Author Topic: TSTE vs. '74 Z28 4 speed (Read 3687 times)

dbtk2 · « **on:** March 17, 2004, 08:42:15 PM »

I am in an Automotive Technology program at a vocational school. So for half the day I go to high school and the other half I go to this class. Well, today a kid from my class (he will be refered to as Robby from now on) brought in a '74 Camaro Z28 4 Speed. When it pulled in the shop it was obvious it was a V8. Robby let it sit an idle, and definately had a little cam lope. Anyways, Robby and his friend that rode to our vocational school in it with him were talking about how it was so quick and all that had ever been done to it was a different intake manifold and carburator. Most of the kids in my class laugh at me when I talk about my car being quick because it is a 3.1L V6...it can't be fast. So anyways, when Robby was letting it idle and talking about the engine, I just kind of descretely said, "I'll race it Robby." Right away he replies with "OK!!!." A few other kids from the class started chuckling going, "yeah, in what???" I said straight out, "that Grand Prix right there." (I had also brought my car in to work on, so it was parked right by the Camaro) They were like, "ok, you're gonna get smoked."

Now I knew the Camaro wasn't EXTREMELY quick because it was pretty much stock and there wasn't really much to them, and they were pretty heavy. But I figured it was reasonably quick.

So after class got over, Robby came up and asked me if I was serious, and I said "hell yeah." So we drove out about a mile away from the school on a two lane road with farm fields on each side of it. Basically in the middle of nowhere. There is another kid from our class following us in his t-bird to witness the race (he was in no way planning on trying to keep up). So I was following robby, and the other kid was following me. Robby stops, and rolls down his window and waves me next to him. He signals 1,2,3, go and I take off....look in my mirror and the front of the camaro picks up and then falls....LMAO...Robby stalled it!

So I keep going down the road about 40mph giving him time to catch up. I find a good spot to stop and Robby pulls up next to me. He rolled down his window and signaled 1,2,3, go again and I took off. He dumps the clutch from about 5 grand and smokes the tires for about 15 feet, giving me about a 2 car jump. But once he got going I wasn't pulling any. I left my foot to the floor and looked ahead (and in the mirror every few seconds to see where he was at). He was very slowly gaining on me. At 110 I looked over and his front fender was at my rear. I hit 120 and he is right dead even with me. Right after that he let off. My guess is he ran out of gear (seeing that he has a 3.73 rear end and no overdrive), which is a good thing because I was about to do the same. I looked down and the tach read 5700rpms, wouldn't have been much longer and it would've hit the rev limiter and I would've had to resort to OD.

I was like DAMN!!! I didn't think that I would do that good, but I figured I would at least show them up enough for them to see that my car wasn't as slow as they thought.

So I stopped at the next cross street and pulled over and rolled down my window. They pulled up next to me and the kid in the passenger seat was like...."we had a little traction problem back there." I said, "no shit." Then he said "I was really suprised though," at the same time Robby was saying, "oh you mean a traction problem like this." He dumped the clutch from probably 4-5k and fishtailed around the corner. That was pretty badass, but I wasn't really impressed....it obviously wasn't that much more powerful than my car. After that they kept going, and I turned around and went home.

I looked up the specs for that engine, and they are a little better than I expected.

Model: Z-28
Engine Size: 350 V-8
Bore & Stroke: 4.00 x 3.48
Horsepower: 245 @ 5200
Torque: 280 @ 4000
Compression Ratio: 9.0:1
Carb: 4 bbl.

And it had an aftermarket intake manifold and carburator, so I would estimate it was making at least the stock power...probably a little more.

But I think there will be a few people in my class suprised tommarow.

Its just too bad I drive a crappy V6. :roll:

Shawn

SpeedDemon · « **Reply #1 on:** July 04, 2004, 12:02:15 AM »

To tell you the truth if he hadn't lit it up at the start he would have walked on you (although the guy seems to not know how to handle a rwd car. What a dumb ass) Next time race him for slips and give the car to someone more worthy of it, haha just kidding. You also have to put into consideration the fact the this was a 1974 camaro not a late 1960's camaro (3 years after the end of the MUSCLE CAR ERA. So don't be so disipointed). To be truthfully honest NO (I mean NO) STOCK v6 wether it be turbocharged or not, is no match for the power of any muscle car. Even my 1967 plymouth with a 318 ci engine and weight of 3800 lbs can run high 14's (not bad for 230 Hp and 340 Lb Ft of torque 2 barrel engine huh. well....... its not a 2 barrel any more 8) ) But besides all that congrats on you win, It's not every day that a turbo v6 beats a car with the kind of racing heritage as the camaro.

skalor · « **Reply #2 on:** July 04, 2004, 08:11:35 AM »

What about a Grand National or Syclone/Typloon? I'd take a Grand National over any muscle car from the '60s. :D

SpeedDemon · « **Reply #3 on:** July 04, 2004, 12:03:53 PM »

There's nothing wrong with a grand national, it's just the the ability to be doing 65 mph and goose the engine and have the rear end try to fishtail. I mean the Buick Grand National is a really nice car but just knowing that you have 400- 500 Hp (natually aspired) on a stock big block to me just makes the whole expeirience more enjoyable (and all you needed was a set of headers and slicks and you had one REALLY NICE drag car). But after all that it really just comes down to preference. Me I just like the looks of the muscle cars. Every car had its own personallity, and the choice of engines during the 60's and early 70's just makes finding one more fun. But for other people they might just want a car that is fast and more fuel efficient (I guess something about getting 6-10 mpg makes people quench). :shocked!:

twinturbosedan · « **Reply #4 on:** July 05, 2004, 10:57:08 PM »

Quote from: "SpeedDemon"

To be truthfully honest NO (I mean NO) STOCK v6 wether it be turbocharged or not, is no match for the power of any muscle car.

are you kidding? even my Turbo 4 cylinder would whoop up on alot of muscle cars.

