Z-28 1/4 Mile Times

[rsatz28]

Just curious. Has any one run their Z at the strip? I don't remember what mine ran last Sept at the Grove.

Last year I was running headers( 2 1/2" Flowmaster system), stock ignition except for a Pertronics points replacement kit. Ran on stock BFG Radial T/A's. 3500 RPM launch / 6500 RPM shift points

I will post my times/mph tonight.

[rsatz28]

Fastest ET [email protected]
Fastest MPH [email protected]

Made a total of 9 runs with my those two runs being the last of the day, in the above order.

[Chevy454]

It's GREAT to see you stretching the legs on that thing!

And while I don't have a Z28, in one of our old mags (Hot Rod or SS&DI?) they had a project Z28 that they built over time...early in the build they played with it in the stock configuration and whittled the ET down to mid-13s...it was a '68 Z I believe, they put some gear in it, and played with the timing/jetting, but left the exhaust manifolds and such on the car. It's a good read...

[Dave Rifkin]

I think I recall an old copy of Super Chevy where they messed with a '69 Z and got it into the 12's.

[rsatz28]

It may be the same article and I think they were close to breaking into the 11's. I'll have to look for that article.

[68TopStock]

I think my best time so far with "Little Hoss" is 13.01, which was last years first run at SYC?

This year at Kansas City, my best was 13.051 @ 106.60. So far my best 60' is 1.749, during my last run at Kansas. The temps where in the high 80's/low 90's, so I hope to go into the 12's soon, on a cooler day.

These times are with a stock motor, std/std (bore/comp), but of course help from the crossram, headers and slicks.

The second owner of my car used to run 11.50's with the crossram setup, but with an automatic. He won Bristol in '71 with that set-up, Stock Eliminator.

[rsatz28]

[ QUOTE ]
Fastest ET [email protected]
Fastest MPH [email protected]


Can some one explain why I have a higher speed on my slower run in this example?

[SamLBInj]

Either you let off the gas at the end or you had a slow reaction time but quicker run..

[SamLBInj]

I had a 78 Z28 back in high school, with L60-15's,Lakewood Traction Bars, Mr gasket air cleaner,Air shocks, Open headers, tarantula manifold and holly 780 carb I was running mid to low 14's and thats with the stock cam, heads, and clutch....Hard to belive this basically stock 175hp car with a few bolt ons was faster then the 302's....sometimes you just get a good motor. Eventually that stock cam expolded on a 5500 rpm shift into 5 pieces...

[Chevy454]

[ QUOTE ]
Can some one explain why I have a higher speed on my slower run in this example?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Physics...look at your time slip...I'm gonna guess you were slower to the 60' mark on the higher MPH run? A slower ET means *more* time to accellerate, thus a faster MPH...I've got a formula around here somewhere that shows the why/how, but I'm headed out the door. Anyway, it's not *always* the case, but holds true the majority of the time...it's usually more profound in faster cars...

[rsatz28]

If things work out, I hope to take it back this Sep with drag radials, good tune-up and now have a full MSD ign system. The problem I was seeing was that if I dumped the clutch too low the car would bog. If too high I would cook the tires. I don't think the wide ratio M20 works very well on the track.

[ohhawk]

Who wins the race between two stock Z's.....the '69 or '70 version?

Just curious.

[SamLBInj]

[ QUOTE ]
Who wins the race between two stock Z's.....the '69 or '70 version?
Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same gear ratios I would say the 70, better aerodynamics and suspension. The 69,s are a better looking car though http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Belair62]

Until you put your glasses on !!!

