67z vs 93z

[Late BrakeU2]

One things for sure,they would be a lot closer in the quarter than on a road course.

[Salvatore]

He will eat you up Kim! Especially if he can drive a little. If your 67 has a 4:56 rear and some better tires than it would be closer.

[jbsides]

I had a couple friends in from out of town, and they wondered which was quicker in the quarter, the freshly restored bone stock (excl. 235 BFGs on the rear)'69 Z, or the bone stock '95 Z vert 6-spd sitting next to it. We took 'em out to see.

Two passes. '95 Z by at least a couple car lengths both times.

JB

[Stefano]

I bought a new '93 Six Speed and ran it stock at 'da Grove.

Best I could do was 14.2s, I couldn't get it to hook and had to come out real easy. It had better et's in it. The magazine guys were in the 13's? This was a loaded car and very heavy. It did have the optional performance gear ratio.

I bought an automatic the next year ('94) and it also Ran 14.20s. You just left it in gear and punched it. Loading the converter made it spin.

That was hauling for a Stock Car in '93-'94.

Very consistent cars, won lots of Trophies and Grudge Matches.

[MosportGreen66]

what kind of rear is in the LT1?

[king_midas]

Don't embarrass yourself, let the legend live, and don't run the '93. Those cars aren't particularly fast, but the 'ol Z's aren't nearly as fast as everyone remembers them being.

To get a 1st gen to run like most think they remember them running back in the day, you gotta have headers / open exhaust, and at MINIMUM a 4.33 gear... You also have to be running better than pump gas so that you can actually advance the distributor so that she can rev. All of these things equal terrible street manners in the old ride, which means that the new Z will walk you with the A/C on while in "D", listenting to his/her favorite Dan Fogleberg song on the CD player.

I love looking at the old stuff, but modern horsepower is so significantly better than stock vintage horsepower that it should not even be compared. The only thing that probably actually does compare between the two is curb weight. The '67 is no lightweight, and I'd be willing to guess that they are within 100 lbs. of each other.

[jbsides]

There is nothing quite like the clackety-clack of perfectly adjusted solid lifters in a well tuned '69 Z with stock exhaust, but there is also nothing like the refined, fast exhiliration of one one today's performance rides. Apples and oranges. I would not take that bet either.
Back in the day, I drove a '69 Z that was only a year old, with less that 20K miles on it, and it would bake those bias ply tires through the gears on demand. No matter what I did to try to duplicate that experience with a restoration I was unable to even get close. There is just something about these cars when they were new.
So I gave up trying. Now I experiment with NOM big blocks that are stock appearing excluding the headers, but with big horsepower for that same "baking" capability.

JB

[JK98SS]

If it is a bone stock 93 it should run mid 13's to low 14's.
93 is the odd ball year because it still had a "chip" in the computer, had speed density air management and 2 versions of the manual transmission. A friend has one and it came with the optional 6 speed that came with 2.73's. Commonly the manual cars came with 3.42's. Auto cars with Z rated tires and performance axle came with 3.23 and the others got 2.73.

I had a 95 Z28 that ran 13.6 with the 2.73's and just a flowmaster muffler and an SLP Cold air kit.

But of course your elevation and weather will have a large impact on the ET.