No arguement here, I'll give you that. I didn't know after 90 that the auto 305 didn't have the peanut cam, thought that carried all the way through the TPI. You learn stuff all the time. The thing I never understood was why GM never used it in pickups, it would have been better there than anywhere else.

 

I would have to disagree with this one. My stock L98 (including paper filters) put down 214/304tq. Dual cat with 3.23 disk limited slip. That may not have been typical but that's what it did.

And I do realize that not all motors were created equal back then due to looser tolerences.

 

I had a 85 305ho car w/ a t-5 and open 3.73 rear. With a muffler, good 3inch cat, k&n filter, pulling the charcol ring out of the air cleaner, and lots of timing. I would trap 93-94 mph running 14.8~14.9 w/ a horrible 60ft. For a h.s kid that worked for me lol. I would stick to New LT1 cars on the street with no problem even beating them sometimes.

Like said before they were great for what the were, during their day.

 

used to have an 89 RS 305TBI T5. Ran 16.5 in the 1/4 mile

sold it at 210,000 miles.


If I had to keep it and know what I know now... I would do an engine and trans swap instead of trying to make that poor 305 put out some decent numbers.... but not before installing a 150 shot of nitrous and going to a drag strip I don't plan on attending in the future

 

I was going by supposed engine hp figures and drive train loss. I never meant it to come across that it made the same hp as an L98.

 

I' with you on that one

Mine ran 16.1 with with a bad clutch, but i wasnt 18 till i had had my z28 for a year so i couldnt race at the track

 

my clutch was so bad I couldn't do a burnout on street tires

 

The 3rd gen's were such dog's cause thy were geared stupidly with 2.73, 3.08,and 3.23 gear ratio's . . . most common . . .

The 3.42's weren't bad but they should of had 3.73's in most of them for the limited power and excessive weight

Gen-3 F-bodys were like 3,400-3,600lb's and 170-190hp up to 245hp
Not a good power to weight ratio . . .

Gen-3 was the most technologically advanced but the worst performing, can't win them all Gen-4 and Gen-5 have more then made for it . . .

Mike

 

My 92' GTA had a couple face lifts, ran the 350TPI till it spun a bearing and blow a hole in the side of it, that had 3.23's . . . So i swapped in an LO-5 350TBI and a 10 bolt with 3.42's . . . that lasted a summer then it blew up spun #7 bearing but i shut it down in time it didn't come part . . . So i was tired of blowing up EFI 350's . . .

So i went crazy nut's, built a 406Ci TBI, 4L60E stage 3, Moser 12 bolt Richmond 3.73's, ran 235/55R16's on front and 295/50R16's on rear and actually came up with a third gen that went some place when you hit the throttle . . . rather then the typical 3-5min delay between bog n vroom

Still not as Fast as the AMX, but its cheaper to run and maintain

Mike

 

My 89 put down 214/312 stock, I was also pleasantly surprised that day.

Bottom line, these cars were not slouches, but products of the day. Compared to other cars of the era, they were relatively high performers. Sure, if you compare it to an LS1 powered car, hp to weight is not even a fair comparison. BUT, stock L98 cars were busting low 14's all day, not bad at all for what it was. Don't be so quick to knock it, unless you've heard all the arguements.

Will

 

Not much to hear really, heavy car's low powered engines lack of gearing to compensate for the later 2

Seem rather simple to me built for MPG/Emission's not performance

I simply was not impressed with any of them stock so i built my own

Mike

 

i dont know about you but third gens are fairly mid weight compaired to 4th gens and the portly 5th gens. and as for lack of gearing, these cars could be had with everything from 2.7x to 3.73 ratios factory. and to look at things, these cars did with less what the cars before them took more to do.
they get better MPG, can run the same trap times, handle better than the cars from back in the day and do it with less HP.

 

The L98 cars were/are capable out outrunning the vast majority of the late 60s early 70s muscle cars, even when down 100ci and an advertised 150HP+. AND they do it getting 25mpg and making those older boats look silly in every other department.

So, rather than talk about 3rd gen dogs, can we talk about the WAY overhyped (and often slower) old school muscle?

 

Your wasting your time to try and convince me other wise
I owned and operated plenty of third Gen's My mind is set as to how i view them

When buying a Stang Maro or Bird, last thing that should be of Concern is MPG's . . . performance should be the name of the game but then again look at all the imports . . .

Have a nice day
Mike

 

In my opinon the lack of good HP numbers back then was due to the need for good fuel numbers, All this talk about cam's and gears is all well and good, but lets not forget we just came out of the 70's and the fuel crunch of the times. So yes at that time is was about mpg and emissions. Today anybody with a wrench set can build up a 3rd gen into a monster, it is all about what a person wants to spend. As for the 305ci, they can and have been built and tuned to get good numbers. Read that before you comment on it, I said could and have, but for real good numbers a 350ci either a roller of a regular flat tappet cam cant be beat. As for those that talk down a carb'ed motor with the right set up that is tuned well a carb will eat up a injected engine under the right coditions, not every time, but look at a drag race they are still used often and getting great numbers.