On a Friday night, I got my best time out of the car there, a 15.62, with a 60' time of 2.09.

Two days later I went to the GAFBA yearly meet at the Silver Dollar Raceway (elevation 628 feet), which is just over 100 miles South of Atlanta. I won my class with a best run of 15.13, with a 60' time of 2.05. I made 6 runs that day, and the slowest was 15.59, where I decided to see how much harder I could launch it than normal due to the really sticky track and lit the tires up. All the rest were between 15.13, and 15.27.

The next Friday night, I was back at Atlanta Dragway, and the car was right back to running 15.60s, with 2.2 60' times.

Since I quit running the car, I've made friends with a guy who has a nationally ranked Stock Eliminator ZL1 '69 Camaro. In the old days, they ran ridiculously small tires in that class, and launching technique was absolutely critical. Using my G-Tech (which is not at all accurate in the 1/4 mile, slightly more accurate in the 1/8 mile, and pretty accurate in measuring 60' times) he has taught me how to take my 60' time from consistent 2.2-2.25s to consistent 2.0-2.05s. On the track, that should translate to .3-.4 faster, minimum.

My point is, it is silly to quibble over altitude, etc., when there are so many other variables; air temp, humidity, ground temp, etc. Then there's the true distance of the track, the accuracy of the equipment, etc. Was less than 400 feet difference in elevation responsible for my car running .4-.5 faster than it has ever run, before, or since? I doubt it. Was it a combination of altitude, a sticky track that let me launch at 500 rpm higher than I could at ATL, really good air, and a slight downgrade on the last half of the track? Probably. If you'll look at my sig, you'll see I don't even list the Silver Dollar Raceway times; they were clearly anomalous.

Your car is one car. It is entirely possible that your car just runs faster than the sum of it's parts says it should. I've seen engines with identical parts and setups make significantly different horsepower and torque numbers. Any Sprint Cup driver or crew chief will tell you that they have one special engine that makes more power than all the other identical ones they have, when those engines are all built under the most precise, controlled conditions imaginable.

On the TBI forum here, though, there are many cars, and again, if you go and look, time and again, going back 10+ years, you'll see stock and near-stock TBI Camaros and Firebirds running mid 16s to low 17s with 60' times in the 2.2-2.5 range at tracks all over the US and Canada. If you doubt that, go gather the data and prove me wrong, but no single car's single run disproves that.

How about a brand new TBI Camaro with a 3.08 posi that turned average times of 16.10 at 85 mph with 60' times averaging 2.4 in stock trim with exremely experienced drivers? Are you really going to tell me that an automatic Camaro that probably has at least 100,000 miles on it with a 2.73 pegleg and an inexperienced kid behind the wheel turning 16.70s is out of the norm? The automatic alone should make it a minimum of .2 slower. The posi is worth at least that much, as well.

http://members.tripod.com/GRK_Taz/tech/camaro.pdf


Here's Part II, in case you're interested:

http://members.tripod.com/GRK_Taz/tech/camaro2.pdf

BTW, years after he wrote the articles, I emailed the author about it, and also spoke with Jim Jones, the former owner of Traco Enineering, who did all the engine work, and has been heading up engine development at Callaway Corvettes for the past 15 years. Both admitted those numbers were "corrected", and the actual numbers were significantly slower.

I'll say it again. 16.7 is nothing out of the ordinary for a 20 year old, stock TBI Camaro.

 

holy cow, how did i not know this was here,

this thread is about my car, the OP is a good friend of mine who was into thirdgens for awhile and was the driver of my car during its runs


the more i see other TBI's run at our track, the more i think a 16.7 is reasonable for a stock TBI

the track is Maryland international raceway, i know depending on the track you are at will play with your times as stated before

anyways, good to know my friend was this interested in why my car was so slow

now i have a catback exhaust and ill be doing an LT1 cam swap(with new springs and timing set ofcoarse) also have a tuning setup now so the car will be tuned to the best of my ability

 

good stuff man. the nice thing is without changing the motor you can get into the 15's. you do full exhaust, headers, air induction, cam, rearend to 3.42's with posi, a good shifting transmission, a chip and you'll deffinately get down there a ways. thier are a lot of threads on peoples mods and what they are running. do a search.