Automotive News, Media & Press - Muscle Car Wars Circa 1985

Hey man, it's the 80s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y0tOZco-jg

I would take that IROC though.

LMFAO!! :lol: Cheesy as shit and completely sad that they were talking up such weak sauce cars.

Ahh.... Good times. Factory performance has come a long way in the last 25 years lets hope it keeps going.

I wasn't even alive.

BIGGGGGGGGG 4 barrels screamer!!!!! HYOOOGGEEEE swaybars!!!!

It's amazing that those used to be considered fast, there are fullsize trucks nowadays that can perform up to par with those cars. I like that Camaro though

It's amazing that those used to be considered fast, there are fullsize trucks nowadays that can perform up to par with those cars. I like that Camaro though

We were thrilled to see those cars show up. You have to realize that just 3 years before that all of them were sub 180hp I think. 1985 was the beginning of the return of decent muscle cars.

LMFAO!! :lol: Cheesy as shit and completely sad that they were talking up such weak sauce cars.

They weren't weak at the time. In that era people were still arguing that carbs were better and that fuel injection was a step back. They also thought that V8s were the only way to go for drag racing. That is until the Buick turbos got potent for 1986 and 1987 and started clowning on everything.

Hmmm...so fox bodies are made of jello. Interesting.

Outstanding video! I love when old comparo's like this are posted, thanks! :)

Also, fuck the haters. Iroc-Z's are awesome, and are STILL the best handling production Camaro's. ;)

The TPI motor set the foundation for modern day fuel injected cars, IMO.

I wasn't even alive.

I had graduated high school the year before.
Lol at gatorbacks , haven't heard that term for years, they were throwing them on cop cars.

We were thrilled to see those cars show up. You have to realize that just 3 years before that all of them were sub 180hp I think. 1985 was the beginning of the return of decent muscle cars.

actually, 1979 was the beginning. if ford hadn't introduced the fox bodied gt, i don't think chevy would've done anything with the camaro.........and may even have discontinued it much sooner than they did..........

One of those three clowns was Craig Singhaus, I believe he is STILL with Motorweek Television to this day and is still a Mustang guy (his older Mustang with an exhaust leak was even used to close the TV show for many years). :nod:



They weren't weak at the time. In that era people were still arguing that carbs were better and that fuel injection was a step back. They also thought that V8s were the only way to go for drag racing. That is until the Buick turbos got potent for 1986 and 1987 and started clowning on everything.True, I remember that era very well.
I had wanted an '85 IROC Z 5.0L TPI so badly but my parents wouldn't let me get it (even though it was with my own money LOL). But finally in 1987 as I was graduating college I got to order my new IROC Z28 5.7L (glad I'd waited to get the bigger motor (the mighty B2L which was almost identical to the Corvette's L98).
Fun car.

We were thrilled to see those cars show up. You have to realize that just 3 years before that all of them were sub 180hp I think. 1985 was the beginning of the return of decent muscle cars.actually, 1979 was the beginning. if ford hadn't introduced the fox bodied gt, i don't think chevy would've done anything with the camaro.........and may even have discontinued it much sooner than they did..........Well, it could've been both 1979 and 1985...or it might've even been neither LOL.
In my opinion, it was actually 1982.
That was the year that the 'modern era' Mustang GT 5.0L first came out, yes it was only 157hp with a 2 barrel carburetor but it was also light.
That was also the very first year of the 3rd gen Camaro/Firebird with their 'mighty' 145hp (carb) and 165hp (TBI) 5.0s as well.
A friend of a friend of mine had a brand new black Mustang GT back then and I clearly remember cruising around in it (had to be January/February 1982) and I had no idea what the car even was yet and certainly no knowledge of the historical significance and major influence on future fast cars (domestic and import) it would someday hold (again, in my opinion).
I truly believe that car has direct ties to what we're experiencing from GM, Ford and Chrysler/SRT today. :nod:

Well, it could've been both 1979 and 1985...or it might've even been neither LOL.
In my opinion, it was actually 1982.
That was the year that the 'modern era' Mustang GT 5.0L first came out, yes it was only 157hp with a 2 barrel carburetor but it was also light.
That was also the very first year of the 3rd gen Camaro/Firebird with their 'mighty' 145hp (carb) and 165hp (TBI) 5.0s as well.
A friend of a friend of mine had a brand new black Mustang GT back then and I clearly remember cruising around in it (had to be January/February 1982) and I had no idea what the car even was yet and certainly no knowledge of the historical significance and major influence on future fast cars (domestic and import) it would someday hold (again, in my opinion).
I truly believe that car has direct ties to what we're experiencing from GM, Ford and Chrysler/SRT today. :nod:

yea, that's why i say 79. it took them till 82 to come up with an answer to the fox body.

An example of how fortuneate the kids on this site are. They didn't have to live through the sh!t car years.

yea, that's why i say 79. it took them till 82 to come up with an answer to the fox body.

