Ah yes... the 80's. MPG from big cubes... = total stupidity. Goes to show how backward GM really was, touting MPFI as a killer advance in technology at the time! Lol... Honda and Toyota, it was such an easy bitchslap to lay out.

yea the 305s made a whopping 165 Crank hp and the 2.8 multi port would luke y make 130 crank hp.They werent fast. Even the 350 from the vette in the l ate 80s had 225 crank hp.

i own a 97 accord lx, and i have raced that generation camaro before just f or kicks, i was surpised when we stayed side by side and then i began to s lowly move ahead.. god my car is slow..

A garbage race

Your engine specs are totally wrong. First off, proper specs(from the Hond a factory service manual). F22A1: 125 hp @ 5200 rpm, 137 lbf·ft @ 4000 rpm F22A4: 130 hp @ 5200 rpm, 142 lbf·ft @ 4000 rpm F22A 6: 140 hp @ 5600 rpm, 142 lbf·ft @ 4500 rpm Now, as for the 92 Ca maro's V6: 145 hp @ 4200 rpm, 185 lbf-ft @ 3600 rpm I believe the 92 LX came with the F22A1. If the Camaro had a 5 speed and had really been raci ng, it would have been a lot closer of a race and the Camaro probably woul d have won. Obviously, the Camaro wasn't serious about the race.

w/e the specs might or not be right a v6 camaro blows sorry to tell you the car also is rwd but race a iroc or a z28

you guys arguing over 125 CRANK hp is really funny..lol

The camaro was clearly not racing. you need to pay more attention before you go around dissing other cars.