Absolutely agreed. Where the hell did they come up with IROC? VW that is, not the original IROC.

If this car gets the green light & has 200HP or more, it will be replacing our GTI.


This car has Scirocco right on the grill in half the photos. I wonder why VW would be fielding two prototypes carrying the same name? Doesn't really make sense. In this photo, you can see the IROC in the middle of Scirroco is photoshopped. Is it possible someone who was really bored made up the whole VW/IROC thing?



KC-10 FE out...

 

I think when some of those shots were taken they hadn't settled on the name. They need to play on the success of the past model. Not a bad looking ride for a VW.

Sled...

 

Eeewww, sorry, I have to agree that it's Fugly.

 

Oh well, I guess we never could count on the name of a car meaning it would live up to it's predecessors. Take for example the venerable Dodge Charger:

 

Yeah, but what's in a name these days........

 

I like the car, but not the color. Might as well get used to some change in the future. It's inetivable.

 

Not off the showroom floor it wouldn't... But yes, the 5.0L LX was quicker than the 5.0L GT.

GM put its foot in the Mustang's *** with the introduction of the 5.7L in 1990, and never looked back (performance wise). From 1993 to the Camaro's death in 2002, the performance gap widened.. The 302 equipped 'Stangs were faster than the 170 HP Camaro RS 305 cu. in V-8, and the 205 HP 305 cu. in V-8 IROC's and 1991-1992 Z-28's w/305 cu. in., but the 350 cu. in (5.7's) always beat the 302 in every comparison I ever read.


Always...

The v6 anniversary T/A was faster still...

 

Man....I don't know what ya'll are bischin about....I could pimp that bad boy out and make it a nice daily driver.

Ugly....."NO", it's just "new".

 

Instead of reading comparisons in car rags, try going to the track and watching the comparisons in real life.

Things didn't even up for the F-Body until '93 when they got the LT1. 3rd gen F-Bodies were heavier than Fox body Mustangs, even GTs, and the L98 350 was only available with a slushbox and a limp **** rear gear, like 2.73 or 2.77, somewhere around there, with a 3.27 gear optional. The 5 speed 305 tune port cars (I think they were called LB9s) were faster than the L98/A4 cars.

 

Whatever Quintin...

You're right, the 1990 5.7L was only available with an automatic... That's because in 1990 the current 5-speed manual couldn't handle the increased torque (350 lb./ft. over 290), so GM went with the automatic (which was the faster car, even in the 93 - 2002 run, and still is today in the Pontiac GTO). Reliability concerns is why GM didn't offer a manual with the 5.7L until 1993 when they began offering the 6-speed. Guess what, the automatic 5.7L Camaro was still faster 0-60 and 1/4 mile than the 6-speed...

I do a lot of reading, but- I also did a lot of driving in those days as well. I have driven both cars in question. Quite often I might add. I had a girlfriend who had a 1992/1993 Mustang LX 5.0L (With a trunk, not the hatchback)- *The fastest/quickest/lightest version of the Mustang. One of my best friends had a 1990 Mustang GT, and another had a 1990 LX 5.0L with a hatchback.

My best friend, (Paul Rooney/Ohio) had a special edition Mercury Capri RS 5.0L, modded with all kids of schyt, headers, hurst shifter, exhaust, and other stuff I can't remember... It, along with the others, was a bad-***, I'm not taking that from the 'Stangs, but- they weren't the baddest thing on the road either...

I drove them all, and I know for a fact that the 1990 IROC Z I drove would whip-dat-*** on a 1988 - 1994 Mustang 5.0L, stock for stock. Modified, the Stang might win, but- what if the Camaro is also modded? Mods mean nothing- it's not the car delivered the way Ford or Chevy built it, so I don't count them, or their track times.

In the real world, strange things happen though.. Another guy in my unit "Kendall" had a '89 5.0L GT, and he absolutely obliterated Grant's 86 (or 87, I forget) Buick Grand National GNX. On paper, that wasn't supposed to happen, but out on West Range road, it did...

Was it that the Mustang was faster? Hell no! Kendall was a better driver than Grant was. Can't blame the car... Won't blame the car...

I know you won't believe it... It's hard for Mustang guys to accept the possibility that their car is not the fastest thing on the road. I understand, I knew a lot of Mustang guys, they thought they coudl out-run Vette's too...

When it cames to "rags" versus what some schmo says they did on a track... Let's just say I put more faith in what PROFESSIONALS do, than what you or any of your buddies can conjure up on the track, running cars modified with who knows what.

I know many won't believe this, but I'll tell it anyway-
Mustang guys only think they can be beaten by another Mustang, when in actuality I whipped a Mustang 5.0L's *** with my V-6, 190 HP Maxima SE in 1997, on Dallas Parkway between Haverwood Lane and Plano Parkway.