I get what you're saying there, it makes sense, but I feel the Trans Am was still hanging on to the original muscle car ear until 1979. For 78-79 the Pontiac 400 was actually rated at 220hp, up from 200 for 1977.

I get what you're saying there, it makes sense, but I feel the Trans Am was still hanging on to the original muscle car ear until 1979. For 78-79 the Pontiac 400 was actually rated at 220hp, up from 200 for 1977.

yea, they were, but they were still really nothing to write home about.....not compared to the next gen fbodys, or the fox bodys.......

yea, they were, but they were still really nothing to write home about.....not compared to the next gen fbodys, or the fox bodys.......

That would be an opinion. While it's not that impressive, it actually becomes more impressive when you do compare the power to the other Mustangs, Camaros, Corvettes of the same time and the next few years of the next gen. Regardless, I was just pointing out that the muscle car era was still hanging on then when you said it was the beginning of the next wave.

After brushing up on my Mustang history I'm gonna agree with someone earlier posting 1982 as the revival. For 80 and 81 Ford took away the 5.0 available in 79 and replaced it with an anemic 4.2 making a whopping 120hp because of the secondary oil crisis in 79.

I don't remember ever seeing a carb'ed stock mustang in that era run a 14. The ones I was in/around I remember being turdy before FI came for them. Fox body's handled awful......what a heap of shit in the turns.....lol That thing was everywhere.

Dad has a pristine 85 IROC TPI car that he bought with only 2,000 miles and has only about 25k on it now. He never would take it to the track but it had no problems with the Mustangs of that era. It ran really good for then.

I don't remember ever seeing a carb'ed stock mustang in that era run a 14. The ones I was in/around I remember being turdy before FI came for them. Fox body's handled awful......what a heap of shit in the turns.....lol That thing was everywhere.

The carb'd 85 made decent power.

I want to slap that Mustang driver. I know it's just a skit, but he was annoying as shit.

14.3 1/4 in 1985 is pretty impressive.

I wish they would have used the TPI trans am. but i guess they didn't want to test 2 TPI's

cool music selection too. i always liked Jan and Dean (deadman's curve and drag city are in the commercial)

Nice vid...

Cool video, thanks for sharing

That was priceless

yea, that's why i say 79. it took them till 82 to come up with an answer to the fox body.True, but the 79-81 Mustangs, even the V8 models, were horrifically slow and boring so it's difficult to include them...'82 was when the real fire started. :burn:





I get what you're saying there, it makes sense, but I feel the Trans Am was still hanging on to the original muscle car ear until 1979. For 78-79 the Pontiac 400 was actually rated at 220hp, up from 200 for 1977.Good point as well, the 78/79 Trans Am or Formula WS6 with the real Pontiac 400 (not necessarily the Oldsmobile 403) was a very capable performer as well, not just straight line but they handled relatively well also. :nod:
The Camaro Z28 (though still fun cars) from that 77-81 era, not quite so much.

True, but the 79-81 Mustangs, even the V8 models, were horrifically slow and boring so it's difficult to include them...'82 was when the real fire started. :burn:





Good point as well, the 78/79 Trans Am or Formula WS6 with the real Pontiac 400 (not necessarily the Oldsmobile 403) was a very capable performer as well, not just straight line but they handled relatively well also. :nod:
The Camaro Z28 (though still fun cars) from that 77-81 era, not quite so much.

YEA.....that's why i bought an 83, although i liked the looks of the earllier gt's better......but i waited a bit.
funny thing, when my 83 was only running high 13's i was hammering a friends old style trans am on a regular basis, when we used to run on the runway of a closed down airport. :cool:

YEA.....that's why i bought an 83, although i liked the looks of the earllier gt's better......but i waited a bit.
funny thing, when my 83 was only running high 13's i was hammering a friends old style trans am on a regular basis, when we used to run on the runway of a closed down airport. :cool:Those early 5.0s were fast (for the era) no doubt. They may not have been the most potent but the cars were lightweight.
To me the pinnacle of Fox body 5.0s was still the 97-93 cars, but the mid '80s carburetor models got it done as well. :nod:
I remember the '85 was the height of the 'carburetor era' 5.0s with the better heads and all. I remember test driving an '86 automatic (the very first of the fuel injected cars) back in early '87 and it wasn't bad. Then my good friend bought an '88 GT 5.0 convertible and I was hooked.
It would be another few years until I actually bought my '91 LX 5.0 notchback, to date still one of my all time favorite cars of the many I've owned. :drive:

I think the 5.0 was responsible for a lot of people dying.

Having lived through that era I agree 1982 was the year that reignited our tastes for V8 musclecars. The '82 GT and the '82 F-body's were the spark. From that year on the cars got better and faster.
15 second 1/4 miles may seem mundane even by family sedans standards nowadays but back then that was hauling the mail. Especially on RT.37 on your way back from Seaside. And I will tell you what a stock powered 5-spd Fox Body is one of the most fun cars you'll ever drive.
Now I want to trade my DD Honda for a Fox, gas prices be damned!

