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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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/image...ug65/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.

 

I hope we 'get it' pretty soon.

 

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.

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?

 

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/di...y/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.

 

thank you for explaining the gross and net rating

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.
THATS what Im talking about.

 

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.