4th gen observations [Archive] - NJFBOA - Home of New Jersey's Camaros and Firebirds

ws6 jim

01-28-2010, 08:27 PM

Now I'm not getting tired of my better car, but after seeing the 5th gen more commonplace and appreciating having a 3rd gen I had a thought. The 1st and 2nd gens had their time and are classics. The 3rd gen is iconic for many reasons(good, bad, and otherwise). But where does this leave the 4th gen?

They are popular because of their drivetrain, first the LT1 and later the LS1 in top trims of course. V6 cars had a different purpose and have their place.

Imagine if the 93-2002 Firebird and Camaro had kept tuned port injection and made no strives except for the restyled look over the years(similiar to what Ford has done since the mid 90s with the mustang and the modular 4.6).

What would it be remembered for at that point?
Compared to the other generations, do you think they have similiar staying power?

Now the 5th gen is getting more exposure everyday. The 2010 Camaro has taken the f-body platform to the next level and should be commended weight considerations and all.

What are your thoughts? Just curious if I'm in the minority.

NastyEllEssWon

01-28-2010, 08:30 PM

the 4th gens were doomed before they even had a chance. seems like gm just limped them along for the last 10 years.

T69SS

01-28-2010, 08:37 PM

I dont think they have near the styling or heritage as the first or second gens for any real staying power, but i can see them sticking around as good performance vehicles (similar to the 5.0 Mustangs). The LS1 is a great platform and will definitely be around for years to come at the strip

BonzoHansen

01-28-2010, 08:37 PM

I like the LS/T56 drivetrains & brakes. I like the performance, not the car so much, if that makes sense. I prefer the 3rd gen exterior over the 4th. The 4th gens generally have better interiors and seemingly better t-tops. I never really liked 3rd gen interiors, too many sharp lines or something. I never liked hatchbacks.

As big & bulky as it is, at least the new one is not the same basic car they designed in 1979.

WildBillyT

01-28-2010, 09:05 PM

BigAls87Z28

01-28-2010, 10:13 PM

100 million bucks to remove it.
The 5th gen cost 280 million to make...all together.

4th gens design was huge, when the Camaro California concept car hit the car show circuit. Such rave reviews of the car. The original 4th gen concept designed by the Detroit design center was a following of the third gen, and never got a chance to show itself.
When Ron Zarella decided that RWD would be Caddy and Corvette, it spelt the end for Camaro and Firebird.

miketa95

01-29-2010, 01:03 AM

If t-tops came in gto's or 5th gens, I think I'd like them better. They don't look as awkward.

Squirrel

01-29-2010, 02:06 AM

besides the 92 hawk and 89 TTA the 3rd gens were a joke... all lt1 cars were 13 second machines unlike the 20 years before that, and after not long some ls1 cars hit 12s bone stock... after the 93 cobra r and before the 03 cobra the f-body ran all over the mustang platform performance wise, despite sales being less than half

maroman88

01-29-2010, 02:28 AM

i like each generation, hell each year! they all had good and bad points.

as for fourth gens... the base models could be very plain looking (same with each generation tho) however for me the 98+ Trans Am is the best looking one (hell even the 93-97's do it for me esp with the Ram Air 1 hood :drool: ), inside and out, thats why i bought one! the 96+ SS is a VERY close second tho

Aminue

01-29-2010, 06:03 AM

I personally love the 79... I have an 83 but I like all the camaro bodies. I think as time changed so did the bodies just like any car. I like the 2010 but prefer the older bodies.

Untamed

01-29-2010, 09:41 AM

With the 4th gens truly being the end of the "f-body" platform, it'll be known as the end of an era. The performace was great, the styling very nice, the interiors comfortable, and the quality adaquate.

From an investors point of view, there are several special editions that will eventually enjoy some attention. But like it's predicessors, the average car (even the SS and WS6) will be used and thrown away except by the diehard few who will keep them as pristine examples. If we look to history, I don't see the trend changing.

What it comes down to is - as time marches on, those collectors / enthusiasts who really like the F-body platform, will have to make a choice about what they invest their money into. Will the 4th gen platforms provide a good return, or do the older vehicles (1st and 2nd gen) create the most demand? There are lots of aftermarket parts companies out there for each of the generations, but time will tell who is still around long enough to support the demand for both enthusiasts and investors.

Ironically what has gotten me interested in the 4th gen birds again is that Temptation poster than one of the members posted recently. Despite the "wide hips" look of the TA, I still love the rear shot of the tail lights and high wing. Very agressive.