Those early 5.0s were fast (for the era) no doubt. They may not have been the most potent but the cars were lightweight.
To me the pinnacle of Fox body 5.0s was still the 97-93 cars, but the mid '80s carburetor models got it done as well. :nod:
I remember the '85 was the height of the 'carburetor era' 5.0s with the better heads and all. I remember test driving an '86 automatic (the very first of the fuel injected cars) back in early '87 and it wasn't bad. Then my good friend bought an '88 GT 5.0 convertible and I was hooked.
It would be another few years until I actually bought my '91 LX 5.0 notchback, to date still one of my all time favorite cars of the many I've owned. :drive:

Good Post.

Those early 5.0s were fast (for the era) no doubt. They may not have been the most potent but the cars were lightweight.
To me the pinnacle of Fox body 5.0s was still the 97-93 cars, but the mid '80s carburetor models got it done as well. :nod:
I remember the '85 was the height of the 'carburetor era' 5.0s with the better heads and all. I remember test driving an '86 automatic (the very first of the fuel injected cars) back in early '87 and it wasn't bad. Then my good friend bought an '88 GT 5.0 convertible and I was hooked.
It would be another few years until I actually bought my '91 LX 5.0 notchback, to date still one of my all time favorite cars of the many I've owned. :drive:
86 WAS ALSO the year for a slight change in the front lower control arm mounting. this improved the handling a LOT. i couldn't stand the way my 83 handled....but back then i was young, and only cared about going straight. the twisties didn't hold much interest to me, especially when the car i was driving kept trying to kill me in them. :cool:
my 89 on the other hand, handled VERY nicely, and probably a lot better than most non-ford guys will admit.

I think the 5.0 was responsible for a lot of people dying.

no....that would be the drivers being stupid. a car can't kill ya on its own, any more than a gun can kill ya on its own.

15 second 1/4 miles may seem mundane even by family sedans standards nowadays but back then that was hauling the mail. Especially on RT.37 on your way back from Seaside. And I will tell you what a stock powered 5-spd Fox Body is one of the most fun cars you'll ever drive. :werd: :nod:

One of my fondest 5.0 memories was cruising to Seaside (via Route 37) in my friend's '88 GT 'vert on a warm (but not too hot) clear sky evening. :cool:

no....that would be the drivers being stupid. a car can't kill ya on its own, any more than a gun can kill ya on its own.

Dude....did you see that thing in the turns????:turd::turd::turd::turd::turd:

:werd: :nod:

One of my fondest 5.0 memories was cruising to Seaside (via Route 37) in my friend's '88 GT 'vert on a warm (but not too hot) clear sky evening. :cool:

now see? you didn't feel like the thing was falling apart? my girlfriends 89 gt convertible was a rattle trap. it was worse than a 3rd gen camaro with leaking t-roofs, bad door hinges, and dead hatch/hood struts. the thing flexed more than a steroid addicted muscle head(no offense to those of you in here....:cool:)

seriously....as much as i love my mustangs, the ragtops were crap in my opinion.

Dude....did you see that thing in the turns????:turd::turd::turd::turd::turd:
No but i saw it drag the Firebird and Iroc in the quarter though! lol! The carbed manual T/a had to be the strongest combo of that year.:guns:

now see? you didn't feel like the thing was falling apart? my girlfriends 89 gt convertible was a rattle trap. it was worse than a 3rd gen camaro with leaking t-roofs, bad door hinges, and dead hatch/hood struts. the thing flexed more than a steroid addicted muscle head(no offense to those of you in here....:cool:)

seriously....as much as i love my mustangs, the ragtops were crap in my opinion.

Ahh your missing the whole point of the car. Nothing made a hotties panties drop faster then a 5.0 rag top rocking some Slippery When Wet through your Super Tuner. Sure it rattled and shook but that was what 25w per channel and Flowmasters were for. Sure if your wanted to be a track hero you rocked the LX and Trick Flowed this, B303 cammed that but you were still gonna get stomped by the guy in the 327 Vega with 4.11's.

http://youtu.be/gMbxOUgPDsI

Ahh your missing the whole point of the car. Nothing made a hotties panties drop faster then a 5.0 rag top rocking some Slippery When Wet through your Super Tuner. Sure it rattled and shook but that was what 25w per channel and Flowmasters were for. Sure if your wanted to be a track hero you rocked the LX and Trick Flowed this, B303 cammed that but you were still gonna get stomped by the guy in the 327 Vega with 4.11's.

http://youtu.be/gMbxOUgPDsI

aahh....NOW i understand why so many people hate fox mustangs......fucking vanilla ice liked em........LOLOLOL

yea, i see your point. my 89 was running an x303. the b didn't seem like enough. i should've run 4.10's though, but stubbornly stuck with 3.73's.

i had a friend that had a vega sedan delivery, with a 283 in it. i liked that car.