[70-SS/RS-L78]

I like all of the First Gen’s, the 70-72 plus the 80-81 Z/28… The 69 Styling is timeless. My favorite being the 70-1.
I have owned a 69 and a few 70’s through the years. The 80-81 Z/28 are real dogs but they look great. My 69
was a Screamer with that little DZ engine but lacked torque. Many years ago I managed mid 13’s at Atco with
my 69, it had a 4, 11 gear and headers The LT1 is a lot stronger in my opinion. GM really did their homework
when they designed The Second Generation Z/28 Camaro. It is a much better riding and handling car then the
1st gen. The 70 Z/28 LT1 engine with some tweaking and a tall gear are extremely quick. The DZ and LT1 both
liked to REV and with them solid lifter’s they Rev Real Fast. That’s why so many of them were Vented. It’s a
shame Rev Limiters were not readably available back then as they are now. I put MSD-6AL’s on all of my cars now.
Better safe then sorry….

[SamLBInj]

[ QUOTE ]
Until you put your glasses on !!!

[/ QUOTE ]
I can see fine old man, Pop a few more vikes and take another look, then youll see it from my perspective http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Jeff H]

MPH is actually measured as an average over the last 60' I think. More spin off the line would result in a slower ET but might give you a higher mph because once it gets traction it's in a higher rpm range allowing more speed at the end. Not sure if that has any validity to it so take it with a grain of salt or with a http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif.

[Salvatore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who wins the race between two stock Z's.....the '69 or '70 version?
Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same gear ratios I would say the 70, better aerodynamics and suspension. The 69,s are a better looking car though http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ] LBI man....Sammy, the 70 would win because it has more power and torque. Same gears and trans???.......all day long the LT1 should win! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/3gears.gif

[SamLBInj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who wins the race between two stock Z's.....the '69 or '70 version?
Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same gear ratios I would say the 70, better aerodynamics and suspension. The 69,s are a better looking car though http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ] LBI man....Sammy, the 70 would win because it has more power and torque. Same gears and trans???.......all day long the LT1 should win! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/3gears.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you think I have an LT-1 in my 69 Z http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif No better small block made, or motor for that matter, period.

[SamLBInj]

What had more true horsepower, the 302 or LT-1? Bet its close.

[70Z]

[ QUOTE ]
What had more true horsepower, the 302 or LT-1? Bet its close.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh yeah!!!..well, I betcha my 70 is longer than your 69!!! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

[camarojoe]

Wasn't an LT-1 essentially very similar to a 302, with 48 more cubic inches? What advantages did a 302 have over an LT-1? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[Chevy454]

Camshaft, for one thing...

[Salvatore]

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't an LT-1 essentially very similar to a 302, with 48 more cubic inches? What advantages did a 302 have over an LT-1? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[/ QUOTE ]None! No substitute for cubic inches. Joe, Your Yenko has more power, more torque and basically the same rpm range as my 302! Only difference is that the 302 can run in a lower class, but on the street the 02 has NO chance unless you miss a gear or something.

[GTO_DON]

not much but you can wind them higher http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[Salvatore]

A little higher.

[Enoch]

With the short stroke of the 302 and some serious compression it makes for an exciting ride. The short stroke enabled the 302 to wind to the moon, thats why a cross ram works well on it . Same pricipal as a tunnel ram. All upper rpm HP.

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/3gears.gif

[Salvatore]

I have a 69 Z/28 that I love but I will still take the LT-1.

[Enoch]

I was replying to the "Whats the advantage of the 302 " I to will take the L-T1. Having restored both and driven them.

[SamLBInj]

Question was, What is the true HORSEPOWER of each motor, They both must be right at 400, if so, in theory, the 302 has more per cubic inch which should be the faster motor but I can say as driven them both the LT-1 is quicker, but then again I am basing a stock 302 on a slightly beefed LT-1

[Mr70]

I have an out sourced Dyno true engine Test booklet on Chevrolet engines.
They also road tested these cars:

1969 Camaro 302/290HP 4V @ 5800RPM with 290 torque @ 4200RPM & 11/1 compression.
Car weighed 3340 LBS.
LBS./BHP is 11.5
0 to 60 in 7 seconds
1/4 mile 14.8 seconds

1970 Camaro LT-1 350/360HP 4V @ 6000RPM with 380 torque @ 4000RPM & 11/1 compression.
Car weighed 3580 LBS.
LBS./BHP is 9.9
0 to 60 in 6.5 seconds
1/4 mile 15.4 seconds

[Salvatore]

True HP for the 302 is around 350.(stock) My opinion is the LT-1 is about 380 or so. NHRA rates the 302 at 305HP for stock eliminator. Jerry MacNeish in E/S is about 459 on the dyno. Remember that is everything at almost perfect specs with a super tune.

