It'll do 130 mph in third gear

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

Neighbor across the street just backed his souped up 97 Camaro out of garage for first time in about a year. He told me when we first moved here that the car has 28,000 miles on it and the original tires.He special ordered the vehicle with the biggest engine GM offered that year. Now he is out in Nebraska hinterland blowing the carbon out of it. Says interstate traffic is too slow for the car's gear ratios. I'm waiting to see if he returns or a sheriff's deputy shows up across the street to notify his widow.

 

[bdcardinal]

When people like that talk I just nod and walk away. Seems like all the car shows and car gatherings are full of people like that, which is why I don't go anymore.

 

[69GTX]

I find the 130 mph claim in 3rd gear to be hard to believe. My 1999 Camaro SS M6 maxes out at 103 mph in 3rd gear with a 3.42 ratio. If the guy owns an A4 then the lower 3.23 factory gear ratio would boost that up to around 109 mph. Not sure how 3rd in the automatic vs 3rd in the manual compare, but they shouldn't be 20% different. And if this guy really has a built car, he more than likely has a stiffer rear ratio than 3.42. If for some reason he has a built engine with a "Bonneville Salt Flats" rear end ratio (3.00 or lower) then he is certainly one of very few who would go in that direction. How long can you drive steadily at 130 mph before it gets "old" or you run out of room, or run into a Trooper?

1999 Camaro data

Original tires? If they are, then they are very close to being totally tread-free. I ditched my original factory tires 2 years ago with 15K miles and they had about 30-40% tread life left...on a car that has been driven very easily with essentially no burnouts or races. Most original tires on these cars wear out in the 15K-25K range depending on driving style. Driving 130 mph on 20 year old factory tires with 28K miles....now that's insane.

The only optioned "factory" engine above a V6 in 1997 was the regular old 5.7L V8 LT1 with a rated 275 hp. I'm not aware of any factory engine you could get over that in an ordered Camaro. Any thing stronger had to come from SLP in an SS alteration package....which was just intake/exhaust mods. I think the Firehawks of that year could have been as high as 300-330 hp.

 

[69GTX]

1997 LT4 SS Camaro

OK. You could have been of 106 people in the world to order the 1997 SS LT4 Camaro rated at 330 hp....the Grand Sport Vette engine. That was a $17,000 option on top of the regular $22K+ Z28 price...around $50K all in. The regular LT1 SS SLP option was rated at 305-310 hp with upgraded intake/exhaust. That rating on the LT4 is not that impressive considering my bone stock '99 LS1 SS with some SLP options came rated at 327 hp...at around $30K. And I was the 2nd owner at 12K miles for a $12K price tag.

 

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

Originally Posted By: 69GTX
I find the 130 mph claim in 3rd gear to be hard to believe. My 1999 Camaro SS M6 maxes out at 103 mph in 3rd gear with a 3.42 ratio. If the guy owns an A4 then the lower 3.23 factory gear ratio would boost that up to around 109 mph. Not sure how 3rd in the automatic vs 3rd in the manual compare, but they shouldn't be 20% different. And if this guy really has a built car, he more than likely has a stiffer rear ratio than 3.42. If for some reason he has a built engine with a "Bonneville Salt Flats" rear end ratio (3.00 or lower) then he is certainly one of very few who would go in that direction. How long can you drive steadily at 130 mph before it gets "old" or you run out of room, or run into a Trooper?

1999 Camaro data

Original tires? If they are, then they are very close to being totally tread-free. I ditched my original factory tires 2 years ago with 15K miles and they had about 30-40% tread life left...on a car that has been driven very easily with essentially no burnouts or races. Most original tires on these cars wear out in the 15K-25K range depending on driving style. Driving 130 mph on 20 year old factory tires....now that's insane.

The only optioned engine above a V6 in 1997 was the regular old 5.7L V8 LT1 with a rated 275 hp. I'm not aware of any factory engine you could get over that in an ordered Camaro. Any thing stronger had to come from SLP in an SS alteration package....which was just intake/exhaust mods. I think the Firehawks of that year could have been as high as 300-330 hp....though I'm not sure of the Camaro SS's. I'll take your word for it sir. I'm not going to find out what it will do period. Thanks

 

[bdcardinal]

Originally Posted By: 69GTX
1997 LT4 SS Camaro

OK. You could have been of 106 people in the world to order the 1997 SS LT4 Camaro rated at 330 hp....that engine went into the Grand Sport Vette. That was a $17,000 option on top of the regular $22K Z28 price...around $50K all in. The regular LT1 SS option was rated at 300-310 hp with upgraded intake/exhaust. That rating on the LT4 is not that impressive considering my '99 LS1 with some SLP options came rated at 327 hp...at around $30K.


And it still will chuck the Optispark and leave you stranded on the side of the road just like the regular POS LT1s.

 

[69GTX]

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
And it still will chuck the Optispark and leave you stranded on the side of the road just like the regular POS LT1s.


Not always.