Ahh your missing the whole point of the car. Nothing made a hotties panties drop faster then a 5.0 rag top rocking some Slippery When Wet through your Super Tuner. Sure it rattled and shook but that was what 25w per channel and Flowmasters were for. Sure if your wanted to be a track hero you rocked the LX and Trick Flowed this, B303 cammed that but you were still gonna get stomped by the guy in the 327 Vega with 4.11's.


Haha, sounds like a great time

I'm old enough but ive never seen that, again good times. I agree that 82 5.0 got the ball rolling, but after 86 and fuel injection it seemed like everyone had a fox body. I was never a ford kind of guy, so I was stoked when they put the lt1 and six speed in the 93 camaro. Same year I got my licence.

No but i saw it drag the Firebird and Iroc in the quarter though! lol! The carbed manual T/a had to be the strongest combo of that year.:guns:

Yea.....cause no one ever has to stop or turn:eyes: . So you agree that the carb'ed mustang was faster than the later fuel injected ones that everyone just raves about.


I don't think so. It would take better than perfect conditions for a 5.0 fi'ed notch to run a 14.3.....think about it.

Also the IROC ran a 14.7(definitely possible), I guess the carbed 305 t/a ran a 14.5 (which I don't think would happen either) because it beat the IROC and then got beat by the Mustang.

now see? you didn't feel like the thing was falling apart? my girlfriends 89 gt convertible was a rattle trap.
seriously....as much as i love my mustangs, the ragtops were crap in my opinion.My friend's was bought new, always had low miles on it and he did have subframe connectors and a strut tower brace which certainly helped.
His lowering springs didn't help much though LOL.
His was white (light grey lower half) with a white top/white interior too so when the Vanilla Ice video hit the scene within three years of my friend getting his it was quite humorous to us. :D

Now, my '89 LX 5.0 convertible that I'd bought used in 1994 was not quite as 'tight' as my friend's GT was, even after I welded in the subframe connectors.
And yes, I found the Vanilla Ice CD in the discount bins for only $1.99 during that period, bought it and did in fact play it while driving in my (blue with white top/white interior) 5.0 with the ragtop down so my hair could blow LOL. :lol:
The car is long gone (had two more Mustang 'verts (SN95s) after it though) but I still have the CD. ;)

Yea.....cause no one ever has to stop or turn:eyes: . So you agree that the carb'ed mustang was faster than the later fuel injected ones that everyone just raves about.


I don't think so. It would take better than perfect conditions for a 5.0 fi'ed notch to run a 14.3.....think about it.

Also the IROC ran a 14.7(definitely possible), I guess the carbed 305 t/a ran a 14.5 (which I don't think would happen either) because it beat the IROC and then got beat by the Mustang.

You go to great lengths to defame the Mustang. It's funny too, as we watch a video we're all laughing with and then YOU come along and do your best to trash the car that won the drag race because... Well, because what you think your dads car did... You're making this even funnier!

Go back and watch the video again... I-ROC... 14.8, T/A... 14.7 @ 89... Mustang GT, 14.3 @ 92. It is what it is, period.

Btw, there were many who posted 14.2's from the 87-93 5L. Maybe it'll make you feel better to hear that Motorweek managed to get a 14.5 @ 95 from the 87 350ci automatic I-ROC.

Btw, there were many who posted 14.2's from the 87-93 5L. Maybe it'll make you feel better to hear that Motorweek managed to get a 14.5 @ 95 from the 87 350ci automatic I-ROC.I had only gotten a best of 14.8 out of my IROC Z28 350 (it had K&N filters, a cooler t-stat and slightly bumped timing too) and only 14.5@92mph out of my automatic LX 5.0 (similarly modded with removed intake silencer, K&N filter, t-stat and timing) but admittedly, I didn't know much about extracting the absolute most out of a car back then (1990 - 1994) either.
If I knew then what I know now, I could certainly cut another 3/10ths (or more) off of each of my car's bests from back then.

You go to great lengths to defame the Mustang. It's funny too, as we watch a video we're all laughing with and then YOU come along and do your best to trash the car that won the drag race because... Well, because what you think your dads car did... You're making this even funnier!

Go back and watch the video again... I-ROC... 14.8, T/A... 14.7 @ 89... Mustang GT, 14.3 @ 92. It is what it is, period.

Btw, there were many who posted 14.2's from the 87-93 5L. Maybe it'll make you feel better to hear that Motorweek managed to get a 14.5 @ 95 from the 87 350ci automatic I-ROC.