Whipped, HIS, ***... Why? Because the Maxima, unbeknownst to most, was as quick & fast as a Mustang GT (0-60 = 6.6, 1/4 mile in 15.5), and in the hands of the right driver, was faster...

The F-body came close in 93?

If you call whipping a Mustang's *** by nearly a full second 0 - 60 (6.5 sec. vs 5.7 sec.), and nearly 2 seconds 0 - 100, and a 1/4 mile time that was 1.6 seconds faster (13.8 vs 15.4) "coming close" to a Mustang, then I guess you're right; the 5.7L 1993 - 2002 Camaro's came close to smoking a Mustang 5.0L by 10-15 car-lengths in a 1/4 mile race.

"Track" performance is truly a measure of, not so much about what "car" is better, but the driver. That's what IROC was all about. Identically prepared cars (As close to identical as possible), and all pro drivers. Nobody could bitch about gearing, drag coefficient, weight...

That was a test of skill...

Rarely will you find "identical" cars at the track...

 

I have drag strip experiance with both the 350 powered F-bodies from back in the late 80's and early 90's and the Mustangs. Personaly I had a '87 GN and then a '89 TTA. The Mustangs (5-speed) were a little faster. One buddy had a '89 Formula 350. The best it ever ran was in the 14.60 range. That was stone cold. Warm it would run 14.80's. Sorry I don't recall the mph. My buddies 1989 Mustang would run 14.30-14.50 consistently. With open exhaust, a 3.73 gear, bumped timing, and air bell removed, it ran in the 13.60 range. My TTA ran a best of 13.70 stock and 12.40's @110 with race fuel, open air cleaner, perfomance chip, mild stall converter. The Mustang was a slug from 1994 to 1998 due to the car weighing 400 lbs more than the Fox Mustang with no increase in HP. Camaros were faster than Mustangs from 94 on.

 

Those numbers are a helluva lot faster than I've ever hearf of in that era... Was the 'Stang's stock? Those numbers are close to GMC Syclone numbers, which was the quickest American built vehicle since the Grand National.

Here are the only numbers I could find… These are somewhat faster than what Motor trend and Car & Driver could wring out of a Mustang GT (6.5 & 15.4), then again, the specs below are for the LX 5.0L I can believe the 6.4 0-60, but the 14.9 seems to be quite a gain in speed over the 15.4 the Magazines produced... Ironically, today’s Nissan Altima SE 5-Speed can (depending on which body style) whip both of the Mustang’s asses: (0-60= 5.9 sec., ¼ mile= 14.9)

Mustang: http://www.mustangspecs.com/years/90.shtml
Camaro IROC-Z: http://www.iroczone.com/history.asp

The original Camaro 5.7L (350) only had 220 HP (1986), only 50 Camaro’s with the 350 were built in 1986 (Very rare find, a few were available with a 5-speed.) In 1987, the 350 was available with auto only, and had 225-230 HP. In 1990, the 350 was re-worked, and the torque (330 lb/ft) and HP (245) went up. (Pre-LT1). 1990 was when the Camaro (5.7L) became faster than the 'Stang.

The Mustang was then rated at 225 HP, but it was soon revealed the car’s numbers were off, and it’s numbers went from 225 HP & 300 lb./ft. to 215 HP and 290 lb./ft. There they remained through the last 3 years of the Fox body, the four model years of the 1994 – 1998 body, and the transition from the 5.0L to the 4.6L, until the release of the 1999 Mustang GT, which was bumped to 260 HP.

So yes, there is no doubt, in 1986, 87, 88 & 89 the 350 was not much more powerful than the 302. I said the Camaro 5.7L was faster from 1990 – 2002, it was. I was a Mustang fan back then (‘80’s) - so I am being unbiased when I tell you this. (I almost bought one from AAFES Auto sales (July 1989), back when the Mustang GT was only $12,500. My dumb *** did not go for it, because I had seen cars while I was back in the states for $99 down, and $99/month- and stupidly believed it (Not having read the small print). I could’ve had a Mustang GT for $220 or so a month, and let it go. I thought $220 a month was too expensive. I ended up dealing with real-world dealerships, and their BS (Rather than AAFES), resulting in my driving a 2.2L 95 HP Cavalier a year later (Through an American dealer) for $189.98… $31 bucks… Ahhhhhh!!!

In 1990, I became a Camaro fan… A good friend of mine had a silver V-8 1990 Camaro RS (Which wouldn’t have a chance against a Mustang), and for the next 3 years, I was hooked. As I said earlier, I had a chance at a $14,000 5.7L 1990 IROC-Z, but passed on it due to my impending deployment (Desert Storm).

