• Feb 26, 2009
Click above for a gallery of the 1985 Camaro IROC-Z on eBay

If you were able to suddenly don a mullet and hop in Doc Brown's time machine to travel back to the year 1985, you'd find that the pinnacle of affordable performance was available at your local Chevy dealership in the form of the Camaro IROC-Z. This was the first year that the Z was offered, and though this particular example seems to be equipped with the 4-barrel 305 and a five-speed stick, the IROC was the first Camaro to get the Tuned Port Injection engine, which displaced 305 cubic inches and offered up an impressive-for-the-day 215 horsepower, hooked up to a four-speed automatic transmission. Other uplevel bits included 16" 5-spoke alloy rims and meaty 245/50ZR16 tires cribbed from the Corvette.

Here we are in 2009, and most of these cars were snatched up by young, hot-headed male drivers once they hit the used market, meaning that nearly all of the Z's still on the road are in less-than-stellar condition. Fortunately, eBay has come to the rescue once again with an auction for a factory-fresh '85 IROC with just 4.3 miles on the odometer. Most of the parts are there, minus the stock set of wheels and tires, but the car has been sitting for the last 23 years inside a warehouse of some sort. Perhaps it's a gem underneath all that dust and muck, but expect to perform lots of hard work if you actually want to make it drivable again.

The current bid is well over $15K and the reserve has not yet been reached. We're not sure what an untouched '85 IROC is really worth, but apparently it's a bit more that we'd have guessed. Check out our gallery below and click here for the original auction page, and just to get you in the proper mood, we've included a couple of period Camaro commercials after the jump. Thanks for the tip, Charles!

[Source: eBay Motors]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 6 Days Ago

      Fake. Brake pedal has wear.

      • 5 Years Ago
      It is just as tacky and garish as it was when it was born.

      Any Firebird (Camaro) between '71 and 2010 is caught between Guidoland and a Trailerpark
      • 5 Years Ago
      What's that "Recreation" dial thingy for?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Probably the quantity of white powder the driver ingested that day.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I hope neither Foose or wrecks to riches get a hold of this machine to 'pimp' it up with 'badass looking rims' and more of that...

      Some cars, ok. They were a lost deal to begin with and there was no 'original value' involved. But things like these you don't touch with crazy 'tribal paintwork' and ridiculous engines, hood scoops and spoilers...
      • 5 Years Ago
      Tommy, not bad.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Wrong car from the wrong time
        • 5 Years Ago
        Wrong person with a wrong post.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I was only a year old when that car was made.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Well, the car has a low-powered engine, a fun-sucking slushbox, and large squishy tires with quarter-century old driving dynamics. What's the motivation?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Man, if you were anywhere between 12 and 25 back in 1985 then the IROC was the shiznit. I'd love to have a cherry IROC someday but as with most f-bodies and Mustangs, they're quickly destroyed by punks who drunkenly pop curbs and think that doing maintenance is putting on a $500 whale tail.
        • 5 Years Ago
        The car has a five speed manual.

        Look at the photos next time.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I think Autoblog should re-check their facts on this one and not just believe the eBay posting.

      First off, this car is clearly a manual transmission car – just look at the pictures. And since when do fuel-injected cars need a carburetor?

      The engine under that hood is a L69, which made 190 horsepower, not 215 hp. In order to get the 305 cubic-inch LB9 V8 (which was rated at 215 horsepower and had tuned-port fuel-injection) you had to order the IROC-Z package (RPO B4Z) with the four-speed automatic. The four-speed was the only transmission offered with that engine because the Borg-Warner five-speed couldn’t handle the mill’s 275 lb-ft of torque.

      At any rate, who is paying 15 grand for this hunk?
        • 5 Years Ago

        You have been duped by marketing. High HP is great - in certain applications. But larger displacement engines are all about torque. You can outrun me in a Ferarri or maybe an Alfa on the autobahn but I'll smoke you going stop light to stoplight in a Hemi Challenger. Why? because of torque. A 1970 Buick GS with a 454 Stage 1 was rated (conservatively) at 360-370 hp. But it was worthy opponent in a drag race against a 1970 Hemi 'Cuda rated (conservatively) at 425 hp. Why? Because the Buick had 510 ft. lbs. of torque to the Hemi's 470 ft. lbs.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @Shiftright - also, to add to this conversation, automakers HAD gotten a lot better about producing HP from engines under the new emissions rules... My 1977 Camaro with the 305 (2bbl) produced a whopping 140hp.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Looks like the 5-liter 4-barrel and 5-speed stick were no charge options, as reflected on the window sticker. Thanks for catching that, post updated. Of course, any bidders would be advised to run the VIN and whatnot before purchasing...

        • 5 Years Ago
        and yet there were plenty of cars that still didn't make tons of HP even after 10+yrs of emissions controls.

        Basically, to answer your main comment regarding specific horsepower, that answer is a scientific one and not related to one country's automakers over another.