And you do your best to defend it......did you see that rolly poley pos in the turns?....lmao

I had only gotten a best of 14.8 out of my IROC Z28 350 (it had K&N filters, a cooler t-stat and slightly bumped timing too) and only 14.5@92mph out of my automatic LX 5.0 (similarly modded with removed intake silencer, K&N filter, t-stat and timing) but admittedly, I didn't know much about extracting the absolute most out of a car back then (1990 - 1994) either.
If I knew then what I know now, I could certainly cut another 3/10ths (or more) off of each of my car's bests from back then.

a mechanic i used to work with had an iroc.....we all told him not to get it, but he did anyway. he was pretty embarrassed when he managed a 15.2 or something like that........

I remember those days. It was actually fun. You have to remember the OEM's were finally starting to get their act together when it came to performance and emissions, but it really heated up in 85 with the 5.0 carb Mustang GT and the TPI motor was introduced the same year as well. I owned a then new 85 Z28 with TPI and my friend had a 85 GT, both were much faster than previous year versions. I routinely beat him and other 5.0's and 5.7 TPI cars without a problem. The key was manually shifting the auto. For whatever reason it was just faster than leaving it in D.

WOW I must be old. I can remember watching that show when it was on TV. I owned a new L69 Iroc 5 speed and A new 85 GT. The Iroc would turn and handle much better but my Mustang was faster. My Mustang went 14.3 and my friends went 14.5 but they were aesy to get into the 13s. Keep in mind that 13s was quick back then.
Overall I liked driving the Iroc better but had allot more fun in the Mustang and ended up running high tens in it back in 89. That was very fast for anything back then. Just to give an Idea of what average guys ran back then my friends 305 iroc ran 14.6 bone stock,Another friend with A GT went 14.1 just removing the filter, Another one ran 14.4 in his 85 Vette. I also owned a new 82 GT and it ran 15.2.
Keep in mind that when these cars came out we thought they were incredible. We couldn't believe how nice and quiet they were to ride in :jest:

Today I still own 4 low mile all original 85GTs and one 85 Capri RS. Some day these cars will be worth a little money,,,,,,,,I hope.lol

I had only gotten a best of 14.8 out of my IROC Z28 350 (it had K&N filters, a cooler t-stat and slightly bumped timing too) and only 14.5@92mph out of my automatic LX 5.0 (similarly modded with removed intake silencer, K&N filter, t-stat and timing) but admittedly, I didn't know much about extracting the absolute most out of a car back then (1990 - 1994) either.
If I knew then what I know now, I could certainly cut another 3/10ths (or more) off of each of my car's bests from back then.I remember racing a friends 89 Formula Firebird and being rather shocked at the 15.7 @ 86mph result! He'd run several similar passes and I just thought it was him so I asked him to swap rides. He didn't run as well as I usually did, but then, his was probably easier just because it was slower and I'm sure he just steered mine. The 1st time I took my 91LX to the track, I'm pretty sure I ran 15's all night. It was an auto and I just left it in D for every pass, getting a feel for the car and the track. The next time out, I shifted myself and ran a 14.9 on the 1st run of the night. By the time I figured out which rpm to shift, it was running mid 14's, AOD and all. I still lost to pretty much all my Mustang friends with 5spd boxes.

And you do your best to defend it......did you see that rolly poley pos in the turns?....lmaoOf course I saw, and I didn't even BEGIN to defend it, though you erroneously(we're used to that from you) said otherwise.

A simple set of 16" wheels/tires on the Mustang would've made a massively preferential difference(I know because I tested with 15 and 16" setups), but that's not how the car was offered at that time... Oh well. As I said before, it is what it is.

14.3 1/4 in 1985 is pretty impressive.

I wish they would have used the TPI trans am. but i guess they didn't want to test 2 TPI's

cool music selection too. i always liked Jan and Dean (deadman's curve and drag city are in the commercial)


I don't think it was a matter of having two tuned port cars, but having two different transmission choices. You wouldn't see the Corvette's L98 350 offered until 1987 in F-cars, though it made it's debut in Corvettes for the 1985 model year, the tuned port variant in F-cars was cube limited to 305 inches for 1985 buyers. So with that said, the two top V8s in 1985 F-bodies were both 305 cubic inch, one being fuel injected, the 210HP LB9 305 Tuned Port, and one carb'd, 190HP L69 305 4bbl. Yes, before any one says any thing, there was an LG4 305, but that wasn't in the video. The LB9 305 TPI for 1985 and 1986 model years was only mated to an automatic, and that automatic would be the only transmission choice until the 1987 model year when a 5 speed manual would then became available in LB9 optioned cars. So to get the manual in 1985 or 1986, you had to have the L69 305, evidently the manual was the only transmission offered with the L69 305.

Old vid. I'll take the IROC-Z anyday.

