The W7 and W6 subs sound very good IB. I bet the W3 would sound good as well. Dismantle the box you have now, reuse the face plate with the sub holes cut in it and attach it to a baffle. That could be a very quick and cheap project.

I think we agree that a sealed box is a waste in a car that is IB friendly.

 

Funny. You made me laugh. Your an ok guy Matt. You're trying to play nice. And that's good. Anyway, that's a good idea. I didn't think of that. But unfortunately the box has a vertical port between the speakers. And I hate to destroy the box. I may want to keep the box.for. something else later. Good idea though. Oh, I already got a thick piece of wood to use. I figure it will support 1 w3.

 

Lol. As long as we don't talk about GNs and IROCs together we're good.

 

ya we dont have to talk about iroc's beating up on GN's.. but this car will out run a GN .. and I have his pictures. its all original.. I should go buy it and show you.
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ftw/cto/2796437675.html

 

4th gen fbodys are great stereo cars. My 01 is my 5th, and I've had over 20 across 4th, 3rd, and 2nd gens.

Chad- did you ever tell us what type of music you listen too? Also, I'm going to slap a j-pipe on my TL in the next month or so so I can offset the 20lbs that the box adds in that transaction. BTW, I've got the SS to win races......

Ihate- The only reason I went with the sealed box is because its an easy bolt-in that takes up only "useless" space. I need the trunk free for my lugage when I travel (a good bit for work). It should do well with the 500w from the MRP-M500. Defintely better than the struggling 8" Pioneer in the rear deck.

 

No stock IROC will outrun a stock GN period. What are you going to show me, what a 15 second car looks like against a 10 second car?
I agree. The F-body would be next to impossible to do an IB install on.

One member on here had a 4th gen that did very well in competition but it was recently wrecked. Of course, I'm partial to the '89 TTA.

I had a pair of subs in the GN at one time but once I set out to get it down to 3,000lbs everything came out except for the head unit and the 3.5" Infinity speakers in the dash. I've thought about doing a single IB15 which would add about 30lbs to the car including the baffle and amp but it was so hard to get the weight off in the first place and I still didn't hit my goal of 3,000lbs but I came close. I've had it like this for 5 years and no trips to the track. It made 602rwhp and just a hair over 3,000lbs. If it hooks it might run that 9.99 but I'll probably never know.

So what all do you have done to the current Camaro? I remember when the 4th gens were everywhere and at least half of the ones in my area had heads/cam/nitrous. Now I don't see them much anymore. One of my friends bought a brand new SS and it dyno'd 326hp to the wheels. The dyno operator brought everyone over to see it because it was the highest dynoing stock LS1 he had ever seen. We took it to the track and got only one run ever while it was stock but it went 13.6@109mph just rolling easy off the line.

 

MrMilano: Tiesto, Paul Oakenfold, Paul Van Dyk, Anjunabeats, Ministry of Sound and ton of other pop stuff like Madonna, Enrique Iglesias, and mix CD's.

Ihc: I raced a GN back in the day in my 86 Iroc. Starting in 86, the 305's were de-tuned. But still, the 305's and the 5.7's have over 300 ft# of torque! They will boogie. Nevertheless, my 305 ran neck in neck with a GN on the highway. My Iroc was unmodified and de-tuned in 86. So I know this 88 or 89 350 will rip up a GN.

 

I would love what you're smoking. Stock GNs put more than the rated hp to the wheels.

It's possible you ran into a hotair GN which is 200/300lbs but even that would be a hard race for an IROC to win.

The 305 was as slow or slower than a 5at base TL.

Here, an article from '88 with the 5.0 and 5.7. http://www.thirdgen.org/rt-camaroiroczvsmustangho-1988

'87 GN: http://musclecarfacts.net/buick-gran...grand-national

They got the hotair mixed up in there but what a "small" difference.

These two cars are 2 seconds and 13mph different. It's not a close race, it's an all out ass whooping. This is why it bothers me when you say this kind of stuff, claiming to beat a GN in a stock IROC. Assuming both cars are running right, it will never happen. Throw $200 at both cars and the GN is a 12 second car and IROC is still in the 15s.

As for HP, everyone knows the GN was underrated, you can look at it's trap speed vs weight. You mentioned all of the torque the IROC makes, the GN makes significantly more even though it's underrated.

To summarize:

245hp/355lbs for the '86-'87 GN.
276hp/360lbs for the GNX

220hp/290lbs for the most powerful version of the 5.0
230hp/330lbs for the 5.7L

5.5 0-60 GN
4.7 0-60 GNX
6.9 0-60 5.0
6.6 0-60 5.7

13.4@103mph 13.7@101mph GNX/GN
15.2@91mph 5.7L IROC
15.4@91mph 5.0 IROC

I made a joke about the GN vs IROC trying to lighten things up a bit because you freaked out the last time we had this discussion and here we are again. If you take the slowest version of the GN and put it against the quickest version of the IROC you're still talking a 1.3 second and 10mph difference.

