Interesting early Camaro performance info

Yeah I know this is the 5th gen forum, but I happened to have recently picked up "Camaro Exposed 1967-1969" by Paul Zazarine, and since this forum gets more SS v.s. Z-28 threads than any other, I thought it'd be appropriate...

While no one can argue that the original Z-28 outhandled the SS, this might surprise a few people around here...

SS350 (4spd)
0-60 = 7.8s
1/4 mi = 16.1 @ 86.5 mph (Car & Driver, Nov. 1966)

SS396 (325 HP with THM)
0-60 = 6.8s
1/4 mi = 15.4 @ 92 mph (Motor Trend, May 1967)

Z-28
0-60 = 6.7s
1/4 mi = 14.9 @ 97 mph (Car & Driver, May 1967)

Now, which model is the TOP CAMARO? :D

man, thoes bi-ply tires sucked!!
16.1@86!!
15.4@92!! My 305 runs better then that! :eek:
And people laugh at the 305 :rolleyes:

In 68 the Z28 ran a 13.7 with a 5.5sec 0-60! But really though, realistically on the street and from a stop an SS396 should be able to pull until the higher RPMs/speeds, when the 302 starts making it's power, and alot of it. Racing at speed, it's the Z28 no question. Handling, factory add-ons, (like intake, headers, and exhaust) higher price, better everything performance-wise standard? The Z28. (don't forget looks too!) It was the all-out straight performance car and it was really focused on more than any other model, even though it was the lower production car. ;) :cool:

Not surprised at all. Nice job ref'ing the data.

Similarly, the Mustang has the same ora surrounding it.
People think the big block cars are the fastest simply because they are bigger displacement. Or a 428CJ Mach 1 is faster than a 351 car. HARDLY. In fact, just the oppostite is often true - as is the case jg95z28 pointed out.

I do not have my archives available at work, but I remember enough info to be pretty close.
The fastest Mustang off the showroom floor (until the 2003 Cobra) was the 1971 Boss 351. YUP, faster than 428 Cobra Jets, faster than the 429 SCJ, faster than the Boss 429, and faster than all the other variants including GTA's, 390 cars, and 351-W cars. Actually, the next best performers were the Boss 302 with good gears, and the Shelby GT350's with small block power, 4-spd close-ratios, and good gears.
The small-block 351-C in the Boss 351 ran 13's for C&D, on F70-14's no less.
Big block cars were struggling to grip, and turned low 14's - all of them, and the handled like wet noodles because of nose weight. Whereas the small block performers were lighter, handled better, more nimble, and equally fast if not faster in straight lines.

We talked a while back about how old performance cars seem to become "extraordinary" performers as the years pass by, when in all actuality they were merely "good" performers in the day. Fish tales, legend, myth, call it whatever you want but time often warps the truth.

There's nothing in the world that sounds like a solid-lifter big block making the earth shake underneath your feet... but the bulk and power don't always make the best TOTAL package.

In short, I agree with you 100% - in MY eyes the Z28 should be the epitome of street performance for Camaro.

Originally posted by jg95z28
Now, which model is the TOP CAMARO? :D

Actually that should read:

Then, which model was the TOP CAMARO?

And, on the other hand, some of the old guys WERE legendary:

http://www.corvettearchive.com/images/1966/CDAug65/page1.jpg

Synopsis:

12.8@112 mph

1966 Corvette 427/425
3.36 rear axle
7.75 x 15 bias-ply tires

Per Road & Track (bone stock test)

Wheres the 375hp 396CID ?;) Yeah I have seen those 350 SS stats before. Thats gross hp for ya;) Of course the 290hp 302 was gross BUT underrated.

I just got a test from 67 ---the Z28 did the 13.7 you mentioned. I don't buy that it was stock though. Everyone knws that the 302 cars were not drag racers but road racers.

Many magazine cars were "preped" by the manufactuer back then.

Allthough with mods you could certainly make them go quick.

Yeah I can't beleive some people still diss 305s so much. With a 5 speed and good gears they are very respectable against some 60's iron.

I hope that some here, who have "just discovered" this hobby in the past few years...realize that Camaro SS and Z/28 were different cars for different people. Don't rely completely on the last half of the 4th gen for ALL of your reference points.

When I think SS.....I think of a glorious 1st gen convertible, probably a '67 or '68..with a "BumbleBee"stripe. When I think Z/28, I think of a sinister coupe, with it's big cammed SB loping at idle and screaming at 7200 RPM.

See....they were different cars for different people. Both desirable...but different.

It's been hinted (well more than hinted;) ), that Chevy now "gets" this.

Originally posted by Z284ever
It's been hinted (well more than hinted;) ), that Chevy now "gets" this.

