1985 Mustang GT vs. Camaro Iroc-Z vs. Trans Am | Retro Review

MotorWeek’s 1985 Retro Review pits a Ford Mustang GT, Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z, and Pontiac Trans Am against each other in a head-to-head that now doubles as a time capsule — sticker prices around 10 to 12 thousand dollars, barely 200 horsepower, and a carbureted-engine punchline that’s become a running joke in the comments. Watch to see which of the three came out on top, and why Pontiac fans still mourn its absence.

Rewind to 1985 and put three brand-new muscle cars on the same test track: a Ford Mustang GT, a Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z, and a Pontiac Trans Am. On paper, this should be one of the golden matchups of the era. In practice, this MotorWeek Retro Review captures something stranger — three cars fighting over genuinely modest horsepower numbers, wrapped in dashboards full of switches and gauges that feel like a time capsule from a different automotive universe entirely. Watching it now says as much about how far things have come as it does about which car actually won.

Three Icons, One Era-Defining Comparison

MotorWeek’s original Retro Review format pits the 1985 Ford Mustang GT, Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z, and Pontiac Trans Am against one another in a period-correct head-to-head, testing acceleration, handling, and value across America’s three most recognizable pony cars of the mid-1980s. All three represented their manufacturers’ best attempt at recapturing muscle car excitement during an era still recovering from emissions regulations and the fuel crises of the previous decade, when horsepower had only recently started climbing again after years of decline.

⚑ Featured Gear

Start Car Conversations →

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Prices That Sound Impossible Today

One commenter pulled the sticker prices straight from the segment, and they read like typos to modern eyes: roughly $10,000 for the Mustang, $11,000 for the IROC-Z, and $12,000 for a fully loaded Trans Am. Those figures, unremarkable in 1985, now serve as a stark reminder of just how much muscle car pricing has climbed — a well-optioned example of any of these three cars today routinely commands multiples of its original window sticker, especially in unmodified, low-mile condition.

Carburetors, Merely Carburetors

A single line from the segment has taken on a life of its own in the comments, with viewers quoting “carburetors, merely carburetors” and calling for it to be printed on a t-shirt. The throwaway phrase has become shorthand among fans of this video for the era it captures — the last stretch before fuel injection fully took over performance engines, when carburetor tuning was still a defining part of ownership rather than a footnote in automotive history that most modern owners never have to think about.

Modest Horsepower, Outsized Reputation

By modern standards, the horsepower figures on display are almost comically restrained — one commenter jokes about being amazed the cars can be kept “on the road” with barely 200 horsepower on tap. Yet all three cars built reputations that far outlasted their factory output numbers, in large part because the V8 soundtrack, aggressive styling, and relatively light weight of mid-80s pony cars delivered a sense of speed that the raw numbers alone don’t fully explain to anyone who never drove one new.

The Long Shadow of Pontiac’s Absence

More than one commenter uses the Trans Am’s appearance here as an occasion to mourn Pontiac’s discontinuation, writing simply “RIP Pontiac, you are missed” and noting they “think of you every day.” That sentiment shows up repeatedly across Pontiac-era MotorWeek footage, reflecting how strongly the Trans Am nameplate still resonates with enthusiasts more than a decade after General Motors shut the brand down entirely in 2010, ending one of the most storied names in American performance.

Nostalgia as the Real Star of the Segment

For many viewers, the appeal of this footage has less to do with which car actually won the comparison and more to do with the specific texture of mid-1980s car culture it preserves — mustaches, oversized sunglasses, and dashboards covered in buttons that a modern touchscreen has long since made obsolete. One commenter puts it simply: watching this “brings me back to a simpler, happier, better time,” a sentiment echoed throughout the thread by viewers who owned one of these three cars new.

Why Retro Reviews Like This Still Matter

MotorWeek’s decision to revisit and re-air period test footage rather than simply archive it has turned segments like this one into a genuine historical resource, preserving not just performance numbers but the marketing language, pricing, and cultural context that surrounded these cars when they were new. For anyone trying to understand why 1980s pony cars still command such loyal followings today, watching the original comparison — carbureted engines, modest horsepower, and all — explains more than any modern retrospective could.

A Rivalry That Never Really Ended

The comparison also lands differently depending on which side of the Mustang-versus-Camaro divide a viewer grew up on, and the comments make that rivalry impossible to miss even decades later. One owner recalls a fully loaded 1988 IROC-Z with a 5.7-liter TPI engine and T-tops, admitting it wasn’t the fastest car on the road but insisting the fun factor made that irrelevant — a reminder that these three cars were never purely about the numbers, even when they were brand new and being cross-shopped by buyers with genuinely limited budgets.

Why MotorWeek’s Format Still Works

Part of what makes this comparison hold up decades later is MotorWeek’s insistence on testing every car identically — same track, same conditions, same measured runs — rather than relying on manufacturer-supplied performance claims. That methodology, unusual for automotive television even in 1985, is exactly why enthusiasts still cite these numbers today as a credible baseline rather than dismissing them as of-the-era marketing. A modern viewer comparing spec sheets for a period-correct restoration project can trust these figures in a way that contemporary magazine road tests from less rigorous outlets simply don’t offer.

The Donate Button Keeping History Alive

MotorWeek’s decision to fund ongoing Retro Review production through direct viewer donations, referenced at the top of the segment, reflects how much this kind of archival footage now depends on the enthusiast community itself rather than the broadcast television budgets that originally paid for it. That funding model is part of why these comparisons keep surfacing years after their original airdate — a dedicated audience actively wants this footage preserved, digitized, and kept accessible, rather than left to decay in a network archive somewhere.

Watch the full video and drop your thoughts in the comments below.

Republished by Blog Post Promoter