Fastest 1/4 mile time(Factory only!)

[Stinger]

Dude,your "WRONG",now swallow!! Its the truth,85's had less hp then the 86's!! Just because its about the same in wieght(but it is heavier) doesnt mean there gonna do the same time!! Yes,,go to a mag. ,,just so you can learn the truth for your self!!84,85,86,87,88,89 vettes were "SSLLOOOWWW!!!

We haven't seen any PROOF from you yet...lets see it (not saying it doesn't exist, just saying we aren't going to just "take your word for it").

 

[Bearded Forever]

Slowest GT EVAR..... Cro wasn't around so I did.

Best Quote EVAR!

 

[willys1]

We haven't seen any PROOF from you yet...lets see it (not saying it doesn't exist, just saying we aren't going to just "take your word for it").

I dont need proof,,I already know it.(and Im a vette fan) go to the archives in motor trend,,or car and driver.Maybe you will believe them. You guys are unbelieveable!!!

 

[freakintiger]

Also, do you really think a 2 seat corvette weighs SO much more than a mustang...

The 85 Corvette's curb weight is 3,224lbs. All 4 (domestic, not export model)VIN codes state 230hp.
This info is from:
http://www.idavette.net/facts/85.htm

I'm sure someone can post the 85 Mustang (GT?)V8s curb weight and stock hp for comparison...

...and for fun: how about the same data for an SVO.


And remember the 'vette's engine sits back further than the 'stang's, and its 'glass bodied too. And if I remember right-aluminum heads were standard.

 

[bhuff30]

Dude,your "WRONG",now swallow!! Its the truth,85's had less hp then the 86's!! Just because its about the same in wieght(but it is heavier) doesnt mean there gonna do the same time!! Yes,,go to a mag. ,,just so you can learn the truth for your self!!84,85,86,87,88,89 vettes were "SSLLOOOWWW!!!

The 85 Corvette's curb weight is 3,224lbs. All 4 (domestic, not export model)VIN codes state 230hp

What gets me is how inconsistent you are. An 87-93 GT has a curb weight somewhere between 3100 and 3200. For all practial purposes, the mustang GT and the corvette in question have the same power to weight ratios. They are rated within 5hp of eachother, and have curb weights within 100lbs. The corvette has a better weight distribution, allowing it to get more bite in the 60', thus helping the quarter mile time. The corvette also has the advantage of an extra 49 cubic inches of displacment, which of course will give you more torque than a 5.0 rated at the same power level. Please explain to me why the 5.0 will run 14's while the corvette is stuck in the 15's! The fact of the matter is that a real world test on a 10+ year old car, both will run 15's. They may have once been tested to 14's when they were brand new with no blowby, ideal conditions and good tires, but after 15 years of use and abuse, neither will run 14's on a good day. If the corvette is slow as you claim, then the 5.0 is sure as hell just as slow.
How about some actual evidence or proof showing why you beleive the corvette was so slow? Was it underrated from the factory... or maybe most models were equipted with automatics giving them a poor reputation on the street. Whatever the case, the facts are not adding up for your claims to be true.

 

[willys1]

What gets me is how inconsistent you are. An 87-93 GT has a curb weight somewhere between 3100 and 3200. For all practial purposes, the mustang GT and the corvette in question have the same power to weight ratios. They are rated within 5hp of eachother, and have curb weights within 100lbs. The corvette has a better weight distribution, allowing it to get more bite in the 60', thus helping the quarter mile time. The corvette also has the advantage of an extra 49 cubic inches of displacment, which of course will give you more torque than a 5.0 rated at the same power level. Please explain to me why the 5.0 will run 14's while the corvette is stuck in the 15's! The fact of the matter is that a real world test on a 10+ year old car, both will run 15's. They may have once been tested to 14's when they were brand new with no blowby, ideal conditions and good tires, but after 15 years of use and abuse, neither will run 14's on a good day. If the corvette is slow as you claim, then the 5.0 is sure as hell just as slow.
How about some actual evidence or proof showing why you beleive the corvette was so slow? Was it underrated from the factory... or maybe most models were equipted with automatics giving them a poor reputation on the street. Whatever the case, the facts are not adding up for your claims to be true.