I hope we 'get it' pretty soon. :mad:

Yeah, I was kind of bumbed out the L78 numbers weren't included for 1967. The Z-28 numbers with the cross ram in 68 & 69 were even better. ;)

The sad part was it showed a 67 327-210HP with powerglide doing the 1/4 mi in 18+ secs. I can't believe my gold RS is that slow. :lol:

Personally I love the 67-68's with RPO-Z22 (aka, Rally Sport), I love the hidden head lamped grill. (Much more so than the 69's.) My goal is to someday own a 67 Z-28/RS and a 67-68 SS396/RS convertible that's loaded to the teeth. (i.e. power everything.) The convertible will be the cruiser and the Z-28 the racer. A man's got to dream, right? :D

Originally posted by Big Als Z
man, thoes bi-ply tires sucked!!
16.1@86!!
15.4@92!! My 305 runs better then that! :eek:
And people laugh at the 305 :rolleyes:

A side note to anyone comparing old cars to today's cars in acceleration and horsepower.

Acceleration times:

Sure, tires are better today than back then, but the times reflected in those test are pretty right on the money. Muscle cars simply were not spectactular by today's standards in acceleration. Most of what's thought about muscle cars of the era is more idealism than reality.

By popping on a set of modern tires, times won't be significantly different. High torque will shred today's hard compound high mileage tires just as well as they will shred yesteryears softer compound low mileage tires. Because of additional width, there will be a slight improvement, but if a Z28 back then did a 97 mph quarter, the best you'll do with modern tires is reach 100, and even that's being extremely optimistic!

Any car today will outrun it's late 60s counterpart, and has been able to for quite awhile. This includes economy cars and even Impalas and Monte Carlos, let alone Camaros and Mustangs.

Horsepower:

The horsepower ratings back then and the horsepower ratings today are measured 2 different ways. In 1971-1972 automakers changed their rating from "gross" horsepower to "net" horsepower. This move created the illusion that horsepower figures dropped worse than they did in the 70s, and the false notion that cars from the musclecar era were high powered monsters. They had plenty of power, but it's greatly exagerated.

Manufactures used to measure horsepower (gross) in the most optimum conditions possible. No accessories, no production exhaust or mufflers, nothing but the fuel, oil, and water pump. Some manufacturers measured power in cold conditions to up horsepower. The fact is that a 400 horsepower engine back then didn't actually put out anywhere near that much by today's standards.

Since 1973 the entire industry has used the "Net" horsepower rating. This includes all production accesories, production exhaust & muflers, any smog equptment (some cars had them in the late 60s, but was measured without it) & production air intake. In short, it's "as installed" and more realistic.

The difference in numbers is dramatic. "Net" horsepower tends to be about 70% of "Gross" horsepower, so you can imagine how much power todays cars are putting out, and how little power "so-called" Muscle cars put out.

Examples? Using the 70% rule:

*The 280 horse Mustang GT and 285 horse LT1 puts out around 400 horsepower by musclecar era standards!

*A 200 horse Impala or Monte Carlo V6 puts out about 286 hp!

*The current 2004 350 horspower GTO by the old "gross" rating makes 500 horsepower!

*400 horse Z06 Corvettes make 571 horsepower while the 500 horse Viper would make 714 horsepower in 1969

Flipping this over:

*The 450 horse LS6 Chevelle SS454 actually makes just 315 horsepower.

*370 horse Ram Air IV GTOs actually made 259 horsepower.

and finally.... The 325 horsepower Camaro SS jg95z28 listed by today's standards had a mere 228 horsepower!

That's why those times "suck", NOT because of the tires they had back then.

Muscle cars in reality were not what everyone thinks. Muscle cars came about because factories pulled out of racing, and muscle cars became a way to sell performance parts. The idea behind muscle cars was to get you to buy factory performance "aftermarket" parts to make the cars quicker. The muscle cars you saw at drag strips had modifications and aftermarket parts from GM Ford or Chrysler, or other aftermarket vendors.

Not to burst bubbles, but today's cars are phenominally quick and unlike muscle cars, have unbelievable top speeds (very few muscle cars could go beyond 125 mph, let alone 130), amazing fuel mileage, and virtually no pollution (the Hemlock Society removed car exhaust from their list of suicide methods... if you're into that kind of stuff).

This just goes to show you what a bunch of whining, spoiled bunch of crying brats we've become regarding performance. We really don't comprehend how good we have it today!

http://www.streetracing.org/paris/dictionary/sro-dics.htm

Also don't forget that with modern computerized systems controlling the air/fuel mix on today's musclecars, they can essentially be tuned to the optimal conditions on the fly and negate any human error or changes due to atmospheric conditions. :D

Originally posted by guionM
yadda yadda

thank you for explaining the gross and net rating :rolleyes:

I KNOW what the hp difference is, but the point is how people look down on 305 TPI cars because of what it runs and call it slow, but the same people will bow down to the "fast" big block cars of the 60's. :rolleyes:
THATS what Im talking about.

