FiveOhNo

it's called abuse. IROC's are one of the most beat up cars usually...not to mention the 5.7 tpi was kinda sucky, so it couldn't actually handle the abuse of a thousand rednecks. a nice one is pretty quick though...for its time

PipsBlackStang

I agree. A friend of my brothers thought his Iroc was insanely fast and when I rode along with him I had to break it to him that it was pretty slow. He had a carb so im guessing it was the 190 hp one. It was all stock except for exhaust.

92hatchLX

I agree on the redneck part I have yet to see an original IROC Z that ain't abused.

UhadMEatGT

1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z 6.6 14.90
1988 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z 7.0 15.50
1990 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z 5.8 14.40
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z L98 6.8 15.30
1985 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z28 7.0 15.20

1985 Ford Mustang GT 7.2 15.90
1987 Ford Mustang GT 6.7 15.30
1988 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 15.00
1991 Ford Mustang GT 7.3 15.60
1994 Ford Mustang GT 6.7 15.10
1999 Ford Mustang GT 5.5 14.10

Why on ALL forums do people consistently compare their cars to other cars with the exact or similar performance and say they are "slow". So essentially, your car is slow too, huh! I am just a huge car nut, so I am pretty good at keeping up on actual facts of many many cars, not just Mustangs. Here on some stats on the older cars showing that typically the Chevy/Ford fight remains fairly equal. They usually just take turns swapping who is official King of the Hill.

99saleen351r

The 87,88 and 91 facts dont seem correct.My friend bought a new 91 and it ran 13.8 Bone stock, are those car and driver Times?

1993mustanggt

ya that old iroc was all different colors. it had a blue door, red fenders a black hood etc.
if that race had of got out of hand i had my spray ready.

92hatchLX

alright dude you're facts are INCORRECT sorry to break it to you that ford never made a 1987-1993 with anything other than a 2.3L or the famous 5.0, get your **** straight dumbass. Your times are even off! Better luck next time!

UhadMEatGT

Holy sh?t, you are that stupid. First off chief, I guarantee you wouldnt be calling me any names in my face, so dont act brave on your keyboard.
Secondly, WTF are you talking about. Those times are for 5.0L. Oh, I see, you had trouble figuring out that those times are 0-60 TIMES, NOT ENGINE SIZE!! What a squid. I was selling these Mustangs for 2 years in 90-91......which would have made you....oh.....1-2 years old. I think I have the 2.3L and 5.0L thing down. I was riding around in all the IROCS, 5.0L's, GTA's, 89 TURBO T/A's, GN's, etc. exact cars as they were brand new. I am feeding you actual facts as given by your most respected magazines. Dont get your feeling hurt, because facts just proved your non factual statements wrong. Hey, but what do the staff, writers, engineers know about cars anyway......they aint got nothin on you!! My times are correct, seems like your statements are the ones off. Better luck next time throwing out more jiberish without fact. Idiots like to do two things...........not learn from others mistakes, and argue fact. I smell an idiot.

UhadMEatGT

Here are some HP facts
A new camshaft finally found its way into the 305 TPI and boosted horsepower to 195 horse in the auto, and a stout 220 horse when backed with the T5. The 350 also got a small horsepower boost to 225 horse.
and
1989 brought about some nice horsepower increases. The TPI 305 5 speed jumped to 230 horse if the dual catalytic converters were ordered, and with dual cats, the L98 350 jumped to 240 horse, with a staggering 345 ft/lbs of torque!

91hatchgt

Stock GT's run low 15's at my track here at 3000ft.... Corrected would be low 14's on a prepped sea level track. Car and Driver have pretty terrible times in these cars as the times changed .6 seconds from 90-91 and the cars are virtually unchanged. It comes down to the driver, and track conditions.

Those times mean nothing, and are slug slow compared to even regular Mustang junkies like ourselves.