I owned a pair of LT1's...a 1993 TA with 55K miles and a 1995 TA with 75K miles. Never had a problem with an Optispark. I bought both cars used at 22K and 42K miles. No engine/trans/drive train issue the entire time. On both cars I did try to avoid nasty weather like rain and snow since they handled somewhat poorly in those conditions. But, both cars saw a little of it. Those were both great cars without problems. The 93 TA's biggest "issue" was a mouse that got into the engine bay and nibbled on some wires. Maybe if I had driven those cars to 100K miles and 10 yrs old the Opti-spark may have bit me.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

My brother's 2000 Camaro will do around 139 in the 1/4 in 3rd gear.... but it's got a built 404-cube LS3, 200 shot, at 6800 rpm and it's a Turbo 400 on a 29" tire. I smell something funny in that guys's claim...

 

[Tman220]

haha wow, a lot of haters in here. The guy does sound like to stereotypical know-nothing talk-a-bunch

But if this guy has an automatic, 3rd gear is 1:1

With 2.73's in the rear 130 mph is achieved at 4,791 RPM
with 3.23's in the rear 130 mph is achieved at 5,668 RPM

Either of which a bone stock LT1 will easily do all day.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

The "biggest" engine in an F-body that year (actually the most "factory" horsepower, if you include SLP mods as factory, since the displacement is the same) was in a very limited number of Chevrolet Camaro 30th Anniversary SS LT4 cars. SLP put left over LT4 engines from the 1996 Corvette Grand Sport production run into 100 SS Camaros. SLP did blueprint those engines, and raised the redline to 6300 RPM which would account for a bit of an increase in 3rd gear top speed, but not that much.

If he has the 30th Anniversary SS LT4 car, he does have a unicorn. I suspect he has a basic Z28, or possibly a B4C Special Service Coupe (Police Package), with, as 69GTX mentioned, an LT1. I agree with 69GTX that it would be nuts to take that car to triple digit speeds with original tires.

 

[jaj]

Regardless of anything else, I wouldn't go 100MPH, much less any faster, on 19 year old tires.

 

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

He made it home. What is the Optispark? Camaro going back in garage for another year. 41 Chevy i6 OHV will be back in driveway. Nice to hear an old Blue Flame six rattling again.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Optispark is the distributor replacement. It was moved from the back of the engine in the SBC to the front with the LT1. Leaks from the water pump tended to destroy it.

 

[andyd]

The numbers tossed around here. 103 in 3rd with a 3.42 is very close to 5k RPM in 3 doing an indicated 105 MPH on a 3.46 diff with an engine rated for 128 hp. Nothing like driving as slow car fast

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: jaj
Regardless of anything else, I wouldn't go 100MPH, much less any faster, on 19 year old tires.


OMG yes. That thing's a menace.

 

[69GTX]

Originally Posted By: andyd
The numbers tossed around here. 103 in 3rd with a 3.42 is very close to 5k RPM in 3 doing an indicated 105 MPH on a 3.46 diff with an engine rated for 128 hp. Nothing like driving as slow car fast

The automatics didn't come with a 3.42, only the manual 6 speeds. If the guy has an automatic it came with 3.23's from the factory.

My 1999 M6 does 103 mph (theoretical) at 6,000 rpm in 3rd gear on a factory 3.42 gear (4.446 final drive ratio).
In 4th at 1:1 it can theoretically do 134 mph at 6,000 rpm (3.42 final drive ratio).

1999 Camaro specs

So thanks to Tman220 for noting that a 3.23 LT1 could do 130 mph easily.....actually up to 141 mph in 3rd. I had 2 of those cars and never got near 100 mph in 3rd gear. Never thought of it.

 

[stevo585]

V8 cars with V6 power.

Engines have came along way.

 

[Merkava_4]

A brand new 1986 Mercury Capri 5.0L will do 80 MPH in 2nd gear. That's far more impressive to me.

Also, the engine will still be running at a perfect idle after the car rolls 6 times across the freeway.

Buddy's car.

 

[69GTX]

Originally Posted By: stevo585
V8 cars with V6 power.

Engines have came along way.


But they don't have the V8 torque (ie kick in the pants)...nor the top end breathing ability. The LS1 V8's are easily modded up to 380-400 hp...and higher if you want.

Today's V6 Camaro at approx 320-335 hp is not quite the same experience as the 1998-2002 V8 with the same 330 hp.
The V6 has 284 ft-lb of torque vs 345 for the V8...not even close. And that V8 torque is maxed by 4000 rpm...plenty of low end.
The 284 ft-lbs of new Camaro V6 torque is reached by the LS1 V8 at 2,000 rpm.

And the V6 needs 6800 rpm to get that hp....the old V8 only 5200. Very different cars from that respect.

 

[bullwinkle]

Sure, it's possible-fastest I ever went in my (mis-spent) youth was around 125 MPH in my old '76 Starfire (like a Monza) with a 231 V6 & Turbo 350-guarantee even an unbuilt V8 Camaro could get there, especially with an overdrive automatic.