BowerPower

I was over at the Third gen forum asking those guys for advice on the price of an 86 IROC-Z for sale at work. I was doing some comparisons to my 85 C4 since the condition of the cars are similar and they both GM performance cars from the same time. I happened to mention that the Corvette has better suspension which makes it a better car. One guy politely informed me that the an IROC-Z has better suspension than a C4. My question to you guys is, what do you guys know or think about this.

The C4 has independent suspension front and rear, a mono beam spring, double wishbone suspension in the front, lower center of gravity, rack and pinion steering, bigger and better brakes, wider tires and wheels from the factory. Obviously lighter weight and can corner harder than the Camaro.

AgentEran

Let me guess, this guy was born sometime between yesterday and today?

PatternDayTrader

I had an 89 Iroc Z new, and while it was cool and all, the thing that would hold it back on any road course was the brakes. It had the little teeny rotors off an s10 on it.

I didn't realize it at the time but if you ordered the 1le car, then it came with the same brakes as the Corvette. But, there was something weird about buying the 1le car. I cant remember for certain but I think you could only get the 305 engine with the manual trans. So, you were screwed either way with the Iroc. Either you got the small motor or you could only make a few hard stops before you had no brakes.

BowerPower

I noticed that when i was inspecting the brakes. I really hope no one drives fast in those cars

ismithlj

The IROC Z uses the same suspension as a 1982 base Camaro, just with some small upgrades to springs, shocks etc. Why would GM design a better suspension in 1982 for the Camaro than it did in the 1984 Corvette? Unless he means better suspension for drag racing, in which case a live axle might be better. It would be like telling him that a Cavalier Z24 has a better suspension than his IROC.

1993C4LT1

That dude really knows his stuff

Pwnage1337

Cumarrow owners aren't the sharpest tools in the shed

BowerPower

The odd thing is that no one cared to correct him but some of them got in an argument about the standard gear ratio of an IROC. I figured it was best not to correct him because I would have been drilled.

Benny42

Z28 owners say "same as/better than a corvette" until they finally buy a Corvette. I know this as i've owned 3 Z28s.
Z28s are great cars, but they are NOT the same, NOT just as good, etc.

SR71!

hilflos

Some of us are just spoiled for choice;


I could debate the merits of either from then, or now, all day.

From a question of handling and braking, in the mid-eighties, the Corvette was a better setup by any measurable standard. No question about it. That's from a guy who would love a mid-eighties 1LE to add to the collection. I've got the 5th gen 1LE suspension, and some Z/28 bits in this one, love it. The 3rd gen 1LE is a rare thing. It was hard to order, not well publicized, and I believe the 305, as mentioned up thread, was the engine that came with.

The 3rd gen 1LE suspension parts can still be found. So, you can put it in an IROC, but then we get into the, "yeah, but it's modded," conversation. Even then, the Corvette would win that discussion, right up until you get into the so heavily modified it can no longer be remotely described as, "stock."

I was 17 when the Corvette there, an '87, came home, new. Dad let me drive it, once, then, but I rode in it often. A friend's father worked for GM and had an IROC. We, "borrowed," that car at every opportunity. The 'vette handled and brakes better.

cv67

The Irocs suspension was good for its day...both cars had their + and -
Peronally like the straight axle better, dont have to deal with extra Ujoints, wheel bearings etc.
The fact you could only get a 5 spd with a 305 sucked. I drove a brand new 89 that came from Hawaii that actually had the 350 and 5 speed it would lay rubber easily into third where the vette stays planted. Shoulda bought it...got a 5.0 instead.

ex-x-fire

The Irocs handled good but they were a lot like z51 corvettes. Very stiff shocks & springs. If the road or track had any bumps, the rear would leave the pavement.

PatternDayTrader

This all comes back to the obvious.
If you need a backseat then you buy the Camaro.

grandspt

Having owned an early 5.0 HO Z28 1983 and an 1982 Z28. And I have driven several IROCS (from 85 to 87) , Trans Ams and I have owned my 1996 GrandSport Vette for 21 years. I can say that the Vette holds the road much better at high speed and has much higher cornering G's than any of the Z's and Trans Ams.
But my 1982 was definitely the most tossable around corners. Not the 83 Z28 or any of the IROCs/TransAms. Only my 1982 Z28. It was a very stiff, hard riding car with very little sway in hard turns. I did like that about that 1982 Z28, it would wear the Goodyear Eagle GTs (215 65R15) down to the cords after 12,000 miles! My friend actually bought a 1982 Z28 after letting him drive mine (he was that impressed with the handling). It was a slow but good tossable, flat handling car. It got totalled after an old lady blew through a stop sign. The car was trashed but it protected me from any injuries.
The magazines said that the third generation Camaro structure (molds, spot welds, unibody) started to shift after the 1982 year (1982 was the stiffest).
My 1983 H.O. was faster but was flexible as all hell and handled like crap compared to the 1982 Z28. Especially after dropping a 375hp 350 ci motor in it. Roll cage and subframe connectors couldn't keep it from twisting.
I wish my Vette had the tossable feeling that the 1982 Z28 had but other than that I don't miss much else from the Z28s or IROCs!

ex-x-fire

Did you ever have you're frame crack behind the steering gear box? Mine did on my 84 sport coupe, the only upgrades I did was add Iroc sway bars & 15x7 wheels. It handled great but I noticed the frame had a crack. One thing I didn't add was the extra brackets, but I did after
having the crack welded up.

65Z01

My '86 IROC-Z was a bit "sloppy" till I had sub-frame connectors welded along each frame rail to connect the front & rear sub-frames.
Thereafter it was very "tight" but still could not hang with the '88 Vette.

grandspt

No, I never cracked that area but my friend did and he had it welded.
I cracked my floor pan at the right rear where the control arm bolted in. Then I blew my shock tower mounting points when I ran some M&H racemaster street slicks.

grandspt

I also warped/distorted my B pillars, (the car had a fixed roof no T roof). I learned how to weld on my 1983 H.O.
It certainly needed to have a stiffer structure. My 350 engine and manual transmission really stressed the car.
Strange fact, GM knew the shock to the drivetrain was pretty harsh with the mechanical Z shaft clutch in 82&83. So for 84 on up all manual cars got hydraulic clutch setups. This lessened the shock to the chassis and weak rearend. Oh yeah, I blew the 3.73 peg leg rearend many times. The case would elongate on the spider gear cross pin.
I Blew the Borg Warner T5 way too many times as well. I learned how to rebuild the T5 to save money. The Camaro was a simpler car to repair but it was fragile when driven to the extreme.
The Vette is a much better designed car that can handle more abuse.

MatthewMiller

The bottom line is that a Chapman strut front end and live-axle rear end are inferior to a double-A-arm front and five-link-IRS. The suspension was very good in the 3rd-gen F-bodies for what it was - much better than the comparable layout in a Fox or SN95 Mustang. But it was not even close to a C4's setup. Lap times from any road course or autocross would confirm that, too.