For the times, an L98 IROC was pretty quick. The only options this one did not have were t-tops and the Bose Stereo. Otherwise, this was my first 'loaded' car.

You were better off without the T tops.

I seem to remember if they had a high HP engine the T-Tops were not available ... TAZ

In that year they were - 1987 right CC Rider?

Interesting thread to say the least. From what I've read T-Tops were available in a IROC every year the 350 option was available except 1990. Something to do with the weight and gas mileage averages if I remember correctly.

Yes, it was an '87.

I sold an 84 Z28 with t-tops to buy the 87. Night and day difference in rigidity of the body.

This is true, but damned if those T-Tops weren't nice. I loved them. That is until some little puke in Carlsbad, CA decided one night that he liked mine more than me...

On a sunny day, they would help the interior of the '84 stay warm during the winter.

Says the guy who is always cold...even here in AZ ;)

I special ordered this in 1989 and still own it. It's a 1989, G92, LB9, 5 speed, with N10 dual cats, oil cooler, Aussie BW 3.45 9 bolt and DX3 decal delete. I figure if you put it in a time machine and sent it back to 1969 it could hold it's own on the street in a straight line with most muscle cars of the day and annihilate anything from anywhere on a curvy road.



https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...6d&oe=59FBC998

Very nice!!

A buddy had a '83-'84 Z/28. We were going out one night and both hopped in. The doors closed at exactly the same time and the pressure pushed the windshield right out of the car.

I bought a '79 Trans Am brand new. Loved it. Still think its a great looking car and hope to get another soon. Amazing handling, for the time. However, it had to be the worst car car I ever owned. Bad paint, leaky t-tops, electrical problems, no power, awful gas mileage, slow, etc. But it was fun. It was really cheap due to the gas shortage in '79. Sold it after 6 months, the gas shortage had ended, for roughly $3,000 more than I paid for it. Almost like a Wrangler, you know its a bad car, but its a Wrangler!

I think that's the best line I've read in quite a while.

You do know that most of that was due to tire technology right? ;)

My Pure Stock 71 GT-37 ran a 13.25 this weekend at Norwalk and still has more in it if the driver can get better - there is no way in stock form your IROC (or mine for that matter) will ever do that.

Don't laugh.

A friend had a '88 or 89 Cavalier Z-24 5 speed. 140 hp stock. He put a cold air kit on it from K&N and some other mods from the gm catalog. I believe he changed the camshaft, did some headwork and exhaust mods and gearing.

That thing would get up and go.. of course it was probably a thousand lbs lighter than the comparable cars made today

I do. ;)

Also, I'd say Pure Stock cars are probably running a bit sharper than they did off the showroom floor.

Yes it is.. Thanks!

I had a rare beast Citation too. 1980 v6 coupe, 4 speed, tach/gauges, buckets and console. It was a blast

of ALL the cars of the 80's THIS F body was far and away the fastest and best handling. Had the 1LE brakes and suspension.
http://i.imgur.com/qvOxyKRh.jpg

I also had a 1980 Citation, a Club Coupe with V6 and 4 speed. No options other than FM radio and the 2.8L V8. No AC, bench seat, poverty caps - the lightest possible Citation with the biggest motor.

I had a new exhaust bent up for it, recurved the distributor, bumped up the timing and modified the air cleaner. I really wanted an X-11, though.

That sucker could chirp third. But it wasn't very reliable. I traded it in on an '84 GLH.

Those were fine looking Pontiacs ...

Interesting thread...as mentioned the ad is hilarious. Back in the day I was talked into buying an '80 Turbo Trans Am, WS6, T tops and 3 little amber lights (on the hood) to tell you the turbo was giving you the ride of your life. Not!

It handled as one would expect with the WS6 suspension but was the most gutless V8 car man had devised. The car would corner like it was on rails but was an absolute slug! Buyer beware...

Always loved those 1989 TTA's; I had my Camaro out over last weekend and one of those pulled up next to me in traffic. Looked to be a DD and wasn't particularly clean, but I'd loved to have owned it.

Just out of curiosity, why is that? Understanding that there's a difference between Pure Stock and actual as-delivered-off-the-showroom-floor vehicles, a Pure Stock legal roller cam 5.0 will run low 13's, so what is it about the TPI Chevy that would keep it from doing that?

Off the top of my head, Pure Stock allows an added point and a half of compression, gear ratio changes, bigger exhaust, carb tuning, bigger tires, etc.

That's my understanding as well. A roller cam 5 speed Fox coupe with those mods could crack 12s with a very good driver before the factory Goodyears become an insurmountable obstacle, so I'm curious as to why a TPI Camaro can't at least get in the bottom half of the 13s.

Here's a Motorweek road test of an '89 G92, dual cat, LB9, 5 speed with a 3.45 gear.

This is the fastest one I've ever remember seeing from the day and may not be representative of the typical production car - but they got a 13.9 second 1/4 mile.



https://youtu.be/aCL-odNmuGA

There were a number of free/cheap mods on the TPI back in the day, (similar to the 5.0 Mustang), which could REALLY wake it up.

Yeah, I remember back in the late 80's MCR testing a 350 Iroc and running a 14.2 or 14.1, and all that jibes with the fastest 5.0 road tests I remember from back then:

85: Autoweek, 85 GT 5 speed car with A/C, 14.38@92

86: Car Craft, 86 LX coupe, 5 speed, no A/C 14.33@97 (with 2.73 gears)

87: Cars Illustrated, 87 LX hatch, no A/C 5 Speed radio delete, 13.73@101(?)

I also recall SSDI going 14 flat at 100 mph in a stock 87 hatch with air and Hot Rod (maybe) going 13.9x in a stripper LX coupe.