LTb1ow

01-29-2010, 09:49 AM

WildBillyT

01-29-2010, 09:50 AM

LTb1ow

01-29-2010, 09:52 AM

Looks are always subjective.

And beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

sweetbmxrider

01-29-2010, 10:12 AM

echo?

LTb1ow

01-29-2010, 10:28 AM

echo?

Sometimes my car echos in tunnels, but is that what you meant? :|

MonmouthCtyAntz

01-29-2010, 10:33 AM

Never liked the 2nd and 3rd gens. 4th gen was a hell of a bang for the buck that really never took off...probably because chevy never advertised them.

PolarBear

01-29-2010, 10:48 AM

The 2010 Camaro has taken the f-body platform to the next level and should be commended weight considerations and all.

Not an F-body

after the 93 cobra r and before the 03 cobra the f-body ran all over the mustang platform performance wise, despite sales being less than half

Which is why I never understood why people did not buy the F-body except cost and I maintain that people are stupid in general. You can **** in a box and call it a Mustang and people will buy it because they love the name "Mustang"

BonzoHansen

01-29-2010, 10:51 AM

Not an F-body

Which is why I never understood why people did not buy the F-body except cost and I maintain that people are stupid in general. You can **** in a box and call it a Mustang and people will buy it because they love the name "Mustang"

If shelby ****s in the box it goes to auction. :lol:

Slow-V6

01-29-2010, 11:03 AM

The 90-92 3rd Gens were pretty fast for what they were. You can get a 1 LE 91 Formula with a 305 5 speed and run a mid to low 14 stock!! As far as saying all LT1 cars were 13 second cars is not right. I would love to see a bone stock 93 T/A with a automatic hit 13.99! What killed the 4th gens in my opinion is that there was no real movie or tv show that featured a 4th gen in it.. The 2nd gens had smokey and the bandit, the 3rd gens had Knight rider and Black dog, the 4th gens had???? They sold over 200,000 firebirds in 1979!!

Slow-V6

01-29-2010, 11:06 AM

Which is why I never understood why people did not buy the F-body except cost and I maintain that people are stupid in general. You can **** in a box and call it a Mustang and people will buy it because they love the name "Mustang"

They buy the mustang because it has the feeling of driving any other regular car on the road. It doesnt have that corvette low to the ground feeling like the f-bodies had.

Slow-V6

01-29-2010, 11:07 AM

Slow-V6

01-29-2010, 11:13 AM

Imagine if the 93-2002 Firebird and Camaro had kept tuned port injection and made no strives except for the restyled look over the years(similiar to what Ford has done since the mid 90s with the mustang and the modular 4.6).

.

Isnt the Fuel injection off the LT1 basically a Tuned port injection?

The mustangs with the 4.6's made pretty big strives over the years. They started out at 215hp in 96 and are now at 315hp!! In 99 the power went up to 260hp with the new heads and cam, in 2005 it went up to 300 hp with the 3v heads, and in 2009 it went up to 315 with I dont know what. Gaining a 100 hp isnt really making no strives?

The 350 TPI motor topped out at 245 hp, the LT1 topped out at 285 hp ( non ram air or SS) and the LS1 motor topped out at 310hp ( Non Ram Air or SS)

firebirdcrazy

01-29-2010, 11:39 AM

I had an 86 formula and an 87 Trans am. I also had an 87 Iroc camaro. The 86 Formula was the best of the 3 that I enjoyed most for that era. The day I saw the Trans am Commercial in 98 where it pulled up behind an import and ate it and spit out its tail pipe I was in love with the new design. I saved up for 3 years to buy it new cash. That car has been great to me with no real issues and I can still sit there and stare at it the way I picked it up new. I love the sleekness, the power, and was still economical in gas. What other car with over 300 Horsepower got 30 MPG's on the highway? I dont see myself parting with my ride anytime soon. I will probably buy that Phoenix TA and still have this one in the garage. I just dont see myself parting with it. My point this 4th Gen best of all time!!

NastyEllEssWon

01-29-2010, 11:45 AM

lol that wasnt just any import. it was a lamborghini :nod:

PolarBear

01-29-2010, 11:48 AM

They buy the mustang because it has the feeling of driving any other regular car on the road. It doesnt have that corvette low to the ground feeling like the f-bodies had.
:bs: My uncle had a Fox body and an SN95 and his daughter in law has a 08 (I think) and they all feel as low to the ground as an F-body. Plus the clutches are all cable style and are VERY hard to push compared to the hydraulic setups GM has been using for years. I got in the 08 to move it one day and I could not believe how much pedal effort was required to push the clutch in. Even the old Z bar setups didnt need that much.

