08-05-2011, 09:15 PM | #15 |
Don't Mess with the Zohan
Drives: 89 IROC Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: West of Toronto
Posts: 160
|
I run a 305TPI with a ZZ4 cam and springs, FIRST intake, 305 TFS heads, 4th gen alum. driveshaft, 3.42 gears and auburn diff.
Feels great with the new chip. I was told switching to the Comp Cams beehive springs would add 500rpm to the top end.
__________________
"Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car and oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car. Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far you take the wall with you."
|
08-20-2011, 07:29 PM | #16 |
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '19 F150 2.7TT Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,425
|
Guys keep in mind that there were some other differences between the '85 LB9 auto with 3.42s and the '87 LB9 5 speed cars with 3.08s or 3.45s. While both were rated at 215hp. The '87s had roller lifters and the 1 piece rear main seal.
I think if you dyno'd them both the '87 would have a couple more hp plus better mileage. I checked all the "right" boxes on mine. LB9, 5speed, 3.45 limited slip Australian 9 bolt, 4 wheel discs, engine oil cooler, custom cloth seats, A/C, no power windoows or door locks, not ttops, bright blue metallic- it was gorgeous. Even though the redline was moved up to 5500 rpms with the "big" cam, it fell on it's face at 4800 rpms. Car had so much low end torque that I could put it in 5th(.63) overdrive at 25mph and take my foot off the gas and it will roll down the street at idle!!!!! No clunking, no driveline snatch just smoothly down the street for as long as I wanted it to . EDIT: '85 215hp LB9 had 275 tq. '87 215hp version had 295 tq. |
08-20-2011, 07:30 PM | #17 |
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '19 F150 2.7TT Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,425
|
'86 IROC only came in a auto 190hp version. And had the CHMSL mounted on top of the rear glass hatch.
|
08-20-2011, 08:16 PM | #18 |
BadMeanIROCZ
Drives: IROC-Z28 Camaro Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The STL
Posts: 40
|
Okay so I'm going to give you my best impression of the TPI (mostly the L98 car) from experience, working on them and driving them.
1.) The TPI is a torque monster, pure and simple. Learn to control that torque on the street, it's too easy to be noticed and maybe get a ticket too. TPI was really designed for 305's back then but GM was lazy and put it on a 350 too. Don't get me wrong though, the L98's are great with a TPI set-up, just not as much stock. 2.) Alot of what helps TPI's get off and going even in the mid-upper RPM's is gearing and suspension work. Alot of cars back then got those 10 bolt 2:73's or 9 bolt 2:77's and I absolutely despise those gears on a 350. All it's good for is slightly better gas mileage than let's say if you put in a performance 9 bolt like the G92 3:27 POSI or a set of 3:42's or 3:70's (all 9 bolt I believe). So gearing is very important and TPI's like that. 3.) Compared to today's advanced engines, TPI's are still great engines to have and work with. They're also abit easier to deal with and on MAF cars you can put more power into the car without having to do alot of tuning vs. a speed density car. They're less tolerant of power mods without any real tuning involved. MAP cars were around from 1990-1992 I believe. 4.) Parts are cheaper, most of the work done on a 3rd Gen. with TPI are easier to do and there's alot of room in the engine bay if it's gutted out. These are a few pointers for you. Take from it what you will. A properly modified TPI can really get into making power in the 5,500RPM ranges and it's alot of fun when you can. Stock TPI's depending on year ran out of breath anywhere from 4,200-4,600RPM's. The best intake I've seen on them are Holley Stealth Ram's which allow it to easily breathe into the 6kRPM range and still have most of your bottom torque and more horsepower across the band and into the upper area.
__________________
Camaro IROC-Z28 350 L98; Not stock. |
10-14-2011, 06:42 PM | #19 | |
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '19 F150 2.7TT Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,425
|
Quote:
And they have so much low end tq that there is really no reason to go there. Also what you said is tru about the 350s. They max out at even less rpms. I know in IMSA SS they shifted at 4400 rpms. |
|
10-14-2011, 08:46 PM | #20 |
Drives: 1989 Camaro RS (435+hp, 435 lb./ft) Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Danville, NH
Posts: 90
|
I owned several Camaros in this era (not including my 1969), from a 1982 six-banger (107 bhp, yup!), 180 hp HO (late 80's), 1990 and 1991 IROC-Z 5.7 TPI (245 bhp). I have to say I liked my HO the best for overall performance; the 5.7 liter did "fall on its face" in the upper RPM range. I currently own a 1989 Camaro RS but this car has been seriously modified with a carbureted setup. It seems you are happy with your package and, if so, I would do some of the simple mods mentioned here and enjoy your ride!
Last edited by camarosc35; 10-14-2011 at 09:21 PM. |
10-15-2011, 11:48 PM | #21 | |
BadMeanIROCZ
Drives: IROC-Z28 Camaro Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The STL
Posts: 40
|
Quote:
__________________
Camaro IROC-Z28 350 L98; Not stock. |
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PFADT STAGE 3 Review - The good, the bad, and the ugly! | fastkevman | Suspension / Brakes / Chassis | 22 | 06-02-2011 01:39 PM |
Any non-Camaros with "Extreme" good or bad factory tunes? | OBSSEST | Tuning / Diagnostics -- engine and transmission | 2 | 03-28-2011 06:54 PM |
Good Idea? Bad Idea? | cam2fst4u | Off-topic Discussions | 25 | 04-13-2009 08:06 PM |
Good News.... Bad News.. | ralyrat | 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions | 4 | 02-22-2009 06:05 PM |
G8 GXP mini review - some good some bad | Crowley | General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion | 6 | 11-26-2008 07:38 AM |