 

There were 20 Thousand GN's made and only 547 of the "fast version". So, 97% chance I raced the plane GN, not the GNX.

The convertible 305 Iroc ran 15.5. That was the slowest form they made. I have an original magazine from 1987 as a collection.

The GN is bigger than the Iroc. And according to your link, 97% of the GN's run 14.7 seconds in the 1/4mi.

That would explain why I was running neck and neck with that GN back in the day. But my 305 was for some reason a little faster than my friends 305. I think if you drive a car hard, it runs a little better and I drove the heck out of that car. And it had an early death too.

Anyway, I have a magazine clipping dated June 1986 that I can scan tomorrow. It says "350 Camaro Iroc". And the car ran 14.5 seconds in the 1/4mi. according to the article. The 350's are faster than the 305's. So that makes sense because the Vert ran 15.5 with a 305.

So, 14.5 seconds is faster than 97% of the GN's that were put on the road.

I remember when they came out. And all the hype around it. But it didn't really live up to the hype because it was just another turbo 6 cylinder. Like the turbo Trans am. Sorta. I never liked 6 cylinders. Turbo or not. I like the grunt and sound of a 8 cyl. But even though the GN wasn't terribly fast, its still a collectors item to some people. Personally, I dont like the buick look. never have. Black is good though.

 

anyway we can argue about it offline sometime. haha who cares.. it doesnt matter which one is faster anyway. There is more to a car than just acceleration. Especially when you are talking about .4 seconds

 

You're unbelievable. 86 to 87 regular GNs run 14.0 to 13.7 bone stock on factory tires which are a hard 215 width. The 2000 hotairs built ran 14.7 to 15.2.

The 89TTA is the quickest F-body ever made. So if that did not live up to the hype, what does that say of the v8 slug of the day.

The f-bodies of the day were not in the same league as the GN. You're insulting the GN by mentioning them in the same sentence.

If you want to talk about personal times, I've literally run a bone stock GN down to the factory paper filter with modern stock replacement tires to many 13.4 second times. I've run a bone stock TTA to a 13.0. I have video of me beating a 6mt WS6 with exhaust 3 out 3 times in a factory stock TTA.

A stock regular GN has 10mph on the 5.7 IROC.

Lets not get into handling because the GNX out handled the IROC and the regular GN was not far behind. The GN did not handle good, the IROC was just a piss poor handling car.

What does the GN being bigger have to do with anything. The weight was almost identical. The size is actually very close as well other than height.

For a supposed engineer you love to base your arguments on emotion and no fact.

The IROCs were nice for what they were but they were not fast at all.

 

You must have my old discontinued Orion xtr210 to have a decent system, whatsoever. First 200 gets rights to the first bid.

 

Don't miss the superbowl

 

The TTAs were low 13s stock, and the LS1 Zs and Formulas do the same stock. I've had 2 86 TPI 305 T/As, and both a 305 TBI Formula and a 350 Formula. The Formula was a beast with nothing but a cat-back. That being said, I would have never lined it up with a GN or a GNX.

Tires, drivers, and road temps/conditions have a boat load of impact. I've seen some really weird stuff with pony cars in my day. None of this matters, with '11 Mustangs running sub 5 second 0-60 and 5th gen Camaros not far behind them.

I love talking about pony cars, but we are WAY off topic!

 

It seems like any review always depends on who is testing the car as.to just how the results come.out.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_th...r_an_89_iroc-z

 

Now thats something reasonable I can agree with.

 

Do u feel better ihc? So have you had your car on a dyno or taken it to a track?

 

Seriously? I've been down the track over 200 times in the GN, many more times in other cars, the hp and times are in my sig. Car should go 9.90-9.80s at its current hp and weight.

My first pass down the 1/4 in my GN was bone stock at 17yrs old in '94 and ran a best of 13.70 with over 200k on the original engine. 12.70 with under $200 in mods.

 

GN: 1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 14.3 @ 96.1

http://www.insideline.com/buick/rega...cxl-turbo.html


1986 Iroc 5.7: 14.5secs


Now consider the better handling, better sounding exhaust, better aerodynamics, better braking, in the IROC, and I think we have a winner. hehe And in my opinion, the tires have a better profile and just the entire car looks better(engine and body). Not sure whatelse to say.

