Land Speed Racing with an F-Body: Where Do You Start?

So, you want to get your feet wet in the world of racing. In particular, you’re interested in participating in land speed races held by your regional timing association. Getting a start in any sort of racing is a costly expense. Purchasing a car, setting it up to perform, and chasing down all of the technical information to keep it performing—it adds up.

But if you just want to get out there and see what the sport is all about, there’s an easy-to-obtain platform that performs well and won’t break the bank: The GM F-Body.

Why an F-body?

Obviously, when starting out, there are several choices from several automakers that will do the trick. But the GM F-body is powerful, cost-effective, and surprisingly easy to get your hands on—all useful characteristics for anyone new to motorsports with a tight budget to boot.

For context, the F-body rear-wheel drive platform served from 1967-2002, with only two vehicles using it: the Chevy Camaro and the Pontiac Firebird. (When the Camaro came back in 2010, it was built on the Zeta chassis; and, although it has a VIN code of “F,” it is not a true F-body.)

Now, sure, your buddies might like to make mean comments about your beloved F-body, calling you a redneck or comparing you to Burt Reynolds (arguably not the worst insult). But with all joking aside—the right generations of these vehicles could cut through the wind like an arrow, urging you to put the pedal to the floor and see just how fast it can go.

Which F-body is best suited?

GM produced four generations of cars on the F-body platform—all of which are great models for racers and enthusiasts alike. However, for a variety of reasons, some are better suited for the world of land speed racing than others. The most attractive point of discussion in this realm being aerodynamics (which we’ll talk more about in a bit).

Despite its reputation for being “uncool,” the fourth-generation Camaro (1993-2002) probably has the most potential out-of-the-box. Inexpensive and easy to find, with impressive stock power and a supportive aftermarket, it’s truly an underrated gem. (You might want to act fast, though...)

“The fourth-generation F-body evolved a bit over its production cycle, with the now legendary LS1 arriving for the 1998 model year,” explains Grassroots Sports Magazine. “Depending on the flavor of F-body ordered, output ranged from 305 to 325 horsepower—again, strong numbers for the day—and the LS1 could be paired with the excellent T56 six-speed manual.”

Fourth-gen F-bodies are regulars at Bonneville and top speed events, but you’ll also see plenty in autocross, as they are also known for their great handling. However, they’re far from your only option.

Oldies But Goodies

You can easily find plenty of excellent examples of earlier F-bodies running the salt flats, as well. Two noteworthy ones that come to mind are:

1.) The 1981 (late second-gen) 1,100-hp supercharged 489 cubic-inch Big Block Chevy Camaro that David Freiburger ran at Speed Week 2013…

… and 2.) Gary Spencer’s 1971 Camaro (early second-gen), with which he set a Bonneville record in AA\CFALT at 256.233 mph in 2009.

And spend a little time on a forum or comment’s section to find plenty of enthusiasts defending the honor of the third-gen F-body:

“Most people don’t understand that properly optioned Gen 3 and Gen 4 F-bodies were (and still are) seriously good handling cars. That would include base Gen 3 Z28s, WS6 Trans Ams, and especially 1LE cars (all years for the last two) … Most people also don’t understand that those F-bodies were far more predictable and confidence-inspiring than C4, C5, and C6 Corvettes – even the Z51 examples.”

“The 3rd gen is built-better in my opinion. Like everything, the farther technology gets, the cheaper stuff is made. The plastics, interior pieces, and such in the 4th gen are held in place with way less concern than in the 3rd gen. But the 4th gens are faster—way faster … I’ll never have the wallet to see my 3rd gen beat my stock 4th gen, but I still like the 3rd gen better. To me, it’s more stylish and way easier to work on.”

Let’s also not forget that in 1999, Kugel and LeFevers ran 307.788 mph at Bonneville with a stock body 1992 Pontiac Firebird. “Out of all the production cars, it probably has the lowest drag as far as aerodynamics are concerned, and at 300 mph, this Firebird has to be the most stable vehicle that’s ever been built,” Joe Kugel told Motorsports Network in 1999.

Coefficient of Drag

But maybe you’re more of a “numbers” person and you’d rather base your decision on cold, hard science. Well, that would be merited. After all, as Freiburger pointed out after first running the HOT ROD Camaro back in ’04: “For top-speed racing, aerodynamics is more important than power, and at Bonneville, reliability is more crucial than anything. We’ve seen countless racers make one strong pass to qualify for a record then fail to back it up when all the pistons fall into the oil pan.”

So, in terms of aerodynamics—let’s take a look at just how sleek the F-body is. First though, let’s have a little refresher on drag coefficient, just in case you’re rusty on the concept. Essentially, the coefficient of drag (Cd) is the force of air resistance on an object—and it’s how we measure a vehicle’s aerodynamics. The lower the Cd, the easier a vehicle can cut through the air pushing down on it, thereby deeming it more aerodynamic.

How does this affect a vehicle’s top speed?

When chasing top speeds, you want your car to feel as little resistance as possible to reduce strain on the engine and reduce fuel consumption.

In 1970, the second-gen Camaro ditched its traditional muscle car styling in favor of a more streamlined design. (These cars just look like damn missiles and, frankly, if you don’t love that you’re nuts.) This design helped the updated F-body cut through the wind much better than the first generation.

According to Automobile-Catalog, the drag coefficient of a 1969 Camaro is .5 while the 1970 Camaro is at .45. Not ideal, but a noticeable improvement. And, as the years rolled on for the Camaro, this would only get better. In 1979, the Cd was reduced to .412, in 1982 it was chopped down to .369, and in 1995 it hit .338.

What about downforce?

With that in mind, the question of how Cd affects top speed is complicated when big wings are used. The point of the wing is to create superb amounts of downforce. This increases stability and allows the vehicle to travel faster through a corner—useful in the world of F1 or other racing events that have a heavy emphasis on handling. However, that stability comes at the expense of plenty of drag.

Now, this isn’t to say that downforce isn’t important in top speed racing. But in the types of classes that an F-body would be competing in, the issue of lost traction is often corrected with the use of a proper spoiler on the rear of the car, along with a potential ballast over the rear wheels. And in this instance, the F-body is already off to a great start because of its decent aerodynamics.

As one user points out on a third-generation F-body forum: “Understand: these cars are not designed to go 150 mph. They are just designed to be aerodynamic for fuel mileage and styling reasons. If you want the car to be 150+ mph stable, then you’re going to have to get creative with the air flowing through the radiator. … Cars from the 1980s-onward tended to have more thought put into [stability] from the start, but even then, a cheap performance car from 1985 was not designed with the intent to create tons of useful downforce in a balanced way at 200 mph. Just know that the Firebirds do work well for that and the 85-90 spoiler is proven to be successful for such endeavors.”

We’re Just Getting Started…

Obviously, there is so much more to land speed racing than simple car selection and a rudimentary understanding of physics. Even for someone just looking to get their feet wet with a stock street car–what events should you enter? What are all the different classes and how are they determined? What suspension and drivetrain work needs to be done to these cars in order to perform well? And, if you do opt for an older generation with slightly less desirable aerodynamics—what kind of body modifications should you be making?

Stay tuned, as we’ll be covering all that and more on the blog.