SpeedDemon · « **Reply #5 on:** July 08, 2004, 12:30:37 AM »

Let me clear up something. First off define muscle cars. If your talking about 3600-4000 lb small blocks than you are missinformed (http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-definition.shtml). Not all cars that were made in the 60's and early 70's were concidered MUSCLE CARS. Second I said STOCK so I am pretty sure that your turbo 4 cylinder did not run thirteens when it was driven home from the dealership (unless your driving a Lotus or an MR2) nor did it have 400-500 hp (which was the point I was trying to make sorry if I completely threw you off).[/url]

twinturbosedan · « **Reply #6 on:** July 08, 2004, 01:27:47 PM »

Quote from: "SpeedDemon"

so I am pretty sure that your turbo 4 cylinder did not run thirteens when it was driven home from the dealership

i am pretty sure i never said it ran 13s. but anyways :roll:

maximage · « **Reply #7 on:** July 08, 2004, 02:48:41 PM »

Quote from: "SpeedDemon"

Second I said STOCK so I am pretty sure that your turbo 4 cylinder did not run thirteens when it was driven home from the dealership
Quote

Let me see, my Stealth TT was a 13 second car stock, my Supra was a 13 second car stock, my RX-7 was a 13 second car stock....

I really hate that old V-8 argument. There are a lot of non-V-8 cars that run under 13 seconds stock.

For that matter, my Talon TSI ran 13's with only $150 in mods.

LukeZ34 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 08, 2004, 02:55:49 PM »

Don't Syclone/Typhoon's run near 13's stock?

maximage · « **Reply #9 on:** July 08, 2004, 02:57:08 PM »

Yep, and so do the GN's.

LukeZ34 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 08, 2004, 02:58:13 PM »

Thought so.. Why was this thread dug up from the dead?

maximage · « **Reply #11 on:** July 08, 2004, 03:08:30 PM »

Newb cruising through old posts.

dbtk2 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 09, 2004, 07:18:43 PM »

Quote from: "SpeedDemon"

To tell you the truth if he hadn't lit it up at the start he would have walked on you (although the guy seems to not know how to handle a rwd car. What a dumb ass) Next time race him for slips and give the car to someone more worthy of it, haha just kidding. You also have to put into consideration the fact the this was a 1974 camaro not a late 1960's camaro (3 years after the end of the MUSCLE CAR ERA. So don't be so disipointed). To be truthfully honest NO (I mean NO) STOCK v6 wether it be turbocharged or not, is no match for the power of any muscle car. Even my 1967 plymouth with a 318 ci engine and weight of 3800 lbs can run high 14's (not bad for 230 Hp and 340 Lb Ft of torque 2 barrel engine huh. well....... its not a 2 barrel any more 8) ) But besides all that congrats on you win, It's not every day that a turbo v6 beats a car with the kind of racing heritage as the camaro.

I know if he knew how to drive the car, he would've taken me months ago when this happened. I also know that they weren't slouches when they were new. But '74 was after the Muscle car era and there were much faster cars made before then, but that wasn't the point. The point was that everyone was saying how fast it must be because its a V8, yet my car, which all it had done AT THAT TIME was a K&N air filter and a removed cat, which is about $50 in mods, pretty much kept up with it. (the best 1/4 mile time I netted with that setup was a 14.96 @ 91.79mph) If we went out and raced now, I think I could easily beat him, even if he got a good launch because my car has a LOT more power now due to the 4psi more boost...its trapping 3+mph faster in the 1/4 mile then it was then.

If you're saying no stock turbo v6 can match up to a "muscle car" I will have to disagree. Yes, there is no replacement for displacement, but the fastest stock muscle car ran like 13.2's, and you can buy a 4 cyl. Subaru that runs 13.3's off the showroom floor.

Quote

I really hate that old V-8 argument. There are a lot of non-V-8 cars that run under 13 seconds stock.

Exactly. There are also a lot of V-8 cars that run OVER 13 seconds stock. There are plenty of stock cars with smaller than V8 engines that will smoke stock "muscle cars."

Shawn

SpeedDemon · « **Reply #13 on:** July 10, 2004, 11:00:07 PM »

Actually there were two muscle cars that ran 10's right out of the factory (the HEMI DART and HEMI CUDA) but thats not the point. I wasn't saying that v8's are better in any way. I was just comparing the POWER between a turbo charged car and a muscle car.A 440 c.i (375 HP, 480 Lb Ft natually aspired(Chiltons auto repair manual) 1967 Plymouth GTX, or the 454 LS6 (450 Hp 500 Lb Ft.Naturally aspired (http://www.fast-autos.net/chevrolet/chevroletchevelle.html) motor compared to a 96 Supra Twin turbo and a 96 dodge Stealth RT (320 HP, 315 lb Ft twin turbo(autotrader.com). I'm not that nieve to think that muscle cars are superior to modern cars.

twinturbosedan · « **Reply #14 on:** July 10, 2004, 11:36:08 PM »

wasn't HP rated in a different way back then? still, i'll take modern port fuel injection and a turbocharger feeding a small displacement engine anyday.