Lets face the facts here,,in my book,a 15+ second et in the 1/4 is slow.But in the 80's that wasnt too bad,,again,the only car with respectable times was the GN!! When they were new,a 5spd lx was in the 14's!!! The corvette was super stiff in the suspension department,,which isnt good for the drag strip!! Before this escalates into another dum debate,,all Im saying is theres "no way" the 86 vette ran a 14.1 et in the 1/4..Agreed?

 

[351wcoupe]

Before this escalates into another dum debate

I get the feeling many of your posts will disappear

 

[Stinger]

theres "no way" the 86 vette ran a 14.1 et in the 1/4..Agreed?

No

 

[freakintiger]

I could'nt find the actual Car&Driver article online, but I'm pretty sure the "magazine" they are quoting is C&D. Who else tests Porsches vs. 'Vettes.

The new C4 Corvette was on the cover of just about every car magazine in the automotive business. Although the '84 Corvette posted amazing skid-pad figures, using the car on real roads was no fun. The two main improvements of the '85 model were a softer suspension and more power.

The press was blown away with the '84 model's handling on the test track, but was very critical of its real-world ride. Chevrolet improved that by decreasing the spring rates by 26 percent in the front and 25 percent in the rear. The springs in the optional Z51 package were reduced by 16 percent in the front and 25 percent in the rear. Despite the changes, some still complained about the ride.

The most exciting new feature for the '85 Corvette was the new L96 fuel-injected engine. There hadn't been a fuelie Corvette since '65, and after years of wheezy performance, this was a welcome change. The new L96 engine was rated at 230 hp – up 25 hp and had 330 lb.ft. of torque up 40 lb-ft from the '84 model. Fuel economy increased by 11 percent.

The additional horsepower and torque really improved the Corvette's performance. One car magazine awarded the '85 Corvette as the "Fastest Car in America," beating out Porsche with a top speed of 150 mph. The 0-to-60 times were between 6.0 and 5.7 seconds!

The only exterior change on the '85 Corvette was the "Tuned Port Injection" inscription on the body molding behind the front wheelwell. Paint options were the same as the '84 model –
10 solid colors and three two-tone potions.

The interior received subtle improvements. Dash graphics were easier to read and a map strap was added to the driver's sunvisor. The optional sport seats were now available in leather for only $1,025! The optional clear roof panels had stronger sun tinting and only cost $595.

The Z51 suspension was priced at only $470. Included were FG3 Delco-Bilstein shocks, heavy-duty cooling, an extra radiator fan, heavy-duty front and rear springs, stabilizer bars, bushings, fast-ratio steering, and 16.5-inch aluminum wheels. The Z51 lowered the car by 3/4-inch.

Base price of the '85 Corvette was now $24,403 – up $2,603 from the previous model. A loaded '85 Corvette cost close to $28,500! Sales were good, but off from '84 with 39,729 units sold.

Showroom Stock racing brought the new fuelie Corvette some much- needed racing interest. The Vettes ran so fast that Porsche bought two and took them apart to see why they were so quick! Considering where the Corvette was in the late '70s, this was sweet revenge for Chevrolet.

This is quoted from the following site:
http://www.illustratedcorvetteseries.com/No69_1985_Prod_Vette.html

Note the suspension softening, and also this marks the debut of "Tuned Port Injection".

 

[willys1]

No

You guys crack me up,,I just had this conversation in the 5.0 talk room,,theres no problem,,the 86 vette is a slug!! OK,,how fast do you think it is?? Im gonna have to go in the archives now!! WELL,,HOW FAST??// Im 37,I dont have too read it somewhere,,I "lived it",,I was there when it was new.Ive always been a car guy,I know what Im talking about.You 2.3 guys think your spaecial,,you NOT!!! Your in denail!!!

 

[bhuff30]

The article was in the Jan 1985 issue of "Car and Driver". Maybe after my test on monday, I will feel like sorting through microfish, but hopefully someone else has access to a hard copy of this issue at the local public library.