ever heard of multiquote? :-P

NastyEllEssWon

01-29-2010, 11:49 AM

mustang had a more usable rear backseat than the fbodies did too. thats appealing to a lot of people

baddest434

01-29-2010, 11:52 AM

Third gens are just ugly and slow

yep and your POS is beatiful and as fast as a rocket:wink:
get a grip

Slow-V6

01-29-2010, 11:53 AM

:bs: My uncle had a Fox body and an SN95 and his daughter in law has a 08 (I think) and they all feel as low to the ground as an F-body. Plus the clutches are all cable style and are VERY hard to push compared to the hydraulic setups GM has been using for years. I got in the 08 to move it one day and I could not believe how much pedal effort was required to push the clutch in. Even the old Z bar setups didnt need that much.

ever heard of multiquote? :-P

If you put a Camaro 4th gen next to a 1999 Mustang the mustang sits Higher then the camaro! When you look at someone driving a camaro/firebird all you see is there head for the most part. When you look at someone driving a 94-04 Mustang you can see pretty much the whole upper body.. I have owned a Foxbody and a SN95 Mustang and this was one of my biggest dissapointments in them. The newer mustangs 2005 and up feel lower to the ground but the 94-04 mustangs have a regular car feel to them. The Fox's just have a Escort/Tempo feel to them.

firebirdcrazy

01-29-2010, 11:55 AM

mustang had a more usable rear backseat than the fbodies did too. thats appealing to a lot of people

My mom had a 91 4 cyl mustang that I used from time to time. I dont think that back seat was any more useful then the fbody at all talking from experience. Hated getting in the back of that thing.

LTb1ow

01-29-2010, 12:01 PM

yep and your POS is beatiful and as fast as a rocket:wink:
get a grip

Oh I gots to get a grip, my car is that fast. :lol:

Slow-V6

01-29-2010, 12:04 PM

My mom had a 91 4 cyl mustang that I used from time to time. I dont think that back seat was any more useful then the fbody at all talking from experience. Hated getting in the back of that thing.

Exactly. The back seat of both cars are pretty much useless. Thats why I had a Rear seat delete kit in my 96 Mustang and have no back seats in my 02 T/A..

NastyEllEssWon

01-29-2010, 12:06 PM

the flat bench in the back of the mustangs are more useful if you have kids than the cathump with two buckets.

firebirdcrazy

01-29-2010, 12:08 PM

That back seat is more for looks and keep insurance cost down lol.

LTb1ow

01-29-2010, 12:08 PM

So if you want a slow car, you buy a mustang or a third gen? (minus old man time's mobile :moon:)

ws6 jim

01-29-2010, 12:15 PM

Hmn... a slow 305 powered turd gen... or a 350 small block powered car that looks much better.... tough choice...

Third gens are just ugly and slow. Its like Nick and his precious vert, just blind love.

I think my 305 is quick considering what it is. The way my 91 gta looks even though its not in great shape, is timeless and instantly recognizable. I enjoy driving the car when i come to terms with what its meant to be and what to expect from it. At the same time I can get behind the wheel of a modified newer better much faster ls1 car. I appreciate both for what they are, but I feel theres going to be more nostalgia for the 3rd gen cars despite the technology/engineering gap the 4th gen created over the years.

01-29-2010, 12:20 PM

car in the commercial was a ferrari actually iirc.. im gonna google it now lol

edit: its hard to tell, maybe a lotus even...

sweetbmxrider

01-29-2010, 12:25 PM

yep and your POS is beatiful and as fast as a rocket:wink:
get a grip

too much north jersey air will make you delusional. combine that with binge drinking and BAM! matt kohler.

firebirdcrazy

01-29-2010, 12:27 PM

Looks like a Lamborghine Diablo. all the markings were taken off. Damn that commercial gave me goose bumps again lol

firebirdcrazy

01-29-2010, 12:35 PM

Commercials for those who havent seen them in a while

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3Qzxy27HYA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9Ho-uyPock

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTkDMPJRiKs <<<< Hungry trans am

01-29-2010, 12:36 PM

def not a lambo... due to tailights, amber over red do not match any models , plus the rear of a diablo is very distinct...

WildBillyT

01-29-2010, 12:50 PM

That is a Lotus Esprit.

firebirdcrazy

01-29-2010, 12:50 PM

98 Camaro Commercial. There was only one commercial I could find for the 98+ Camaro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWtJ7Ov2bcA

firebirdcrazy

01-29-2010, 12:52 PM

That is a Lotus Esprit.
That was my next guess since it was similar design. I still see more of a Lambo for some reason

01-29-2010, 12:57 PM

i cant find a lotus model that matches it either though, may be a one off "kit" car for the commercial...