[SamLBInj]

These are BS tests, who rev's a 302 to only 5,800? Engine isnt happy untill you hit 7,000 http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
[ QUOTE ]
I have an out sourced Dyno true engine Test booklet on Chevrolet engines.
They also road tested these cars:

1969 Camaro 302/290HP 4V @ 5800RPM with 290 torque @ 4200RPM & 11/1 compression.
Car weighed 3340 LBS.
LBS./BHP is 11.5
0 to 60 in 7 seconds
1/4 mile 14.8 seconds

1970 Camaro LT-1 350/360HP 4V @ 6000RPM with 380 torque @ 4000RPM & 11/1 compression.
Car weighed 3580 LBS.
LBS./BHP is 9.9
0 to 60 in 6.5 seconds
1/4 mile 15.4 seconds

[/ QUOTE ]

[SamLBInj]

[ QUOTE ]
True HP for the 302 is around 350.(stock) My opinion is the LT-1 is about 380 or so. NHRA rates the 302 at 305HP for stock eliminator. Jerry MacNeish in E/S is about 459 on the dyno. Remember that is everything at almost perfect specs with a super tune.

[/ QUOTE ]
Alright, so there you have it a STOCK 302 (Whith factory headers I am guessing) is pushing 350 which is 60 more than rated, the STOCK LT-1 rated at 370 is only pushing 10 more?...The 302 should be the better motor but we all know its not and I believe the reason is that the 302 comes from the factory pretty much maxed out and the LT-1 has alot more to go, Just adding the off road cam, headers and air cleaner will probably add 40 to 50 hp..So what is this saying? If I put a 302 in my 70 Z/28 and an LT-1 in my 69 Z/28 which is faster? what is more important power to weight or horsepower per cubic inch?...we can look at torque next..

[Salvatore]

I believe the LT-1 on the street is faster. Remember NHRA is horsepower to weight. So the LT-1 would have to be a little heavier. Believe it or not, I never see any 1970 Z/28's running with the LT-1 at the drags. The killer engine in my opinion is the 350/255hp. I think NHRA rates them at 274hp (I think) http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hmmm.gif They rate the 02 at 305. The cast iron intake, Q-jet and hydraulic cam doesn't effect the performance of the low hp 350 at the drags. Sam, If I had a 302 with a 3:73 gear and a 350/300 horse with a 4:10 gear both running good with headers,I think the 350 SS camaro may smoke the 02 camaro. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif

[SamLBInj]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the LT-1 on the street is faster. Remember NHRA is horsepower to weight. So the LT-1 would have to be a little heavier. Believe it or not, I never see any 1970 Z/28's running with the LT-1 at the drags. The killer engine in my opinion is the 350/255hp. I think NHRA rates them at 274hp (I think) http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hmmm.gif They rate the 02 at 305. The cast iron intake, Q-jet and hydraulic cam doesn't effect the performance of the low hp 350 at the drags. Sam, If I had a 302 with a 3:73 gear and a 350/300 horse with a 4:10 gear both running good with headers,I think the 350 SS camaro may smoke the 02 camaro. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
No way, that small of gearing will not make the difference in 50hp...

[Salvatore]

I don't know about that Sammy! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

[SamLBInj]

Your telling me that an 69 SS 350 with 4.11 will whoop a 69 Z/28 with 3.73 http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif I dont think so...

[Salvatore]

With me driving it will! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

[Verne_Frantz]

Jeff,
The first MPH timer is 66' before the finish line, and the second is 66' after the line. (132' total, 1/10th of the 1320 quarter). The average MPH over that distance "hypothetically" occurs at the halfway point, or the finish line. Of course, depending on where the car is in it's rpm/horsepower band, the actual MPH at the finish line might be quite different than what the time slip says. After all, the car is accelerating.
Which, by the way, brings up a certain way to have a lower MPH on a quicker ET run. Just let off the gas as soon as you cross the finish line, a little before the final MPH light.