        As an engine gets larger, it becomes less efficient. For instance, you may get 100+HP/L out of a sub-2.0L engine somewhat easily, but trying the same for a larger engine becomes increasingly more difficult as the engine size grows. That's going to be true for any manufacturer, not just American ones. Even today, the number of production engines over 4.0L that can achieve 100HP/L or more are few and far between(and generally quite expensive). Even fewer if you take away forced induction. Yet, smaller engines that reach those figures are more readily available and affordable. Every motorcycle company worth its salt offers a sport bike that has upwards of 140HP/L. So, why aren't we seeing 560HP 4.0L N/A engines(or 420HP 3.0L ones etc.)? From anyone?

        Part of the reason is, for decades American manufacturers have been focused on giving cars that low-end power that American cars are known for. To achieve that, it's usually at the expense of higher-end power where HP is more easily made. That's also often a reason for the lower specific HP. A larger engine is more difficult to make rev higher than a smaller one. Ferrari and Lamborghini etc. get high revs out of their engines by making the strokes quite short and gaining displacement by adding cylinders. Their results do give high RPMs and high HP figures, but at the expense of low-end power and torque.

        Again, it's really much more of a difference in philosophy than in engineering ineptitude.

        Additionally, specific HP only tells part of the story. As I've said in a comment on another story, I'd rather have a 70HP/L 5.0L V8 in my car than a 100HP/L 2.0L in my car. I don't buy my cars based on the specific power output. Strangely enough, I do have a 100HP/L engine in my current car(turbo assisted) and I like it, but I'm also not going to turn down a 350HP V8 car quite honestly. Different strokes for different folks(in more ways than one).
        • 5 Years Ago
        @montoym: By '85 emissions requirements had been around for a while, so manufacturers had had plenty of time to deal with them. There were plenty of contemporary imports producing 190-215 hp from engines with half the displacement. The '84 Alfa Romeo GTV6 I had in the early 90's had 160 hp from a 2.5l, whereas my roommate's '84 Fiero mustered a mere 88 hp out of its 2.5l Iron Duke engine, little more than half of the power. American cars have until very recently, always had grossly inefficient engines in terms of specific horsepower. Never understood why.
        • 5 Years Ago
        TigerMil - scam? How so?

        It matches what was available in 1985.

        • 5 Years Ago
        The motor under the hood is the base V8 motor making something like 165 HP. Back then I had an '84 Z28 with the 5.0 L High Output motor and it had dual air intakes leading to the carburetor. Not only that, it also proudly stated 5.0 Liter High Output on the air cleaner cover and had H.O. badging on the fender skirts and rear bumper. It seems doubtful that someone will pay such a premium for this car since it has no real performance options for its day.
        • 5 Years Ago
        agreed...the window sticker says 5 liter 4-bbl 5 speed manual.

        This is some kind of scam IMHO.

        Still...interesting autoblog blast from the past.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I have to admit I've always thought they were cool looking, albeit over sized, like too many things American unfortunately. And how do you not get more than 190-215 hp out of a 5 liter V8? Baffling. Recently I had the opportunity to outrun a cherry '82 Z-28 off the line in my neighbor's Honda Element automatic . And yes, he was trying, as evidenced by the pissed off look in his face. Granted GM is making some decent cars nowadays, but how did they even survive the 80's?
        • 5 Years Ago
        quote from Shiftright: -
        "And how do you not get more than 190-215 hp out of a 5 liter V8? Baffling." -

        Emissions regulations and rudimentary electronic controls will do that to you. No car was making a lot of power back then. Recall that even supercars of the day were barely pushing 400hp. The Testarossa of the same era had a 4.9L Flat-12 which made 390hp. It's easy to criticize when you're looking at the world of yesterday through today's glasses, so to speak.

        Also note that even today's Mercury Grand Marquis makes only 224hp from it's 4.6L V8. Honestly not a huge improvement for 25yrs of innovation(though probably not an issue for their typical customer base). Numerous much smaller V6's and even many 4cyl engines(normally turbos) easily exceed it.

      • 5 Years Ago
      My dad had one when I was growing up.

      1989 IROC-Z convertible, Red, 5.7L, automatic. I think my mom drive it more though..it was the first car I ever saw her excited over.

      Low mileage cars aren't hard to find:

      There is a limited edition '78 Volare Roadrunner with less than 12 miles. The owner wouldn't even start it for the car magazine that was covering it.

      There is a '69 Charger Daytona in Pennsylvania that has never been sold. It still sits in the dealer showroom with only a few miles on.

      I agree, there is no point to owning a car that you can't/won't drive, but there are people that pack them away. I don't view these cars as mullet rides, never have. However, these days 90% of the Camaro/Firebirds I see have young punk wannabee posers behind the wheel.

      My neighbors kid is one of them...and he has a whole group of friends that think Camaros are the greatest car ever built. He told me I need to put nitrous on my Dart, to which I replied that nitrous is for people that don't know how to build REAL engines.
      • 5 Years Ago
      The thing didn't sell (didn't meet the reserve). Twenty-six bids, and a high bid of $24,600.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I'll take this over a Civic with a stupid wing and fart can exhaust any day of the week.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Love third gen Camaro's, great stance and dynamics for a muscle car of that time. DO WANT.
    • Load More Comments