67z vs 93z

[jbsides]

There is nothing quite like the clackety-clack of perfectly adjusted solid lifters in a well tuned '69 Z with stock exhaust, but there is also nothing like the refined, fast exhiliration of one one today's performance rides. Apples and oranges. I would not take that bet either.
Back in the day, I drove a '69 Z that was only a year old, with less that 20K miles on it, and it would bake those bias ply tires through the gears on demand. No matter what I did to try to duplicate that experience with a restoration I was unable to even get close. There is just something about these cars when they were new.
So I gave up trying. Now I experiment with NOM big blocks that are stock appearing excluding the headers, but with big horsepower for that same "baking" capability.

JB

[JK98SS]

If it is a bone stock 93 it should run mid 13's to low 14's.
93 is the odd ball year because it still had a "chip" in the computer, had speed density air management and 2 versions of the manual transmission. A friend has one and it came with the optional 6 speed that came with 2.73's. Commonly the manual cars came with 3.42's. Auto cars with Z rated tires and performance axle came with 3.23 and the others got 2.73.

I had a 95 Z28 that ran 13.6 with the 2.73's and just a flowmaster muffler and an SLP Cold air kit.

But of course your elevation and weather will have a large impact on the ET.

[JK98SS]

My friend ran his 93 Z with 140,000 miles, 2.73 geared 6 speed with headers, no cats and an SLP TOTL (two on the left) Exhaust that went 13.0 on street tires. Keep in mind this was cool spring air at Gateway International.