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d50/SmokingSS/redcar.jpg

91chevywt

01-29-2010, 01:18 PM

Each generation will have its own place in the world. Each generation is almost 'time capsule' of its time period. Looks are subjective. "fast" is subjective. Theres people that love 2nd gens and wouldn't want any other F-body. Theres people that love 3rd gens, and wouldnt have it any other way. Same for almost any car, there can be a cult following out there. What the car is powered by is minor compared to how the rest of the car works.

The 4th gen will have its proper place in history. But late 2nd gens are barely respected as a collector car, let alone a 3rd or 4th gen. It'll take some time for a 4th gen to be respected in the same fashion as a 1st or early 2nd gen.

Squirrel

01-29-2010, 02:13 PM

As far as saying all LT1 cars were 13 second cars is not right. I would love to see a bone stock 93 T/A with a automatic hit 13.99!

my neighbor had one that did just that... and with just an intake/exhaust he ran consistent 13.6's

WildBillyT

01-29-2010, 02:16 PM

my neighbor had one that did just that... and with just an intake/exhaust he ran consistent 13.6's

93's also had the shorter first gear in the T56's

Squirrel

01-29-2010, 02:22 PM

93's also had the shorter first gear in the T56's

but that got negated because the 93 m6 cars had 3:23's instead of 3:42s

WildBillyT

01-29-2010, 02:35 PM

but that got negated because the 93 m6 cars had 3:23's instead of 3:42s

A 2.97 and 3.23 has a better launch ratio than a 2.66 and a 3.42. Doesn't help past first gear though. Point taken.

sweetbmxrider

01-29-2010, 02:48 PM

looks like a 240sx

Featherburner

01-29-2010, 05:22 PM

mustang had a more usable rear backseat than the fbodies did too. thats appealing to a lot of peopleAs opposed to the front backseat? :lol:

but that got negated because the 93 m6 cars had 3:23's instead of 3:42sThey also had 2.73.

A 2.97 and 3.23 has a better launch ratio than a 2.66 and a 3.42. Doesn't help past first gear though. Point taken.
93 m6 also came with 3.36 first gear too.

maroman88

01-29-2010, 05:51 PM

thanks for posting those commercial's of the black TA... now i reallllly dont wanna sell mine!

PolarBear

01-29-2010, 06:28 PM

i cant find a lotus model that matches it either though, may be a one off "kit" car for the commercial...

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d50/SmokingSS/redcar.jpg

Rear end looks like a 928 Porsche (Maybe, one of those Porsche's)

Slow-V6

01-29-2010, 07:26 PM

my neighbor had one that did just that... and with just an intake/exhaust he ran consistent 13.6's

Well my old roomate had a 93 T/A with 57,000 miles on it back in 2004 that ran a 14.2@99mph with a 1.9 60' that was bone stock.. That was a good 60' for stock 16 inch wheels and street tires and with some DR's he would have ran a 13 second pass but that would not have been all stock! All I was saying is I have never seen a bone stock, Non Ram air,auto LT1 run a 13 second pass at the track.

I am not dogging the LT1 at all. I own one and love it just as much as my LS1. Hell I went 13.14@110 in my 02 WS6 with a 2.3 60'!! Thats a crappy pass. If I had a 60' of a 1.9 then I would have run a mid 12. I will be the 1st to say it that I suck at the track!! I cut less then a 2.0 1 time in my life and I broke a rear end doing it. I cut a 1.7 in my V6 on DR's that would have been a low 12 High 11 if it didnt break and everything else went right!!

Knipps

01-30-2010, 09:02 AM

You're missing the point where his car was also 11 years old at that point

Slow-V6

01-30-2010, 04:25 PM

You're missing the point where his car was also 11 years old at that point

No *****! How can you have a brand new 1993 T/A?

All I said was I have never seen a Bone stock, Non Ram Air or SS , Auto, LT1 powered F-body run 13's stock!!

Squirrel

01-30-2010, 04:31 PM

No *****! How can you have a brand new 1993 T/A?

All I said was I have never seen a Bone stock, Non Ram Air or SS , Auto, LT1 powered F-body run 13's stock!!

www.speeddensity.org, tons of auto 93's went/go 13's bone stock

Slow-V6

01-30-2010, 04:39 PM

www.speeddensity.org, tons of auto 93's went/go 13's bone stock

Um if you are talking about the cars on the timeslip pages that say NA that doesnt mean they are bone stock! And in the racing forum alot of those 13 second cars say Calculated 1/4 mile times because they only ran a 1/8 mile. they dont even list there mods or if they are stock!!