 

[freakintiger]

... Im 37,I dont have too read it somewhere,,I "lived it",,I was there when it was new.Ive always been a car guy,I know what Im talking about.You 2.3 guys think your spaecial,,you NOT!!! Your in denail!!!

I think we've had a break-through.

Anyway, why is it so important to you? It's not like you engineered the Mustang and have had to live it down that it was neck in neck with the 'Vette in performance. That to say, it sounds like you are talking about something more serious like war/combat, "I don't have to read it somewhere,,I "lived it" ,,I was there when..."

Get a hold of yourself man, it's only the Stangnet 2.3/Turbo forum!

 

[Bearded Forever]

Don't forget that gearing and aerodynamics are involved here.

• Road & Track magazine tested the 1986 Corvette to a best time of 5.8 seconds 0-60mph, 14.4 sec @ 96.0 mph 1/4, and a top speed of 154 mph.

• Car & Drive magazine achieved 6.0 sec to 60mph and a 1/4 mile result of 14.5 sec @ 95 mph. (test conducted on convertible)

All that from 235hp.

http://www.netspeed.com.au/corvette/vettestuff2.html#1986

 

[93 teal terror]

there were 5.0 mustangs in the low 14's bone stock, but we all know most 5.0's are 15s cars. Magazine tests can be all over the place. Some refuse to slip the clutch from more than idle. Others will launch the balls off the thing with no reguard for duribility or repeatablitly. Some apply correction factors which obviously don't account for traction differences. Just look at track times for the all wheel drive cars to prove that.

The avg. 5.0 is a 14 sec car. There are quite a few that are 15 sec cars but thats only because they either have a atuo vert. or can't drive. Ive yet to see one run a 16 but im sure its possible. The only ones that I've seen run close to 16's are 94/95 auto verts. It really depend a lot on the driver. Take an avg. magazine or accepted time for a car and +/- a second in either direction and thats about the possibility of what it will run. Case in point. the 87-95 5.0's....Ive seen anywhere from 13.8-15.8 stock.

 

[Red_LX]

I saw a SN95 auto vert 5.0 run a 16.2, and it wasn't even stock.

 

[93 teal terror]

I saw a SN95 auto vert 5.0 run a 16.2, and it wasn't even stock.

Wouldn't surprise me....There are some crappy drivers out there. Despite popular belief you can't just go out and start flipping through the catalogue and order parts and expect to make a car go faster. You also can't launch at 5k rpms on street tires. I dont understand why 5.0 guys don't understand this. I can see doing it once or twice and realizing spinning to 50mph is not good for track times but geeze they do it over and over again.

 

[mr_woodster]

The fastest i have seen the 5.0's was in a notch lx ran mid 13's..pretty quick for 90% stock car.

The funny thing about all this vette stuff is the SVO was in comparsion for its time...to other "performance" cars of its day. If the vette was running 15.1, then the SVO looks all the better for its time period

Case in point, if 230hp/330tq doesnt yeild you some sort of 14's, within a resonable curb wieght, like teal said...bad drivers.

 

[willys1]

I think we've had a break-through.

Anyway, why is it so important to you? It's not like you engineered the Mustang and have had to live it down that it was neck in neck with the 'Vette in performance. That to say, it sounds like you are talking about something more serious like war/combat, "I don't have to read it somewhere,,I "lived it" ,,I was there when..."

Get a hold of yourself man, it's only the Stangnet 2.3/Turbo forum!

LOL,,yeah ok Froyd!!! All I ment,,ya see I wasnt around for the first muscle car era,so I had to read about it.I know about the cars in the 80's,,where kids today dont,,they have too read about it.(and believe me,,the 80's were no barrel of monkeys when it came to cars,,todays cars kick @ss) We are now in the 2nd muscle car era,,and this one Im in

 

[140cilx]

-to young for the first one, to old to be cool for the current one.

-just like me. lol.

 

[freakintiger]

This muscle-era is to expensive and the economy stinks! And where's the cheap hi-octane fuel?!