1968 L88 Corvette vs 1986 C4 Corvette.

Throwing out Road and Track magazines and  stumbled  on this.  
ps; I owned a 1986 Corvette. 
  I'll get the issue and page number but the real interesting thing was the 1968 had 435 gross HP to the 230 Net Hp of the 1986.  Yet they both turned 14 sec 1/4 mile time.  14.1 to 14.4 

 Race versions of that motor were claimed to have 560 hp. 
    
My point is. Ordinary cooking versions of a 18 year newer car were comparable to the rare and expensive Earlier versions. 
 

The May 1961 version of the same ROAD & TRACK  had the New XKE doing 0-60 in 6.1 seconds. Today EV's are faster.  Assuming I live another 20 years how fast will ordinary cars go 0-60?  

In reply to frenchyd :

I expect tires might have played a role in the 1/4 times.

That's crap driving in a L88 to prove a point. L88's a solidly in the 11's when driven properly and seriously underrated on power from the factory on purpose. Hence the holy grail status of the car and prices they command now. 

I had an '86 too. It was SO fast, in its day! Then my Mustang 5.0 seemed comically overpowered. Today a new Camry would dust it in the quarter-mile.  And the latest electric cars are amazing. 

But do we really WANT everyone driving around in cars that will hit 60 in two seconds?

In reply to wearymicrobe :

"Stock Appearing" class allows head, intake, and exhaust manifold porting and the cam just has to "sound stock." These cars can make a lot more power than when they came from the factory.

Tires may look the same, but the cars in that video aren't spinning all the way to half track, which was normal when they were new.

Look at the mph. Mph is a better measure of power, et is a better measure of chassis and tires.

As i recall, 10mph is about 100hp difference at the tires. 

They used Car Life's numbers which are in line with other published numbers of the time. 
For example the LT1  of 1969 did the 1/4 in 14.4.  
plus the owner of the L88 used in the test  agreed with the difference between Net and gross horsepower.  
 "On the track the New one ( 1986 ) is faster than the old one ( L 88 )". When the owner of the L88 drove his and the 1986 he was faster with the 1986.!  
    February 1986 Road & Track. 

I agree that this seems wrong!!   The vaunted Corvette L88 beat by a normal C4 Corvette?   I know later versions made even more power. Mine for example had aluminum heads and 9.5-1 compression compared the the early 86 with Iron heads and 9.0 compression. 
  The Jaguar XKE  did a 6.1   0-60 time  back in 1961.  Today any decent Mini Van will do that!!!! 
  Time marches on. 

NermalSnert (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to frenchyd :

I expect tires might have played a role in the 1/4 times.

A lot of cars from that era could get a second quicker in the quarter mile with the addition of slicks, compared a skilled driver on the stock tires.

With 6" wide bias ply hockey pucks for tires, and that much power, quarter mile times were highly dependent on driver skill.

Average driver < good driver < average driver on slicks < good driver on slicks

Looking at the trap speeds, a car running 105-107mph through the traps should be a low 13 second car if it had traction.

Frenchyd I'll throw some other comparisons:

My 72 Datsun is 15 second a lap faster than an 32 Alfa Romeo Gran Prix car.

In 2007 we had a Champ / Indy car street race in downtown Vegas. Part of the event was vintage F1 cars. Arie Luyendyk was driving one of the cars. The Formula Atlantics were RunOffs hung as well, they were a couple of seconds a lap faster than the early 80s F1 cars.

Years ago we were driving the lake road with some friends; they were driving an MGB &  GT-6 motored Spitfire our car was easily glued to their bumper......we were in a Geo Prism.

Back to the article; yeah it's all suspension and tires. New V6 cars are 300hp and they actually put that power to the ground.

I just remembered something a mid sixties big block Vette driver said to my son at the vintage races "it's loud and makes a cool noise but it's really not fast by modern standards".

Tom1200 said:

I just remembered something a mid sixties big block Vette driver said to my son at the vintage races "it's loud and makes a cool noise but it's really not fast by modern standards".