Old vid....
http://burbur.net/images/you-dont-say.jpg

I don't think it was a matter of having two tuned port cars, but having two different transmission choices. You wouldn't see the Corvette's L98 350 offered until 1987 in F-cars, though it made it's debut in Corvettes for the 1985 model year, the tuned port variant in F-cars was cube limited to 305 inches for 1985 buyers. So with that said, the two top V8s in 1985 F-bodies were both 305 cubic inch, one being fuel injected, the 210HP LB9 305 Tuned Port, and one carb'd, 190HP L69 305 4bbl. Yes, before any one says any thing, there was an LG4 305, but that wasn't in the video. The LB9 305 TPI for 1985 and 1986 model years was only mated to an automatic, and that automatic would be the only transmission choice until the 1987 model year when a 5 speed manual would then became available in LB9 optioned cars. So to get the manual in 1985 or 1986, you had to have the L69 305, evidently the manual was the only transmission offered with the L69 305.True, except that the LB9 305 TPI was actually rated at 215hp and you could in fact (at some point at least) get an L69 HO F-body with an automatic (an engine that was very similar to the one used in the G-body Monte Carlo SSs as well). :nod:

Glad I was non-existent during the 80s... sorry if that offends anyone. :jest:

Glad I was non-existent during the 80s... sorry if that offends anyone. :jest:Nah, it was a somewhat glorious time otherwise and as others have said, the cars were only slow when compared to what we have now, we thought we were doin' ok at the time LOL. :D
And living through that only makes us appreciate what we have now all the more. :nod:

Just glad to see Hio trying to squirm around the fact that the mid 80's 5.0 was faster than the comparable F-Body :jest:



Keep :swing: Hio!

Thanks for the video. They seem faster than I remember. My first new car was a 1983 z28 with a H.O. 305. A whopping 190 hp. Had a few others then I bought a new 1988 IROC Z w/ the 350, rated at 230 hp. It would run 14.9 at 93 mph stock and I thought that was really fast at the time. This was also the first car I ever raced. Did a couple bolt ons and it ran low 14s. At that time all the so called super cars were lucky to break in the 13s.

then I bought a new 1988 IROC Z w/ the 350, rated at 230 hp. It would run 14.9 at 93 mph stock and I thought that was really fast at the time. This was also the first car I ever raced.Same here, my '87 IROC Z28 350 was also the very first car I ever ran down a drag strip, Long Island Dragway (aka: Westhampton) out in the Hamptons/Long Island in June or July of 1989. :nod:

Thanks for the video. They seem faster than I remember. My first new car was a 1983 z28 with a H.O. 305. A whopping 190 hp. Had a few others then I bought a new 1988 IROC Z w/ the 350, rated at 230 hp. It would run 14.9 at 93 mph stock and I thought that was really fast at the time. This was also the first car I ever raced. Did a couple bolt ons and it ran low 14s. At that time all the so called super cars were lucky to break in the 13s.

heh.....first car i ever raced was my grand parents 71 ford ranch wagon with a 390 2v. it was fast enough, believe it or not, to beat most of the camaros and mustangs at the school. most all were stock though back then.

I had good times racing cocky kids in my Integra back in high school that had 3rd gens and fox bodies...very cocky lol

I don't remember ever seeing a carb'ed stock mustang in that era run a 14. The ones I was in/around I remember being turdy before FI came for them. Fox body's handled awful......what a heap of shit in the turns.....lol That thing was everywhere.

Dad has a pristine 85 IROC TPI car that he bought with only 2,000 miles and has only about 25k on it now. He never would take it to the track but it had no problems with the Mustangs of that era. It ran really good for then.

Thanks for the video. They seem faster than I remember. My first new car was a 1983 z28 with a H.O. 305. A whopping 190 hp. Had a few others then I bought a new 1988 IROC Z w/ the 350, rated at 230 hp. It would run 14.9 at 93 mph stock and I thought that was really fast at the time. This was also the first car I ever raced. Did a couple bolt ons and it ran low 14s. At that time all the so called super cars were lucky to break in the 13s.

The mustang had headers and a holley carb, and koni shocks. the iroc had bilsteins in the rear only. Suprised nobody noticed this before. THE MUSTANG WASNT STOCK LOL:burn:

The mustang had headers and a holley carb, and koni shocks. THE MUSTANG WASNT STOCK LOL:burn:


They came factory with small tube headers and a Holley 4 barrel carburetor, I can't remember what shocks came on them from the factory.

They came factory with small tube headers and a Holley 4 barrel carburetor, I can't remember what shocks came on them from the factory.

^This^ The Mustang had a Holley 4V since 1983 and they came stock with shorty headers and they were roller motors.