Verne http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/3gears.gif

[70CitrusZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Camshaft, for one thing...

[/ QUOTE ]

That is it, there is no other advantage, if in fact it is an advantage.
The bigger cam would be required to support the higher revs a 302 would need to attain to produce the power required (vs. the 350.)
The lt-1 has screw in studs and guideplates ,smaller cam,
and more cubes.
The reason the factory rated the 302 at a lower RPM was to keep the advertised HP number down. You will note the Boss 302 is also rated at 290hp. Its a simple matter of deciding what advertised HP level needs to be, and pick the RPM point at which that happens and use it.
I do not believe the 302 has any "special" advantage over any other similarly equipped small block,other than perhaps a better rod stroke ratio, and had the engineers at GM been able to use a 327 or a 350 for that matter, I'm sure they would have.
The size choice was only to keep within the SCCA 5.0L limit at the time.
The LT-1 has it over the 302 owing to the cubic inch difference, and all if not more performance pieces.
The LT-1 was unfortunately saddled with a crappy retarded ignition from stock, and a leaner than optimal carb jetting, but a "super tuned" LT-1 is an engine to be reckoned with, and with a much better cam in any of the aftermarket grinds,(even keeping conservative) will show a pretty impressive HP and Torque.

[SamLBInj]

[ QUOTE ]
a "super tuned" LT-1 is an engine to be reckoned with, and will show a pretty impressive HP and Torque.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif

[Salvatore]

Sam, I tried to send you a PM clean out your mail box. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif

[SamLBInj]

Im a pack rat, all deleted, try now..

[musclcar]

my 72 camaro ss runs mid to high 12's with a 350sbc that engine was built using all 70's performance parts.here is what i've done to it :Engine : 350 sbc 425hp /490 ft lbs torque / 11.5:1 compression / ported-polished #462cyl heads 2.02-1.94 valves / GM #3927140 mechanical solid lifter cam257/269 dur. 493/512 lift 112 LSA 4200-7000rpm / pete jackson "noisy"gear drive / early 70's edelbrock TR1-X tunnel ram (2) 70's correctholley 600 vacuum secondary carbs / older mallory unilite mechanicaldistributor and accel super coil / baldwin motion valve covers / flex alite "green" fiberglass flex fan / hedman long tube headers w/ 3" pipeto flowmaster 1 chamber race mufflers terminated at the axle.Transmission: turbo 350 with shift kit and B&M 3000 stall converter.Rear axle: gm 10 bolt with 4.10 gears and welded up spider gears or"lincoln locker"i've had both the edelbrock TM-1 and edelbrock scorpion intakes on this motor with a older holley 850DP and have run high 12's http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/burnout.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/3gears.gif

[rsatz28]

[ QUOTE ]
Who wins the race between two stock Z's.....the '69 or '70 version?
Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

This type of race?

[Salvatore]

The 70 car if all is equal.

[SamLBInj]

Street tires?, if you are using slicks you should be running alot faster than that with what you have...otherwise you may want to update your suspension..

[rsatz28]

[ QUOTE ]
Street tires?, if you are using slicks you should be running alot faster than that with what you have...otherwise you may want to update your suspension..

[/ QUOTE ]

If things work out, I hope to take it back this Sep with drag radials, good tune-up and now have a full MSD ign system. I ran the car last year with the Radial T/A's.

[Jim Ferron]

ET and MPH will also be affected by how you stage the car...deeper = slower ET slower speed...shallow = faster ET and speed.[shallow = givesa rolling 'head start' before the clock starts]

[SamLBInj]

[ QUOTE ]
ET and MPH will also be affected by how you stage the car...deeper = slower ET slower speed...shallow = faster ET and speed.[shallow = givesa rolling 'head start' before the clock starts]

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hmmm.gif Huh? what do you mean a rolling start?

