If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
A 1996 is listed, which is the same style as the '95, but has a 4.6L as opposed to the '95s 5.0L. They have the same horsepower rating, but I'm not sure what the difference in weight between the two is.
It may have made sense before the rules allowed updating suspension components, since the 99+ GT suspension was retuned...presumably better than the 94-98 GT years. However, as far as I know, the only non-tuning related change to the suspension of the 99, was wider rear axles, which could be installed into a 94-98. Additionally, I'd much rather have a stock 98 Cobra suspension than a stock 99 GT suspension. So the 99+ GT's rated at 50% while the 98 Cobra is at 45% is whack.
The end potential (full race setup) of the 2 suspensions is identical. Actually, it's even pretty close to the end potential of the 35% fox body setup.
Thanks Doug, yes I have been waiting on this, at open house they threw me in the data base under late 80,s IROC but i,m only running a 305 and the irocs had 350's did they not? Nice to have this cleared up by next weekend. Would this be feaseable??
Scott Tapley
85 IROCs with M5 trannys had either a regular 305 LG4 or 305 HO, and had 155 HP & 190 HP respectively.
In 86, with the same configuration, it changed to 165 HP & 190 HP respectively. Mine is an 86 Z28 (same numbers as the IROC) so I'm requesting it to be added to the base list.
Thanks.
P.S. - I see that the "Chevrolet Camaro Z28 (1985-1985)" is in there with a Factory Crank HP of 215 which is wrong. See above..it's either 155 or 190.
Ray
#73 Genesis Coupe 2.0T Sponsors: Xclusive Tuning, UniqPerformance.ca, Tiretrackers
Comment