1970 Camaro Z28 Road Test

[FS87LT]

Obviously, traction was an issue for the 1970s cars. Even with one of the best performance tires of the time on them.

I suspect that almost ANY modern rubber in a 18" Z-rated tire would be nearly as good as any street radial drag slick, without the issues of driving slicks on normal streets. BUT getting better traction would also lead to other areas in the car which would be needed, too! Especially a good set of subframe connectors!

Just some thoughts,
FS87LT

 

[76z28]

@Patstuff28 and COPO, Thanks for sharing these very interesting articles from way back then.

In reading the articles, COPO's in particular, it's not hard to tell what additional gearing and traction/tune would do to the 1970 Z/28 quarter mile performance. There is a full second untapped in that combo.

With a 100.3 mph trap speed, this lines up with a 13.2 ET "potential" if optimized, 12.90 if science'd out.

Take that new 1970 Z/28, install a modern multi geared manual trans and drag radials with shocks/carb/ignition/headers and it would be still considered quick 53 years later with an engine designed 69 years ago, just saying.

No it wouldn't...
Look at the trap speeds of the new cars and "optimize" those. If you want to bench race those with "optimization and scienced out" then we would see it's not even a comparison.

 

[xten]

I personally drove a 1970 Z28 to a best of 12.66. Don't remember MPH. Headers, slicks, gears, slapper bars. Everything else bone stock.

 

[76z28]

I personally drove a 1970 Z28 to a best of 12.66. Don't remember MPH. Headers, slicks, gears, slapper bars. Everything else bone stock.

I mean.. that's not really bone stock but sure.
Let's throw those same headers, slicks, gears, and traction devices on a brand new camaro. It would be in the high 10s.

 

[xten]

These are the best I could do with pics. After all, the magazine is 53 years old and faded. And as Tom 3 said, the background makes it even harder to read.

 

[xten]

I mean.. that's not really bone stock but sure.
Let's throw those same headers, slicks, gears, and traction devices on a brand new camaro. It would be in the high 10s.

Couple bolt ons. Stock internals, including camshaft, rotating assembly, no headwork, stock clutch assy, trans, shifter and diff. Ring and pinion change. Car was still brand new. He took it home from the dealer and we put the headers on within a week. IMO, that's stock.
Deep gears (4.88's in that 70 Z) would hurt a new Camaro, and I thought they had traction control. No need for slicks or primitive traction devices. Apples and oranges and without the appeal of the 2nd gen.

 

[76z28]

Couple bolt ons. Stock internals, including camshaft, rotating assembly, no headwork, stock clutch assy, trans, shifter and diff. Ring and pinion change. Car was still brand new. He took it home from the dealer and we put the headers on within a week. IMO, that's stock.
Deep gears (4.88's in that 70 Z) would hurt a new Camaro, and I thought they had traction control. No need for slicks or primitive traction devices. Apples and oranges and without the appeal of the 2nd gen.

Let's keep them with the same SLR and traction control is a hinderance since power would be limited.

They absolutely need better tires(drag radials) or similar since then they won't be limited on power.

It's always funny to see how older generations think these olds cars were fast.. when they werent.

Here's the camaro fast list.. with similar modifications to make it "apples to apples"

 

[Patstuff28]

What I would really like to see is some Firestone Wide Ovals F70-15 on a late model muscle car, to see how many seconds that it ads to the ET.

 

[FS87LT]

ONE thing must be understood, each generation has their own "normal" for what "fast" is. In the middle 1960s, some of the quickest cars (from magazine road tests) would go 0-60 in 7.0 seconds, with about 3.50 gears and normal stock bias-ply tires. By the 1990s, a normal Buick Regal 3800 V-6 would run as quickly, bone stock from a rental fleet. And now, it seems that it takes 1000horsepower just to go to the local convenience store for a loaf of bread. But some also felt the same way about a 350 4-bolt block in their car, in the 1970s.

As for "stock", we might also term that "OEM vehicle warrantiable stock". Everything that was done to that new Camaro, back then, served to void the warranty on at least the engine and rear axle, due to other alterations, fwiw. No matter if what was internal to the engine was still as the engine plant built it.

As for "sensory input", I would suspect the slower, vintage cars were king in this respect. Had to know how to drive them, too, for best results, compared to the recent cars with all of their electronic over-rides and aids. Putting a 8L90E transmission in the 4.88-geared Camaro would at least double the 1st gear torque multiplication, while still allowing for a 3.42 top gear cruising ratio.

IF I want to go out and "feel" the experience of driving, I'll take an older car any time over a "point, stab, and steer" recent production car. Certainly the newer car would be faster, but without all of the things which make an older factory hot rod more fun to drive and be in. That's just me and my "normal".

IF you want to see something slow down, put one of the turbo 4-cyls in front of a THM700 (4L60) and see how much slower they get after that 1-2 shift.

Enjoy!
FS87LT

 

[xten]

It's always funny to see how older generations think these olds cars were fast.. when they werent.

Olds cars? Like a W30 442? lol For the time, they were fast and fun to drive.

Here's the camaro fast list.. with similar modifications to make it "apples to apples"

Still not "apples to apples" for me. Technology is a great thing, but so is simplicity. If I wanted a new one, I'd buy one. They just don't appeal to or interest me. Guess it's a relative thing...