Originally posted by guionM
That's why those times "suck", NOT because of the tires they had back then.

Muscle cars in reality were not what everyone thinks. Muscle cars came about because factories pulled out of racing, and muscle cars became a way to sell performance parts. The idea behind muscle cars was to get you to buy factory performance "aftermarket" parts to make the cars quicker. The muscle cars you saw at drag strips had modifications and aftermarket parts from GM Ford or Chrysler, or other aftermarket vendors.

Yes, stock hp of most muscle cars 'sucked.' But dont forget, those cars could be woken up with MINIMAL bolt ons. Thats where they shine compared to todays cars. My uncles 70 AAR walks away from my car when he grabs third gear, and he only has a carb tune and long-tube headers...besides a fresh rebuild. ( I even thought he had a cam, but he tells me its stock )

I have always heard the difference between gross and net ratings averaged about 15%. That was at the time SAE net was implemented. It could be greater now with most cars carrying more engine driven accessories.

Then of course you have 15% reduction from NET crank HP to rear wheel HP.

So a stock LT1 that puts down 242hp on the dyno, rated at 285 net should be 335 Gross.

Which would also make my car 425 net and 500 gross.

Maybe somebody can find the definitive source but I think 30% net vs. gross is high.

Originally posted by Big Als Z
I KNOW what the hp difference is, but the point is how people look down on 305 TPI cars because of what it runs and call it slow, but the same people will bow down to the "fast" big block cars of the 60's.

Because it's all perception. A stock L98 G92 IROC-Z running low low 14's would be untouchable to almost 90% of 60's and early 70's stock muscle. There would be few exceptions. A 305 TPI car around at that time would have been looked at as a serious contender on the road as there were plenty of 15 sec cars around then. Sure cars were easy to make fast and responded nicely to mods, but they did stock what they did stock. Which was completely incredible back then, but today, not really.

I actually recall an article of a 350 TPI car against a 1st Gen Z28 and the IROC-Z destroyed it in every way/category of performance. That's just the way it is. ;)

Originally posted by IZ28
I actually recall an article of a 350 TPI car against a 1st Gen Z28 and the IROC-Z destroyed it in every way/category of performance. That's just the way it is. ;) I believe I have that article somewhere. :D

The article is on TGO.

Where are the times for the 375hp 396?

Originally posted by PacerX
Where are the times for the 375hp 396?

The 375 horse version was solidly in the 14's off the showroom floor. But as Chuck Hughes...former Camaro chief engineer said, the big block made the Camaro handle like a "truck".

So, in the end, the quickest car was an SS (barring 69 Zl1's).

Glad we cleared that up.

Originally posted by PacerX
So, in the end, the quickest car was an SS (barring 69 Zl1's).

Glad we cleared that up.

Nope.

A Z/28 with the optional 2x4 crossram, factory bigger cam and headers would go high 13's.

Originally posted by Z284ever
Nope.

A Z/28 with the optional 2x4 crossram, factory bigger cam and headers would go high 13's. What he said.

I only showed the information for 1967. The L78 375 HP version of the SS396 was a late model year addition so the numbers weren't shown in the book I was referencing. However the cross-ram version of the 68 & 69 Z-28 was easily in the high 13's.

:D

Yup. A Z28 with the intake, headers, and even chambered exhaust (an all the other stuff they got) shouldn't have had much trouble with those 396's, just on the TQ side, but by the time the race was done, I think the SS owners's would be seeing stripes, real racing stripes. ;)

And Proud, I had no idea those were the fastest M*stang's. Goes to show you bigger engines aren't always faster. Here's even another example: 426 HEMI vs. 440. ;)

guionM

and finally.... The 325 horsepower Camaro SS jg95z28 listed by today's standards had a mere 228 horsepower!

Damn, that 396 lost almost a 100 horsepower. I doubt they were actually that slow though. A cousin of mine had an orange 1972 El Camino with a 396 BB and TH350 and it was fast enough to beat quite a few vehicles four wheeled and two wheeled on the freeway during the mid to late '90s.

jg95z28

:The sad part was it showed a 67 327-210HP with powerglide doing the 1/4 mi in 18+ secs. I can't believe my gold RS is that slow.

I think I could do better than an 18 sec 1/4 mile though with my 210 hp 327 Camaro. And possibly improve to a 15 sec 1/4 with a tranny swap. The 327 is stock except for the HEI.

