0.92g's on 1985 Iroc's only vs. 0.87g's for every other year.
#1
0.92g's on 1985 Iroc's only vs. 0.87g's for every other year.
Can someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seams from every car magazine that 1985 was the only year a third gen Camaro was able to hit those numbers? What was so special in the suspension of that year? Bilsteins were offered as shocks in a few other years and all Iroc's had frame rail reinforcements and wonderbars too. Most also got the Goodyear tires and a 245/45 tire. Does anyone know what specifically made this particular year Iroc handle better than any other year? Were the sway bars bigger or something? I know that certain years had factory polyurethane rear sway bar bushings, but I'm not sure which ones. Did this year have special spring rates or something? Was it the only year that Irocs had 5 degrees of caster? What did the factory change to make Iroc's NOT handle as well after 1985? Any help would graciously be appreciated.
#3
Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 438
Likes: 1
From: state of confusion
Car: '08 Mustang GT
Engine: 4.6L
Transmission: º º 0 . . . |-|-|
Axle/Gears: 8.8", 3.55
Re: 0.92g's on 1985 Iroc's only vs. 0.87g's for every other year.
Lots of possibilities, even if the same site with the same prep (or lack of prep) was used.
Perhaps the 1985 car was a specially prepped "ringer" that was passed around to all the magazine road-testers? Not anything "out of spec", just optimally selected parts during assembly. Adjusting camber toward the negative end of spec instead of leaving it mid-range will buy you some of the difference. Maybe the axle had a little negative camber in it, and the car was tuned around that.. And unless you know how else it was optioned compared to the rest it might have been slightly lighter. It's even possible that GM's tire spec changed.
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on skidpad lateral g measurements. They only show what the car is capable of doing. Nothing about how well (or poorly) it drives otherwise. Typically from those years, cars that did well in the skidpad weren't quite as good at the slalom.
Norm
Perhaps the 1985 car was a specially prepped "ringer" that was passed around to all the magazine road-testers? Not anything "out of spec", just optimally selected parts during assembly. Adjusting camber toward the negative end of spec instead of leaving it mid-range will buy you some of the difference. Maybe the axle had a little negative camber in it, and the car was tuned around that.. And unless you know how else it was optioned compared to the rest it might have been slightly lighter. It's even possible that GM's tire spec changed.
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on skidpad lateral g measurements. They only show what the car is capable of doing. Nothing about how well (or poorly) it drives otherwise. Typically from those years, cars that did well in the skidpad weren't quite as good at the slalom.
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; 11-24-2010 at 11:58 AM.
#4
Re: 0.92g's on 1985 Iroc's only vs. 0.87g's for every other year.
i believe the test car was an optioned model.... ac delete, radio delete, bilstein shocks, lightweight t-5 instead of a heavier automatic, the test car weighed like 3,150 instead of 3,400 like the rest of the v-8...... with much less nose weight..... so it was kinda of a ringer, it was the best optioned model for handling
and if it was a 1le it also had 1/2"-1" factory drop spindles...... or extended ball joints, i forget
and if it was a 1le it also had 1/2"-1" factory drop spindles...... or extended ball joints, i forget
Last edited by 1988-305-tbi; 12-01-2010 at 04:00 PM.
#5
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 19,282
Likes: 97
From: Lawrence, KS
Car: Met. Silver 85 IROC/Sold
Engine: 350 HO Deluxe (350ci/330hp)
Transmission: T-5 (Non-WC)
Axle/Gears: Limited Slip 3.23's
Re: 0.92g's on 1985 Iroc's only vs. 0.87g's for every other year.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Thornburg
Transmissions and Drivetrain
10
08-25-2015 02:46 AM
NufNuffZ28
History / Originality
2
08-14-2015 10:12 AM