The trans am in the view was exactly like my first car. :D

I miss the Saturday night car shows at that Dairy Queen in the video. To keep things in perspective, if you drove into that show in the mid-late 80s with a 12 second street car, everybody took notice. 11s or quicker were running Cam2 and trailored in to make money :jest:

I miss the Saturday night car shows at that Dairy Queen in the video. To keep things in perspective, if you drove into that show in the mid-late 80s with a 12 second street car, everybody took notice. 11s or quicker were running Cam2 and trailored in to make money :jest:

Haha, yeah the 11's were only obtainable by the big money guys or the hardcore gearheads who lived and worked for their cars. Around my way there was a bad ass 327 Vega, a 1970-71 Monte Carlo Big Block, and then came a Vorteched GT 5.0, but the T-5 got changed more often than the oil.
But I have to say an 11 sec car back then was a total beast. I remember riding in a few of them and they would scare the shit out of you. Loud, rattling, shaking, and at speed you really held on because the line was very thin between control and wrecking. But what a thrill. Now you need a 9 sec. car to give you the same sensation.

The mustang had headers and a holley carb, and koni shocks. the iroc had bilsteins in the rear only. Suprised nobody noticed this before. THE MUSTANG WASNT STOCK LOL:burn:

mustangs came stock with holleys. they came stock with headers. they also came stock with roller cams, and i believe roller chains.

Haha, yeah the 11's were only obtainable by the big money guys or the hardcore gearheads who lived and worked for their cars. Around my way there was a bad ass 327 Vega, a 1970-71 Monte Carlo Big Block, and then came a Vorteched GT 5.0, but the T-5 got changed more often than the oil.
But I have to say an 11 sec car back then was a total beast. I remember riding in a few of them and they would scare the shit out of you. Loud, rattling, shaking, and at speed you really held on because the line was very thin between control and wrecking. But what a thrill. Now you need a 9 sec. car to give you the same sensation.

i used to like my buddys 58 fairlane. 390, 4 speed, pair of holleys sitting on top. 10.90's all day long. but he gave up a LOT to go that fast.

The mustang had headers and a holley carb, and koni shocks.They came factory with small tube headers and a Holley 4 barrel carburetor, I can't remember what shocks came on them from the factory.I believe that only the SVO Mustangs (turbo 4 cylinder) came stock with the Koni shocks, Mustang V8s just came with regular ol' performance oriented factory gas shocks.
The earlier cars (82-84?) did have a sort of ladder bar/traction bars type set up but the later cars (85-93?) swapped that for a 'quad shock' (two vertical and two horizontal) set up at the rear. :nod:

The mid 70's through the mid 80's were dark days for the automotive industry. Those cars were such absolute crap, kids that did not live through it - feel blessed, very blessed.

I believe that only the SVO Mustangs (turbo 4 cylinder) came stock with the Koni shocks, Mustang V8s just came with regular ol' performance oriented factory gas shocks.
The earlier cars (82-84?) did have a sort of ladder bar/traction bars type set up but the later cars (85-93?) swapped that for a 'quad shock' (two vertical and two horizontal) set up at the rear. :nod:

the trx suspension had this sort of "hopper" bar. i don't know if that's the right name for it, but it was bolted to the diff housing, and it basically hit the lower control arms, much like the old style slapper bars on leaf sprung cars.
from the factory on mine, they didn't really do shit......after some minor adjustments though.....they really did work well.

They weren't weak at the time. In that era people were still arguing that carbs were better and that fuel injection was a step back. They also thought that V8s were the only way to go for drag racing. That is until the Buick turbos got potent for 1986 and 1987 and started clowning on everything.

190hp out of an 8cyl is weak even for that year, in the 60s muscle cars were making double that power.

The trans am in the view was exactly like my first car. :D


IMO, the Trans Am's were some of the best looking Pony cars in the mid 80's. They had real sharp paint schemes and rims when optioned out.
From what I remember, it was just like in the video; the Mustang wasn't the best looking at the time but was the quickest.

brb let me save this thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp9qGSikrdA

The mustang had headers and a holley carb, and koni shocks. the iroc had bilsteins in the rear only. Suprised nobody noticed this before. THE MUSTANG WASNT STOCK LOL:burn:Why am I not surprised someone would say this... Pssst... :secret: The Mustang did come stock with those parts... :eyes:

I'll point out, I've read several articles over the years on this topic. There are some which say Koni and others, Tokico. At least 1 said the Koni was used for all 85-86 Mustang GT and SVO models due to the specific "handling package" offered. Another said the SVO models(after early 1984) and the 1993 Cobra were the only models to get stock Koni's. One article states both of those last two...

Whatever the case in reality, it's not just a guess that the Mustang in the video was on stock shocks. You didn't just go to the store and order up special stuff back then because Mustang was just about the only car using its specific style of suspension and the performance market was all but non-existent at the time.

Without a doubt, there were several options for Mustang in 1985. That was a great model though, because it got a good 4bbl (though autos apparently got the same type of garbage CFI system most cars were using at the time). It also missed the "TRX" days, thank God. You could still order things like rear gearing though, and option manual or power windows, etc.

The GT would have had 1.5" primary short tube non-equal length headers and the Holley carb though, regardless of which version(of 2) shocks the rear got. All of them had "quad shock" suspension by then. It wasn't until 1986 though, that all V8 Mustangs got standard dual exhaust... Someone correct me if 85's got dual too, but I don't think they did.

