Dubkor

I was just wondering if anyone knew the quarter mile or 0-60 times for the 1984 Camaro Z28 (not the H.O.) and the 1988 Firebird 2.8 liter?

tpivette89

my 84' Z28 (non HO, auto trans) went 16.0 at 85mph completely bone stock

ShiftyCapone

iTrader: (7)

If your LG4 went 16 flat than his V6 woul dbe much slower. I wouldn't expect anything out of the 17's or worse.

By the way, welcome aboard

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

are you drunk shifty? it seems like your answers lately have not made a whole lot of sense. not trying to flame, just wondering if your doing ok. your info is normally extremely intelligent and lately it doesn't seem to flow well.

explain to me why one guys v8 runs 16's, therefore a v6 is slower? just because one car runs one thing, does not mean another one will run something else.

on another note. a bone stock v6 with everything in tip-top working condition will not run much faster than HIGH 17's. my old car ran 17.8's stock. we put a 2800 stall converter and a dynomax catback, upgraded to accel ignition and wires, split fire plugs (the only motor i ever put them in that it actually made a difference), transgo shift kit, lockright locker, k&n filters with a highly modified air-box. hypertech chip, and the car went a 16.75. they are pretty hard to get going fast for small amounts of money. that's probably $1400 worth of mods listed. i hear they straight love the boost though!

paul_huryk

Typically low 17's, maybe high 16's at the 1/4 mile. 0-60 on 9 to 9.5 seconds.

ShiftyCapone

iTrader: (7)

I am fine and I hardly drink anymore I typically post after a long day of work though. Not sure what I haven't made sense on lately.

You kinda answered that yourself by telling us about your old V6 and confirming its slowness Lots of mods, slow ET's. ET's slower than LG4 cars. Whats so hard to understand

The LG4 was weak but the 2.8 was much weaker. The powerband is a joke compared to the LG4. Stock for stock there is no comparison between which one is faster. Like you said, mods on a V6 don't get you very far. So even if he has basic bolt-ons I can't see him getting into the low 16's anytime soon. Remember the LG4 was an engine option while the V6 was base. Why would GM make an optioned engine slower than base?

This is still on the assumption that both engines are only lightly modded. I have no doubt that an all out V6 car could click off a better ET than an LG4 or LO3 car but he made no mention of that in his post that would lead us to believe that. V6 f-bods are just plain slow.

urbanhunter44

iTrader: (3)

One thing that I've always thought was cool, in relation to this topic, is that in the thirdgens, no V6 ever outpowered any year's V8. That is to say the LG4 from '82 had more power (Advertised peak numbers) than the 3.1 from a '92 RS.

Just thought that was neat.

crazy3rdgen

iTrader: (1)

lol I'm embarrased to say but my 2.8 ran 18.2