 

Seriouisly, grow a fucking brain. You post a video where they don't even powerbrake the car. Do you want me to search for some 16 second IROC times because I'm sure they're out there. I'm tired of your questioning everything that has been solved for years whether it's your "new ideas" in car audio or your painfully flawed performance thinking. For bending facts that somehow a pile of shit IROC can run within a full second of a GN, and how can anyone in their right mind think a tuned port engine looks anything close to a turbo 6.

Since we're playing this game:

Modded:

Stock:

Stock with a little chrome:


Yep, real nice Chad.


Typical IROC seen on the streets today:


Typical GN:

Stock:


Looks are subjective but the IROC looks like what any trailer park mullet wearing tweaker would drive. The GN is classier and special. It's not for everyone, I know that but the last car I would argue looks with is an IROC.

As for sound, I guess some people prefer a small cammed choked off smogger V8 to the whistle of the turbo engine but you're in the minority.

As I said, with nothing but a modern ordinary tire I've driven GNs to 13.4 second times bone stock.

I've driven them to 13.7 and one 13.6 second run absolutely factory stock. So finding the slowest possible time means nothing. I ran a 16.4 in my GN the first time ever at the track. Later that day with no changes to the car I was running 13.9 and later 13.7.

Here's the great thing about a GN, you throw a $300 methanol kit and here's what you get:


Bone stock GNX vs a Calloway Vette video by GM in '87. If you didn't realize it already, this Vette is MUCH quicker than your IROC:


Here you go, a list of hundreds of cars' stock 0-60 and 1/4 times:
http://www.carforums.net/showthread....and-0-60-times

Last but not least, Chad, here's the quickest cars in 1997 all the way to the '60s. This is including such legends as the Hemi Cuda and 454 Chevelle. If you noticed, the Viper took 1st and the GN took 2nd. Where's the IROC in this picture. It shows what the cars run in real life, not a magazine that does not know how to powerbrake.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KmY...t-type&f=false

I'm out of here after this, don't expect any replies to cars or to your distorted view of car audio. I am looking forward to seeing your "new ideas" in action lol.

 

Another Iroc review 14.5 standing 1/4 mile. Must be all about the driver.
https://picasaweb.google.com/1014805...eat=directlink

 

I'm done with this sillyness. This stuff was debated 20 years ago when that crap was new! Nothing runs with the new muscle. I like my old SS, but it is slooooow brothers!

 

Right. The problem is, someone is trying to rewrite history with twisted facts.

The average new muscle isn't that much quicker. Stock for stock, the '87 GN would be very close to a new Camaro SS, the GNX quicker than a new SS. There's not that big of a difference between the base muscle cars.

The old LX Foxbody 5.0 could almost hang with some of the new muscle. I've seen stock LS1 powered F-bodies run as quick as the newer cars.

The difference between the special editions like the Z06 and ZR1 and the ZL1 has widened considerably. Which reminds me, one of the last cars I smoked was a new ZR1.

 

holy shit. I couldn't even finish reading this thread. Chad is either the biggest troll in the history of time or the best example of the dunning kruger effect I have ever seen.

IHC, I know you like to debate and prove people wrong, but this guy is a total waste of time. DELETE THREAD, BAN USER.

 

I assume you are not referring to a C6 Zr1... I mean, a "new" Zr1 has 600+ horsepower. You have like 200+ right?

Anyway... another factory run.

GN = 14.3... plain as day.

 

There should be a minimum IQ requirement to post on this site.

 

delusional.....

 

Not trying to rehash anything but as I was looking for a clean IROC or TA to buy, I ran across this awesome GTA with only 440 miles. It's on ebay at this time.. but I went to his website and this guy is a collector of new cars.. He has a complete BIO and he sounds like he knows what he is talking about.. So, anyway, I'm reading along and he mentions the turbo 3800 in the Turbo GTA. Which I assume is like IHC's GN, since he made the comparison. I have no idea though.. But Anyway, check out what he says about the GTA. He has a high price on his GTA on ebay.. like 48k. Prolly won't sell but still.. the car is a dream.

The cluster is so red, the bulbs have not even been burned in.
The air dam under the front bumper is still untouched.
The t-tops have never been removed..

What a car!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1989-...item231a8d14a4


or
GTA
http://www.mcsmk8.com/89-GTAB/89-GTA.HTM

or homepage
http://www.mcsmk8.com/cadillacs/mycads.htm

 

I'm not sure if you're still in a pissing contest so I'll present this one just in case, a $130,000 GNX with 9 miles.

http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...alm-beach.html

The '89 TTA was the quickest F-body ever made. I've driven 5 of the 1,550 ever made. One was bone stock down to the paper air filter, stock chip, and stock boost level. I drove it to a 12.7 factory stock with some practice. Most mags got 13.4s out of them. I have a video somewhere of a factory stock TTA against a 6mt WS6 at our street races to settle a bet with the locals that the LC2 powered TTA is quicker than the LS1 F-body even though the LS1 had exhaust the TTA still won 3 out of 3 times.