[musclcar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ET and MPH will also be affected by how you stage the car...deeper = slower ET slower speed...shallow = faster ET and speed.[shallow = givesa rolling 'head start' before the clock starts]

[/ QUOTE ] http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hmmm.gif Huh? what do you mean a rolling start?

[/ QUOTE ] as you stage in shallow your front wheels roll forward a foot before it trips the photocell and activates the timers. so you are actually getting a "rolling start" http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/3gears.gif

[musclecarjohn]

Intersting topic.
As an owner of both a '69 Z/28 (DZ302/M21/3.73 ratio) and a '70 1/2 RS Z/28 (LT-1/M21/3.73),I can state without a doubt that the '70 LT-1 would out-perform the 302 run in and run out.Like a previous poster mentioned,there is no excuse for cubic inches.
The LT-1 has gobs of power and more importantly torque down low and a well-tuned LT-1 will be on the cam and chomping at the bit at 3500rpm.We all know a 302 doesn't really start coming on the cam until 4 grand and then it's hold on until 7500-8000 or until she blows!
Love driving my '70...possibly the best all-around Z/28 ever made.But nothing I own puts a smile on my face like a quick spin behind the wheel of my '69...and that includes my '70 SS-454 LS-6 Chevelle.

[SamLBInj]

I agree with you, try putting that LT-1 in your 69, thats the best ride you can get for pure fun http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/headbang.gif

[Salvatore]

Hey John, Where were you a week ago? I rest my case! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/3gears.gif

[musclecarjohn]

Yeah,I know...I've been too busy with car stuff!
No doubt the early 2nd. gen cars are perhaps the most beautiful built (especially the RS cars)but how are you going to deny the '69 the status of "awesome" musclecar?
truly a beautiful bodystyle...one I cannot stop looking at.I could say the same thing about the '70-'72 Chevelle...no spoilers front or rear...but who needs 'em when it looks this good?

But that's a different subject altogether.

All I can say is I bought the '70 1/2 in 1979 while I was searching for a yellow '69 and no 20+ years later,I've come full-circle.

God love the '65-'72 Chevrolet musclecars!

I think I'll go grab a beer and go gaze at the '69 in the garage...check in with you guys later.

[musclecarjohn]

OK,I'm back for now while the wife is in the shower.

My '69 was originally a Frost Green car (code #59)and I know you purists will all argue that it should have remained that color but I just couldn't live with it.Green (and not a NICE green like Ralley Green)but drab olive green with green everything...carpet,console,headliner,steering column,etc...and I just couldn't live with that.I painted it 2003 Corvette Z06 Millenium Yellow (with Black stripes)and it looks just awesome.Completely new interior,glass,every nut & bolt,front to rear.Second car I've restored like this and I think it's my last.

Last weekend at the Monterey Historics,Jim Hall and all 7 Chaparral's came out of his museum in Texas and rans laps around Laguna Seca.It was a blast for any Chevy fan to get to experience these cars running,especially the 2J car which was the "vacuum" car that had a snowmobile motor that ran the suction system.That car would "suck" itself down towards the track and was just light years ahead of the competition during that time...I mean 2+ seconds quicker than the McClaren's!Four races after it debuted it was out-lawed and so ended Can-Am as it was known.

It was a great time and I got Jim to sign all my Can-Am & Trans-Am books.

Speaking of Trans-Am,I know Ken Epsman who owns the championship winning '69 Sunoco Camaro (he recently turned down an offer somewhat south of $750K for the car!)and he has recently had it restored the way it ran during the early part of the '69 season,when the car had Red interior and the infamous vinyl top.Kenny has three T-A cars ('70 Sam Posey "sublime" Challenger and a '71 Penske Javelin.He also drove his '76 Dekon Monza against the Porsche Turbo's and kicked some German a**!

Anyway as you can tell,I love ALL things Chevrolet.

Check in a little later...