Oh and I think I'd take one of each of the 1st and 4th generations
a '67 SS RS 350 :bow: and a '02 345 hp SLP SS :bow:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...just add 6" bias ply Red-line tires to any LS1 Camaro and you'll have a 16 second car that paints two 1320 foot long black marks as it goes through the traps..:rolleyes:
I grew up in a '68 SS/396/325hp car...most DEFINITELY faster than my '90 Iroc!...no question about it!..
My Dad added a Crane Fireball cam (after 6mos wiped out the stock lobes) rejetted, added "Superwide" rear tires, a truck clutch set up, and was pulling the front up over 6" at take off and an inch or two at the 1-2 shift!..at just over 5800 rpm's..

BBC Camaro's were Torque Monsters!...and traction was very hard to come by...therfore ET's sucked then...:(

My father claims high 12s out of his then new 67 SS Camaro with the 375hp 396 with the only additions being wider "cheater slicks" (like a drag radial, some slight tread on them) and homemade traction bars to get rid of wheel hop. He has mentioned scoffing at the 14 second times posted by the mags back then. He worked it down to 12.1s with headers, carb tweaking and a cold air setup, still on the cheater slicks which he said were never ideal, couldn't launch as hard as he'd like... His buddy got a new 69 Z28 afterwords and the best it was managing with the same set of tires and same homemade bars was low/mid 13s according to him... Just FWIW...

If you put all your faith in mag times your average LS1 would only be a high 13 second car....

Many of the big blocks were underrated from the factory, not just the legendary L88s. Read a road test of a big-block Vette from the era and you'll see phrases like, "it's rated at 425 BHP, but nobody really knows . . . the manufacturers are being cagey . . . etc."

Lots of wink-wink, nudge-nudge going on back then.

Originally posted by Ray86IROC
My father claims high 12s out of his then new 67 SS Camaro with the 375hp 396 with the only additions being wider "cheater slicks" (like a drag radial, some slight tread on them) and homemade traction bars to get rid of wheel hop. He has mentioned scoffing at the 14 second times posted by the mags back then. He worked it down to 12.1s with headers, carb tweaking and a cold air setup, still on the cheater slicks which he said were never ideal, couldn't launch as hard as he'd like... His buddy got a new 69 Z28 afterwords and the best it was managing with the same set of tires and same homemade bars was low/mid 13s according to him... Just FWIW...

If you put all your faith in mag times your average LS1 would only be a high 13 second car....

Car mags test STOCK cars off the showroom and offer a consistent measurement of a car's performance. If under those conditions one car is faster than another, then in the same conditions elsewhere, the same results will happen. So their results are still valid.

Originally posted by Big Als Z
thank you for explaining the gross and net rating :rolleyes:

I KNOW what the hp difference is, but the point is how people look down on 305 TPI cars because of what it runs and call it slow, but the same people will bow down to the "fast" big block cars of the 60's. :rolleyes:
THATS what Im talking about.

Good point (BTW: the horsepower explaination is for those who didn't know ;) ).

Yeah that wheel hop problem the 67's had can slow down those 1/4 mile times. But they all had that problem, even the SS's and Z-28's which came from the factory with a traction bar on the passenger side to help with that wheel hop.

I'm sure you could tweak and tune those SS's and get better times than dead stock... particularly if you could get it to hook up right with slicks or slapper bars. But then you could do the same thing to a Z-28. It's all relative, however this evidence should at least tone down the SS v.s. Z-28 arguments a little. :D

The horsepower ratings back then and the horsepower ratings today are measured 2 different ways. In 1971-1972 automakers changed their rating from "gross" horsepower to "net" horsepower. This move created the illusion that horsepower figures dropped worse than they did in the 70s, and the false notion that cars from the musclecar era were high powered monsters. They had plenty of power, but it's greatly exagerated.
Not trying to start a lengthy debate, but what you might've missed is there was also a SIGNIFICANT drop in "compression"...example:
A 396 of 1969 had a C/R of about 10.5:1, and after the switch in '70 ish, it dropped to 8.5:1...that's a HUGE drop! and loss of torque not to mention neccessitating the need for a milder cam to remain streetable...
It's not a simple change in measurement that happened there, but a shift in the industry's focus...from see who can make the fastest car, to, see who can get emissions down and milage up...

I've drove many and riddin in more, I can't swallow the "today's 305 is faster bs...I've drove some that could break traction in 3rd gear! stock spec!...:bow:
Go through the spec's on a late '60's Big Block Chevy, the cubes were HUGE, the compression was HUGE(leaded gas), the cams were HUGE, the valves were huge, the ports were HUGE, etc..etc..
You do the math.(..anyone..).........:)