Like I said for the past 10,000 times I Personally have never seen a bone stock Auto LT1 F-body run a 13 at the track!!

Squirrel

01-31-2010, 12:35 AM

Um if you are talking about the cars on the timeslip pages that say NA that doesnt mean they are bone stock! And in the racing forum alot of those 13 second cars say Calculated 1/4 mile times because they only ran a 1/8 mile. they dont even list there mods or if they are stock!!

Like I said for the past 10,000 times I Personally have never seen a bone stock Auto LT1 F-body run a 13 at the track!!

im not arguing with ya bro, just saying theres a lot of auto 93's that have gone 13's bone stock, i personally know of one and my 93 ran 13's stock also, but it was an m6

firebirdcrazy

02-01-2010, 07:39 AM

Did anyone figure out what the hell that car is that the Trans am eats up?

PolarBear

02-01-2010, 08:13 AM

http://www.veva.bc.ca/rev/2003/photos/gordonw/godfrey-porsche928.jpg
Modified 928?

Blacdout96

02-01-2010, 08:41 AM

That is.....A lotus Espirit like a 1995, with modified intakes on the back pillars, and a changed front bumper, and rear lower back bumper, but it is a Lotus.

r0nin89

02-01-2010, 10:44 AM

Pertaining to original post I would say that yes other than drivetrain awesomeness (both LT and LS motors) I would say theres no real "sweetness" to 4th gens like the other generations IMO.

The only reason I ever considered getting a 4th gen is because as was said, 12 second passes and 30mpg highway is awesome.

PolarBear

02-01-2010, 10:49 AM

That is.....A lotus Espirit like a 1995, with modified intakes on the back pillars, and a changed front bumper, and rear lower back bumper, but it is a Lotus.

I am not seeing it, the back of the car isnt even the correct shape
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/3071/3801/7676900001_large.jpg

Blacdout96

02-01-2010, 11:22 AM

I am not seeing it, the back of the car isnt even the correct shape
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/3071/3801/7676900001_large.jpg

which is why reading is FTL with you. they were modified. have to remember GM owned a little share of Lotus, so I wouldn't be suprised if they plucked one to use for hte commercial. I can't see them jeopardizing a small claim they ahve, let alone , to embarrass a n established sports car company.

firebirdcrazy

02-01-2010, 11:28 AM

I would go with the Modified Lotus. The front end has the most similarity. The rear end has more Lambo. Remember the Red Lambo in the Rocky 4. That looks more like that one. The black one he drove had a more square rear on it.

T69SS

02-01-2010, 11:51 AM

I know its not, but the rear looks like an Aston Martin or even a Maserati almost

firebirdcrazy

02-01-2010, 12:04 PM

I emailed a pontiac editor so hopefully he gets back to me with an answer lol

Blacdout96

02-01-2010, 12:24 PM

lol, brilliant!!!

firebirdcrazy

02-01-2010, 01:47 PM

My answer from the Pontiac editor was a Kit Car. Best they got for me. Unbelievable lol

Blacdout96

02-01-2010, 01:53 PM

I highly doubt they made a kit car for that commercial, body kit maybe ,but not a whole car.

firebirdcrazy

02-01-2010, 02:02 PM

If they had used a real car they would have had to pay for the rights so I can see that I guess.

WildBillyT

02-01-2010, 02:03 PM

If they had used a real car they would have had to pay for the rights so I can see that I guess.

Yes, exactly. Plus the car does not have to run, or even move.

Squirrel

02-01-2010, 02:08 PM

looks like a crossfire ate a dsm and **** that thing out

Blacdout96

02-01-2010, 03:01 PM

When I get home, im gonna have to se the commercial, shame the pics are ******. I still say it's a Lotus cause I'm seeing alot of lotus que's on that car, including the rear pillar angles and shape.

WildBillyT

02-01-2010, 03:02 PM

When I get home, im gonna have to se the commercial, shame the pics are ******. I still say it's a Lotus cause I'm seeing alot of lotus que's on that car, including the rear pillar angles and shape.

I thought the same back on page 2. But look at the body color vs. blacked out (blacdout? lol) tail panel and the reverse lights in the tail light assemblies. Doesn't match.

Close, but not exact.

firebirdcrazy

02-01-2010, 03:06 PM

I added the video links on page 2

Tru2Chevy

02-01-2010, 09:01 PM

I'm gonna say that the kit car answer is most likely correct. It could easily have been a kit car that they just paid some random guy a few thousand bucks to use for an evening of shooting. Doesn't mean that they had to build it from the ground up themselves.

- Justin