It's the only V6 to have the Trans-am designation. It was the first car to pace the Indy 500 with no mods other than lights. It came standard with the 1LE package and the GN's 200-4R transmission (the only time it was ever put in an F-body) and the Australian 9 bolt with a 3.27 ratio.

 

GNX's are not the same as GN's like yours and the Turbo TA.
They are more rare so ya, I can see them as going for more $ at barret, but notice that was usual too, since they made a big "to do" out of it..

Anyway!!
So, the stats on both of engines in debate are as such.
89 IROC-Z Formula Trans AM GTA
A4 L98 V8 9.3:1 5.7 (350) 240@4400 345@3200 TPI

89 Turbo Trans Am (Grand National) A4 LC2 V6 8.0:1
3.8 (231) 250@4400 340@2800 SFI


According to the stats, under optimum conditions for your turbo, you can muster out 10 more horsepower at the top of the power curve. The 5.7 has 5 more foot-pounds of torque. I don't live at the top of my power cycle, I want instant power with no turbo lag from heat soak. I drive in town and I think torque is better for quicker response. V8's might have a higher torque rating because of more cubic inches and a larger crank. But even if the turbo has slightly more "umph" at the peak of the power curve during good conditions, but a slightly lower torque rating, for missing out on the best sounding V8 rumble of the 80's and possibly the 90's, that sure is a COSTLY 10hp that you may not feel unless you are on heightened sensory drugs.

I don't really think anyone would feel a noticable diffrence with 10 more horserpower but with 5 less foot pounds of torque 99% of the time of intown driving. The other 1% would be under great weather conditions and screaming down a track with your hair on fire.

That's ok.. I will take the predictability, drivability and sound of the 5.7. You can have the 6 banger.

Also according to this guy, a lot of people are overboosting their engines and breaking them.
http://www.mcsmk8.com/89-GTAB/89-GTA.HTM

I'd rather tweak a 5.7!!

 

I also just found out the GN is 3,500 pounds
http://www.insideline.com/buick/rega...cxl-turbo.html

And the IROC is only 3,225 pounds. (on page 2 and you have to download it to read it.)
https://plus.google.com/photos/10148...30829983478977


So much for 10 horsepower (under optimal conditions- no heat soak, no lag)

 

In 2012 news, I put my 12 in last week. Hammers very nicely, and pounds through the trunk just fine with my Pioneer 8 still in the deck.

Oh yeah...I also killed a 5.0 GT with the old SS last weekend.

 

Once again, you are the dumbest person on this board.

I've been in this hobby with this car since '94, so please, don't post links for me to read about something I was a huge part of. It won't take a whole lot of searching to find my name.

Boost IS increasing displacement.

I've run 30psi, no issues.

Turbo lag does not come from heat soak and irrelevant as it's non existent in these cars.

Take a look at dynos, the turbo 6 does have a flatter and wider torque and hp curve. Last I checked, 2,800rpm is lower than 4,400rpm.

TTAs just like GNs typically dyno around 300hp and well over 400lbs of torque. I've dynod not only a lot of GNs but plenty other cars, as well as hundreds of trips down the 1/4, my experience is not limited to a misinterpretation of google facts.

You're embarrassing yourself here Chad. Cut your mullet and find a new hobby. Or at least talk about something you own, not some fictitious car you may or may not have owned for a short period.

An IQ test during registration would eliminate these trolls.

 

This thread is hilarious. I met so many kids like this in college, they thought they were "free thinkers" or "thinking outside the box".
They were laughed at all the time and for good reason, but always said "I'm just thinking of things differently, you just hate that I think for myself".
Nope, they were thinking of things in the wrong way.
2+2 equals 4, no amount of "free thinking" can change that.
Physics/nature/mathematics has created a box that you simply can't escape.
It's good to "think outside the box" to create new ideas, but not to defy established facts just to seem smarter than you actually are.
Like another poster said a long time ago, there's nobody out there that is thinking "maybe square tires on a car would be more efficient", but that's essentially what's happening here.

 

...so as long as we are feeding trolls, do you think that a 8w7 would take my olds out of the 11s and into the 10s? What about a pair of them?

 

Pair is good for high 10's. Step up to a 12" and you're flirting with 9's

 

Looks like it's time to add a sub to my car. I'm all out of things to chrome to make it go faster.

 

You pick up the pep boys hood scoop? Don't forget that

 

I feel ya. I had to chrome the sidewalls of my T/As to finally beat an Iroc.

 

Which brings up a great point, I do have the IROC front swaybar on my car, maybe that's why it runs harder than normal. With some IROC rims and a mullet, 9s are a certainty.