I suppose you could argue that those results aren't typical, but you could make that argument about things like 12 second Hemi cars, as well. Depends on how they're optioned, maintained and driven. I've been messing around with these piles of junk for the better part of 30 years, and putting a near stock Fox into the 12's just isn't particularly difficult. I can't imagine what would make it so hard (or near impossible) on a 3rd Gen, but I don't know near as much about them.

It does, but mine is pure stock - other than running a 3:73 rear gear (available) and playing with the weights & springs in the transmission governor to shift at 5200rpm, there are no tricks or changes from stock in my car.

My comparison above was intended to be stock vs stock & I maintain that although they may run with the older cars, the older cars will beat them on a strip (no way in the curves).

I don't know, that depends. So many people are under the impression that cars of the era were all super fast like an LS6, 4 speed, Chevelle or Hemi 'Cuda or other "hero" cars. The fact of the matter was that the majority of "muscle cars" of the day were more or less of the milk toast variety and could barely run in the 15's.

But I get you point, Chris.

My friend had a '92 B4C, (police package), 1LE, RS. It was a 5.7 automatic. It has to have been the fastest bone stock 3rd gen Camaro I've ever ridden in.

He took it to the track once. It was his first time. As he was getting in line a bunch of 4th gen guys saw him and started to laugh. All they could see were the RS badges and figured they'd witness another 17 second 1/4 mile. First run and first run of the owner's life - 13.6 seconds!

The 4th gen guys stopped laughing. :D

I can't imagine it stopped them too quick. A bone stock 93 Z will do 13.9-14.1 in the 1/4. A Moroso filter kit, SLP air diverter in the throttle body, MSD 6AL, Blaster coil and strut tower brace took me to an easy and consistent 13.1 while still getting 25+ mpg on the highway. Imagine a cam, headers, head work and a tune.
Those B4Cs were nice. My 3rd gen '84 Z28 5 spd was a slug IMO It didn't matter. I still loved it and would love to have it back as long as I could take all the vacuum/emissions crap off the motor.

Back in 93, the father of the girl I was dating at the time bought a brand new 93 Z. Burgundy red stick car, and the very first 4th gen in town, and it caused quite a stir when he rumbled into Sonic that Friday night looking for his first victim. My 89 Mustang had a few mods and turned 12.60's on 8" cheaters so he knew better than to pick on me. Instead he chose another kid with a 92 Z28. It was a beautiful car, a Heritage edition or something like that. Black with red stripes, 350 and every option under the sun, as I recall. It was also stone stock.

We all loaded up and followed them to the spot, looking forward to the epic beatdown we were about to witness. It was epic, all right, just not the way we figured it would be. The 92 crushed the 93 by a car to a car and a half in three straight.


On the pure stock/PureStock/"pure stock" argument, I dunno. Lot of confusion. A 5-speed 5.0 without A/C can go mid-13's with nothing but a timing bump and throwing the intake silencer in the trash, assuming a very good driver. The limiter is the tire. Put one on 7-inch slicks, and it'll go 12.99 with not much besides the aforementioned timing bump, a good shifter and 4.30 gears, but I suppose we're getting in the weeds a little here.

Has anyone really explored the potential of the TPI 3rd Gen package in stock/Pure Stock/Day 2 condition? Be interesting to find out. I'm thinking they might surprise a few people.

Maybe a little off topic, but my 1988 CHP 5.0 coupe brought $45,000 in 1994. A doctor from Huntington Beach bought it from the owner of Steeda, Dario Orlando. Pretty good money in '94 for an 80's car.

I'd be interested in hearing someone chime on this as well.

One thing for sure, the later 3rd gens, like '89-'92, with G92 and N10 are faster than most people expect. Free mods, like bumping timing, opening airboxes, etc., should make 13's possible.

One little option or lack thereof (C41-air conditioning delete) would have triggered the 1LE package---Fuel tank baffles - Corvette front bakes- deleted fog lamps- aluminum drive shaft - and made the total 1LE production 112.

Actually, this was supposed to be 1LE number 112, the last one built for 1989 - it was ordered on the last week you could make a factory order, in fact IIRC the second to last day.

At the very last moment I decided that I should have AC because it was intended to be my DD and I was tired of showing up to work sweaty in my shirt and tie with the non-AC GLH I was driving.

Who knew 28 years later it would only have 11K miles?

BTW, as more of these '89-'92 cars are having their tanks dropped, it seems that fuel tank baffles were more common than once thought. Mine may have it, who knows.

Many of the R7U and 1LE specific options first introduced in 87 (R7U cars) and 1988 with the introduction of the 1LE package became running changes in the line as they went forward - even the JG1 Aluminum Driveshaft was around ahead of that time, developed to help in weight reduction & CAFE regulations.

The one assembly that did not become mainstream were the front spindle, bearing, caliper and rotor assemblies derived from the corvette & C10 truck programs. Those remained 1LE (& TTA) specific.

One interesting thing I've noticed is, all B4C 1LEs I've seen, have the steel driveshaft and not the JG1.

Back in December of 1990 I heard that Chevrolet lost the rights to the IROC name, I always wanted one and did not care for the 91's large rear spoiler. Wanted a blue 350 G92 car, local dealer ended up finding me one in Alberta. Still have the car, has only 6000 miles on it. Did not intend for it to have this low of mileage but life happened (kids, job changes, house renos etc).

I would not say the car was lightening fast but it ran great for the day. Early 90's ran it at the strip on a 92 degree day, poor traction but ran a14.5, fastest 5 litre Mustang GT ran a 15. Ran against a couple Buick GN on the street, they would have me by a car length in a 1/4 mile but after that I would pull ahead, in a 3 mile stretch they would be far behind. Had the car close to 140 mph and let off.