The 1993 – 2002 Camaro, while much more capable, never caught my eye the way the old Camaro did, and I lost interest.

Snippet:
In 1986, the IROC received slightly different engine packages. The 86 IROC is the armpit of the entire run. The 305 block in 1986 now had a one piece rear main seal. The TPI 305 was the lucky recipient of the LG4 camshaft, and the result was a drop of 25 horses and almost a half second longer run to 60mph. Chevrolet did allow 50 IROCs out the door with the 220hp L98 350. Beware when somebody sells an 86 as a stock 350. CHECK THE VIN for accuracy. Chevy also let an undisclosed number of these cars out with the T5 five speed transmission as part of the 1LE racing option that also included air conditioning delete, radio delete, as well as the deletion of all power accessories. The 1LE option was not available with T-tops, but did come with specially calibrated springs, shocks and sway bars.

 

to further stir the pot:

the majority of mustangs had 2.73 rear ends, all the magazine cars had the opional 3.08 that were 2/10th quicker. the 350 camaro firebird was also availabe in some years with dual cats and 3.27 rear ends while others had a 2.77 rear end.

neither would whop the others a$$ as in a quarter mile it was a 1 to 1.5 car lenght either way.


having owed a 5.0 mustang i can say that every 5.7 i raced was 1/2 to 3/4 faster in a 1/4 mile (when i was stock) and the grand nationals were in a class all by themselfs. The problem with the 5.0 mustang is finding one that is stock, mine was stock for 3 months.

http://www.stangbangers.com/87_Musta...-Z_Article.htm
road and track alway ran crap times

http://www.mustanggt.org/magtest.htm

http://www.iroc-zpostforum.com/NewsTitleBout3.htm
this was the first fuel injected mustang, had crap heads the 87b came out with 25 more hp from a head change.

http://www.iroc-zpostforum.com/NewsLastIROC.htm

stock for stock this was a very good race. while the 5.0 gets so much credit. my brohter 89 formula ran high just as good as similar modded 5.0 mustangs. the firebird ran 14.6 @ 94 stock (to my 14.9 @ 92 stock, i had the 86 with crap heads and 2.73 gears, he had the 3.27's) but after i dropped about $1500 on bolt on and he spent about the same we both ran 13.8 to 13.9, but his automatic was dead on consistant like a bracket car. everyone that bought a mustang and planned a trip to the track bumped the timing to 10 btc, over inflatted the front tires, removed the fender well air silencer and left the spare tire at home.

 

Hersh,
What you have to understand about the big name magazines is that they are car guys but are not dragracer/gearheads. They do not speedshift. They lift at every shift. Good speed shifting is typically worth .2 second in a 5.0. I also believe that they don't do burnouts to clean or heat the tires. Often they run the cars during off time at the track, meaning the tracks usually aren't prepared with vht... My buddies Mustang was stock. I even have video of him running close to the time I posted with a paper licence plate in the window (up to 31 days from new), and it even had 2.73 gears in the rear. He may have bumped the timing and taken off the air silencer, but that was it. I guess you could call him a super gearhead. He currently has an outlaw Mustang (200mph on 10.5W tires, SBF Turbo).

I agree that the '93 and up Camaro is faster than the Mustang year for year to the end of Camaro. I really followed these cars back then. The 350 never came factory to the general public with a 5-speed.

I won't ever own a foreign car, but I don't mind the way the VW looks. I've always enjoyed the Rally Car look. VW has lost its way. They used to be the everymans car. Now they have a model close to $100,000

 

I didn't think so either, but wrote/reported what I found on Camaro History. I didn't know (before today) that the F-body was offered with a 350 before 1990. I thought it was 305 or a 2.8L V-6 (Until the 3.1L replaced it in 1991).

Another thing the magazines don't do, is remove the catalytic converters (Like some drag racers do), run slicks, or go into redline... All are lift throttle-upshifts though (Manuals). Their numbers seem to be in line with what a good driver could get in a typical red-light to red-light race. n improptu race on city streets.

I had a friend (The one with the LX 5.0L, that used to lie his *** off about his Mustang... Talking about he ordered his special, with 3.73 gears. My buddy with the Capri 5.0L RS called "BS" on his 3.73 claim... They almost got into a fight- long story...

I said, "Eff-it" and wrote Dearborn and asked about the gears (June 1990). They wrote back saying 3.73 gears were not offered in any package from Ford. I showed him the letter, with Ford's letterhead, and that SOB still wouldn't admit he was lying, yet- never produced the sticker showing where he had "special" 3.73 gears from the factory... Lying SOB...

Nevertheless, his LX 5.0L was one bad-***, fast car, 3.73's or not.