ketanojaun

Question stock cars In order of handling and year if possible
In order best to least
Handling
Stock condition.
overall handling
long sweepers .switcbacks
Generaly
positive recomendations
if any one knows
No smart asses please
something helpful or forget it
Thanx

blackrat

lot of variables here. Are we talking 1LE's? SS level suspension mods? Or straight base z28?

I hear the 3rd gens are generally better in competitions, but the 4th gen is supposed to have a better front suspension with the LSA set up.

I would reckon an LS1 would handle better then an LT1 strictly because of the loss of weight.

teke184

yeah but i would think the C4 would outhandle all of them.


now this is assuming all cars had equal quality tires. i know the tires that came on the 3rd gens were those ****ty gatorbacks or something.

i would think it is something like:

c4
ls1
lt1
3rd gen
5.0

AL SS590 M6

This is the LS1 engine tech forum and not the place for this kind of post. I'm calling in the moving van.

teke184

you're such a whitty guy al

DJ_951

3rd gen IROC with the super stiff springs. (factory) Could make that car dance.

On the street its about feel and how far your willing to push it. On a track C4.
Mustangs suck, opps.

LT4Firehawk

Haven't owned a 5.0, but I've had a 92 C4, 97 LT4 Hawk, 2000 TA, and a 95 Formula. Completely stock, the LT1 Formula and LS1 TA were at the bottom of the list. The LT4 Hawk, and C4 were about equal in handling ability, but do it in completely different ways. The LT4 Hawk, though, is nowhere close to a stock f-body, from SLP it has custom valved Bilstein shocks with custom Eibach springs, 1LE suspension bushings and front sway bar, 17x9" wheels with 275/40 tires, Torsen diff, and they only came in hardtops (so they are stiffer). The LT4 Hawk while being just as fast around a track as the C4, however, is not nearly as stable as the C4. The C4 is much more stable at the limit, and recovers when you go over the limit much easier. Of course, a lot of that is due to the C4's lower center of gravity and slightly better weight distribution.

As far as the LS1 vs LT1, with the same suspension/wheels/tires, I could not tell a difference between the two (and the weights of the ealier LT1 cars is acutally less than the LS1s). However, there would be some big benefits to an LS1 car over an LT1 car at the tack, the brakes on the 98+ cars are MUCH better, and the power of the LS1 is significantly more than a stock LT1.

elementaltoad

from the 2 types of cars i've driven, my 3rd gen seemed to handle a little better than the ls1, the ls1 couldnt hold it as hard into turns. but over all both the 2002z28 and the 3rd gen 89 WS6 formula 350 handled alot better than the mustangs and base models.

Coolformula

When comparing the 3rdgen,to lt1 and ls1. Are they all base models or what? The 3rd gens had a lot of different things from year to years. Like some years the IRCOS had a 36mm front bar and the wondor bar and better factory shocks/springs so that would out handle a stock 4 gen.

Are we talking about just a skipad,realword around a mtn or at the track. The question is too broad.

However I think the the lt1 and ls1 are going to be the same as stock...I have own both.

krisb410

I can currently out handle my buddies 99 LS1 with my 91 LO3 (not a factory setup), but I get squashed in the straight-a-ways.

Currently I have SFCs, wonderbar, 3 Point STB, 36mm and 24mm sways.

I just ordered Koni Yellows along with a bunch of stuff from UMI. I ordered poly/rod adj LCAs, LCA relocation brackets, poly/rod adj panhard bar, and an adj TQ arm.

So we'll see how she does after the upgrades, but I hope to have quit the corner carver.

Lonnie Pavtis

First off, Fox bodied Mustangs handle like minivans. Handling is not their strong point. I'm not impressed & have driven a lot of them as many of my friends own & love them... for straight line performance. They even make fun of their handling.

The Vettes are rather stout, but it has always seemed to me, that the Vette handles better & is more predictable. Once it breaks loose, I've always thought they were harder to recover. Although I must say these are probably the car I have had the least time driving though. More experience my prove things otherwise.

C6, no comparison. Just a mean car that most do not have the ability to properly use.

Personally I would take a 3rd gen WS6/IROC over a 4th Gen Z28/TA.
The SS/WS6 4th gen will tend to handle as well as a best 3rd gens, but to me do not seem to inspire the same level of confidence.

I have a '95Z & it never felt as stable or as solid when pushed to the limit compared to my '91 WS6... both on 16's. All the 4th gen (SS/WS6 included) cars I've driven seem to have more sway or weight transfer (for lack of a better term) at the rear of the car in a hard corner. This always prevented me from pushing the car as hard as I did in my 3rd gen.

After an upgrade to the 275/40's & some bushing upgrades, my 95 started to feel more predictable at its limit. I could now throw it into a turn up to the point of sliding, more in tune with my '91.

After adding 275/40-17's to my '91, it is way back on top of my favorite list.

While I have no track data or skid pad numbers, I can for example, take a local 25mph offramp (controlled legal conditions of course...) at a constant 65 in the 91 without sliding (but all 4 tires are screaming). Enter at 70 & it slides to the point of scrubbing speed back to 65 by turn exit. Trying to hold 70 will look more like a drifting exercise with throttle oversteer required to keep in in the turn. I will still be near 65 in order to make a nice transition to the straightaway.

My 95 is now similar on the same 275's, but about 3mph slower (62) under the same controlled turn. At 68-70 entrance speed, the only downfall is during a slide the car feels less predictable, to the point of modulating the throttle to keep it turned. It seems to break the rear loose, then you lift slightly to save it, then it bites again, causing an understeer feeling, where you then either have to slow down or slide the rear again. 315's on the rear just let it go to the point of sliding the front tires, making throttle oversteer harder yet.

For reference, my Yamaha R1 does it easily at 70, I'm scared at 75 (self preservation, as I would hate to hit guardrails with my face) & I had a friend that used to do the same turn at 85 on his bike. RIP.

Not sure if this info makes it any easier.

DJ_951

Thats it!!!!!

Lonnie Pavtis

It is not much difference in speed, but from a handling perspective it is.

Doubling the speed takes roughly 4x the traction.
so...
3 mph at 60mph is approximately a 10% difference in cornering ability & also a corresponding car length difference in 4 seconds. On this ramp, I would put 2 cars on the slower one.

If you are racing, this would be the difference between following & leading.

Coolformula

I think one difference for the 3 mph difference would be:
1: The 91 has bigger front and rear bars 34 to 36 front and 24mm rear ithink
The 4th gen z28 will have 30/19 or 32/21(ws6 etc)
2. The fourth gen had little less of a shock then the third gen and springs.


I think it would be cool the cars have the same shocks/springs and see then do the bars.

Did both cars have orginal shocks?

But very cool comparision thanks!

Lonnie Pavtis

Yes, both were factory shocks/springs & the '91 is somewhat stiffer in the front. Both had approx 20k miles at the time.

Unfortunately, for comparison, you cannot run the same springs. The 3rd gens have a spring that is between the frame control arm. This added leverage requires the spring to be nearly twice as stiff for a similar ratio at the tire comppared to the spring over shock arrangement on the 4th gen.

In theory, the front suspension design & engine setback should make the 4th gen superior. Maybe with both suspensions optimized for best handling, the results would be different.

My results were comparing a stock 3rd gen to the 4th gen, both with better tires/wheels (275/40-17 on 9" wheels). When comparing both using 245/50-16's the 3rd gen was much better than the 4th.