190hp out of an 8cyl is weak even for that year, in the 60s muscle cars were making double that power.The rating system was different. Besides, the pre-1973 cars didn't have the government hand reaching down and plugging their intakes or exhausts, let alone the cylinder heads themselves. A 1985 I-ROC Z would whip just about any "muscle car era" entry. There were some quicker, but the number is low. The number which would handle as well is probably "zero." "Weak" or not, it was far better than the then recent prior years and still better than the less recent prior years.

IMO, the Trans Am's were some of the best looking Pony cars in the mid 80's. They had real sharp paint schemes and rims when optioned out.Hard to argue against that... For me, the best looking and perhaps best overall pony car of the 80's was the 1989 Pontiac Trans Am GTA(350) and TTA tuuuurbocharged V6! It looked great, performed admirably, managed decent or better economy, handled quite well, etc. The only drawback with it was the same with any "high end" F-body. It was greatly over-priced as compared to the average budget of the pony car buyer. That's the real reason, I think, the Fox body was so much more successful in the end. It was cheaper, by thousands in many cases. My personal favorite, however, would have to be the 98-02 WS6.

From what I remember, it was just like in the video; the Mustang wasn't the best looking at the time but was the quickest.That's the reality that pretty much everyone remotely involved at the time has etched in their mind. Pretty simple too: The Mustang weighed around 3200 lb sans driver. It had comparable or better hp than it's typical GM rival, which weighed more and usually had worse rear gearing. GM put its car at a disadvantage for drag racing. Ford put its car at a disadvantage for track racing(save perhaps the SVO/Cobra models).

brb let me save this thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp9qGSikrdA:werd: :nod: THREAD SAVED! :thumb:

:werd: :nod: THREAD SAVED! :thumb:

lol i was 8 when this came out and i saw this posted on honda-tech yesterday and it blew my mind because i actually remember this commercial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euwshCke0-s

brb let me save this thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp9qGSikrdA



Yes, that makes this thread relevant now.

190hp out of an 8cyl is weak even for that year, in the 60s muscle cars were making double that power.

Those 60s muscle cars needed over 300hp to run with a mid 80s 190hp Trans Am, both weighing nearly the same.

Those 60s muscle cars needed over 300hp to run with a mid 80s 190hp Trans Am, both weighing nearly the same.

Wasn't talking about actual performance we all know the cars of the 60s weighed alot and didn't handle well, i was talking about HP figures. As to them being weak. But apparently they cut their horsepower figures in half because of emissions? 190hp is something you see out of 4cyl cars.

190hp is something you see out of 4cyl cars.Not during 1983-1985 (with very few exceptions) LOL. ;)

Wasn't talking about actual performance we all know the cars of the 60s weighed alot and didn't handle well, i was talking about HP figures. As to them being weak. But apparently they cut their horsepower figures in half because of emissions? 190hp is something you see out of 4cyl cars.

i think that the mustangs AND camaros of the 60's weighed less than todays versions.....and neither one of them can hold a candle to todays versions.

190hp out of an 8cyl is weak even for that year, in the 60s muscle cars were making double that power.

Keep in mind that horsepower was rated differently in the 1960s (SAE gross ratings) than it was in the 1980s. Also keep in mind that many engines in the 1960s were rated without driving accessories or with emissions plumbing that the vehicles were assembled with.

Wasn't talking about actual performance we all know the cars of the 60s weighed alot and didn't handle well, i was talking about HP figures. As to them being weak. But apparently they cut their horsepower figures in half because of emissions? 190hp is something you see out of 4cyl cars.If the rating system was the same in 1985, the 190hp Camaro would probably have been a 350hp model instead.

The Camaro of the 1960's weighed notably less than most later versions, and it did weigh less than the 85 I-ROC with say, a 302 under hood. It was about the same in 1/4 mile testing... The I-ROC surely had more power... or better gearing or both.

190hp is 4cyl. territory today, but back then, you'd be lucky to see 100 in nearly any 4cyl.

Wasn't talking about actual performance we all know the cars of the 60s weighed alot and didn't handle well, i was talking about HP figures. As to them being weak. But apparently they cut their horsepower figures in half because of emissions? 190hp is something you see out of 4cyl cars.

Take all those SAE Gross figures from the 60's and multiply by .8 roughly. As an example back in the 90's one of the car magazines ran a 1994 25th TA (275 hp) against a 69 RA III TA (345 hp). Same day, same track. They were pretty close to even. Also the legendary stuuf fom the 60/70's (Hemi, LS6 and such) were 10.5 and higher compression, solid roller, and required 100+ octane fuel. Just not comparable at all.

And then entered Lord Vader.

http://www.vantagesportscars.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/161-542x404.jpg

And then entered Lord Vader.:werd: :D

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b167/RobertGriffin/LV.jpg