That describes many of my favorite cars over the years.  I don't know how many people watch Jay Emm on cars on YouTube but he recently test drove an alpha with a 2.8l v8. Ohhh the sounds that thing made. It has had me looking for one now ( the motor ). 
 

Link to some glorious noises.

Remember GRM's "Soccer Mom's Revenge" where a stock Honda Odyssey beat a Jaguar XKE in an autocross (49.09 vs 51.54s) and basically tied a Porsche 356 at 48.89s? Then GRM put slightly upgraded tires on the minivan and cut 3 seconds off their time?

Nice sounding car!

Thank you for sharing that!

Keep in mind that at some point after the 60's the way horsepower was measured changed.

From my experience building engines of that era the "rated" numbers (for the high output stuff anyway) were way high of what any of them would make on an engine dyno today.  I don't know what the exact change was but I'd expect a '68 400HP to be more like 280-340 by today's measurement. 

As for the comparison between L88/L98.....did the L88 get a refresh of was is 20 years of wear and tear on the car/engine because that makes a big difference too

In reply to asphalt_gundam :

Oh Frenchy will certainly speak on that. 

asphalt_gundam said:

Keep in mind that at some point after the 60's the way horsepower was measured changed.

From my experience building engines of that era the "rated" numbers (for the high output stuff anyway) were way high of what any of them would make on an engine dyno today.  I don't know what the exact change was but I'd expect a '68 400HP to be more like 280-340 by today's measurement. 

As for the comparison between L88/L98.....did the L88 get a refresh of was is 20 years of wear and tear on the car/engine because that makes a big difference too

Yes!  It was owned by an enthusiast ( collector)  using original OEM parts.  But those horsepower numbers  are 1968 GM's.  Gross  horsepower. ( Advertized ) 
    The 1986 numbers are net.   The tested car was the early version with the cast Iron head & 9.0-1 compression ratio. Later they used an aluminum head ( saving 40 pounds) with 9.5 compression ratio.  Yet left the net rating the same  An attempt in the same article  to test the later engine was rained out. But owners of the 2 test cars reported 1/4 mile times of low 13's 

The L88 horsepower was underated at the time.  Dyno tests of the L88 have it at 574 hp and 553 lb/ft torque, sourced from this Link  

The L98 is a bit more optimized than the L88, and has good torque in a usable range. This would make it easier to drive. The L88 probably is a handful to drag race on the stock bias tires.

yupididit said:

In reply to asphalt_gundam :

Oh Frenchy will certainly speak on that. 

 I'm a racer not a collector. Like almost everyone here I'm on a very tight budget. 
     Would it be fun to own a L88 Corvette?  Absolutely!   But if it's my money a C4 Corvette can be bought at a budget number I can afford.   It offers  L88 performance. At Budget friendly numbers. 

In reply to 81cpcamaro :

In that article they build the engine...including full machine work, new hydraulic roller cam, roller rockers, higher compression pistons (12.5:1) , etc....all the things I mentioned above.

Real L88 would be stock BS like they all were. Clearances (does the crank turn? factory specs can be .0005-.0035 and one side vs the other is a huge difference), std bolts (no ARP to keep it all from flexing), a flat tapped mechanical cam that would be low lift/big duration, the compression less, no degreed cam, lesser springs, non roller rockers, lesser headers or even manifolds, lesser valves, and no where near as good an ignition system. All of this adds up to being a huge diffence

Sure there were some changes, most were minor and they stayed close to the L88 specs as they could. The L88 was known to make over 500 hp even back then, a L98 wasn't even close to that.

One explanation I always hear is that tires in the 60s were not good. Were the tires comparable for this race at least?

A 14 second time is pretty slow for an l88. Heck a stock 390hp 427 is atleast a 15 second car. Perhaps there was problems with the car or knowing car magazine history maybe they rigged it a bit. From my understanding the 430 hp rating on the l88 is possibly an actual net rating. Keep in mind they rated the l71/l89 tri power at 435 even through the l88 was far more powerful. This was an attempt to keep the l88 out of the hands of less qualified drivers. My dads 69 convertible has a 12 to 1 compression tri power autocross engine on 265/50r15 radial ta it did in the 12 or 11s in the early 80s at Edmonton international speedway.