First Car Questions

Home  \  Domestic Cars  \  First Car Questions

Hey guys, I originally wanted an S-10 Xtreme for a first car and have been saving for a while now although I think I would want a faster car (its in my blood :laughing:) and a Z28 Camaro seems great. I thought the insurance would be a LOT more but come to find out its like an extra thousand a year. . . not TOO bad considering its a first car so insurance will kill me anyway. BUT, I had always read that you had to run premium in the SS Camaro - this is probably the same in the Z28 considering the only difference is that it doesnt have forced induction right?? Is premium absolutely neccessary to have it run good - could you just maybe octane boost it or something?

What would a stock Z28 run (manual six speed) and are they reliable? My dad says no but i think hes being hypocritical considering he had about 3 69 camaros and a chevelle. . .

posted by  Shift4

The SS and the Z28 are naturally aspirated motors (no such thing as a factory forced induction F-body... except that 3.8L Firebird in the '80's). Yes they are reliable, yes they're fast, yes you should always run premium. Think about it, a bottle of octane booster with a full tank of gas... bottle of octane booster ~$3.00, extra cost of using premium gasoline... about $3.00. So, stop whining about premium. What is it with people. I run premium in all of my vehicles, necesssary or not... you're seriously never going to nice the extra couple bucks.

The six speed F-bodies can get fastastic mileage if you drive them right. My brother got 31mpg in a six speed '95 Pontiac Firehawk (that's if you can manage to keep your foot out of it :mrgreen: ).

posted by  Bino

First off, the SS doesnt have forced induction. If we're talking about the 1998-2002 Camaros the Z/28 and the SS have the same LS1 engine just tuned differently. The Z/28 is 305hp while the SS is 320+hp (goes up to like 335-340hp i think with packages). I might be wrong on this but I haven't checked in a long time but I believe the LS1 runs on premium. The LT1 also I believe runs on premium (94-97).

A stock 98-02 manual Z/28 should be in the high 13s (13.7-13.8) no problem down a 1/4 mile. As for experience with newer Camaros reliability seems to be hit and miss. Although I have seen more issues with the 3.8L V8 than the 5.7L LT1 or LS1. Then again, I've had a friend had to rebuild the LS1 because it spun a bearing or bent a valve or something... If you want hard factual statisitics on the Camaro go to www.jdpower.com and look up the ratings for long term mechanical reliability for the Camaro.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I'd take it...it's definitely a very nice car IMO...especially if you want a fast car :thumbs:

posted by  chris_knows

Holy crap! 31 MPG?! City or highway (i think u meant highway but I HOPE you mean combined! :wink2: )? Yeah, I guess premium isnt too bad but it still kinda sucks. . . I guess if u put in 15 gallons (premium will probably always be about 20 cents more than regular right??) then you are seriously only paying an extra 3 bucks. . . but that adds up. . .

Would a Z28 be a good first car or not really? Some people think its too fast for a first car but I have good judgement (when needed :hi: ) and an S-10 would get slow running 16s after a while. . .

Whats the stock 0-60 and QM for a Z28?? Also, you said its reliable? Thats good. . . By forced induction I meant the ram air that you get with the SS (not really forced induction - wasnt thinking straight).

posted by  Shift4

What year? It would probably be around 14.5s for the quarter mile, and around 6s 0-60...but that's just an estimate...

posted by  chris_knows

I was talking about the 1998-2002 (probably 98 or 99 to get it for cheaper)

What would be a realistic mileage with moderate driving (like some fast driving but just normal cruising mostly)? (Like 60%/40% for city/highway driving) WOW, this could actually turn out to be a practical rocket! Would it be about the same mileage as an S-10 Xtreme (4.3L 5 speed manual)? I wanted the GTI a little while ago but thats too much of a granny car without mods - granted its quick, the shifter is too long of a throw and the suspension isnt that great - this is better.

posted by  Shift4

You'd probably be looking at 17/24mpg, the quarter mile is around 13.6 seconds, and about 5.3 seconds 0-60

The S-10 Xtreme gets around 17/22mpg, so a bit better, with a 7.9 second 0-60, and 16 seconds in the 1/4 mile :thumbs:

posted by  chris_knows

Which would you reccommend as a daily driver (if I can afford either!!), the SS or the Z28? I hear the Z28 has a more forgiving suspension while still being very handling capable. This would be nice because I am not going to feel like racing ALL the time (I hope - cut down on tickets). Also, the only things that give the SS more power are the functional ram air hood (I could just put my own on later right?) and the exhaust - i would get flowmasters

Is this a reliable good first car or is it a rocket that will kill me with its pricetag? (if it gets somewhat decent mileage maybe it will be acceptable if i can talk the parents into paying insurance - I think they will have to because I seriously cant afford it; 5-6000 bucks a year is RIDICULOUS) Also, these insurance quotes i have been looking at are for starting a completely NEW insurance plan - I would put it on my parents. they have a SPOTLESS record, and i would get the good grade discount - wouldnt that cut down significantly on the insurance prices? (i daresay 3,500?? maybe??)

Because if I could prove that the insurance wasnt hardly any more than an S-10 (my dad has long since thought an S-10 would be a perfectly practical first car, but he has camaro heritage and I know he cant resist the added perks that come with me buying one - his own personal gratification :hi: )

posted by  Shift4

What year Camaro are we talking about here?

PS- The only Forcefully Inducted F-body was the 89 Trans Am Turbo Pace Car, of which only 1555 were made.

posted by  PontiacFan27

31mpg is probably a record for an LS1 F-body...needless to say, that was a VERY much bit optimistic (unless your running down a 2 degree slope constantly at 60mph in 6th gear).

EPA rates the manual 98-02 Z/28 at 18mpg city and 27mpg highway. So 22.5mpg combined. Normally people see slightly less than what EPA says so I'd bet you're looking at about 20mpg overall 50/50 driving.

Like I said with an LS1 Z/28 you're looking at high 13s (13.7-13.8) for a 1/4 mile for sure. Ram air is in no way forced induction (ie, supercharger, turbocharger, nitrous, propane...). Ram air is really for looks, it maybe adds 1-2 extra hp, given you're traveling at 120mph.

As for reliability , like I said from my experience they seem to be hit and miss. If you want hard statistics go to jdpower.com.

posted by  thunderbird1100

'89 Turbo T/A. Best F-Body EVER made, IMO.

http://www.89tta.com/ttaside.gif

At a very underrated 250hp and 340tq. I've seen these things pull on LT1's no problem!

posted by  thunderbird1100

So it is obviously a rocket with acceptable mileage, but is it a pracitcal daily driver, or would I be better off with the S-10 Xtreme or like a VW GTI?

Also, the ram air package on the SS (in conjunction with the slightly less restrictive exhaust) is supposed to give 15 extra horsepower - thats negligible and not worth the much stiffer suspension right?

posted by  Shift4

31 mpg was a best ever mpg, it was during a trip to Las Vegas ('95 is an LT1 Firehawk), my brother was averaging 70-80mph in 6th gear, both 5th and 6th gears are overdrives. His car had a 3.42 final drive. It was much more common to get in the low-mid 20's for mileage.

posted by  Bino

Well, a Camaro is most likely going to get better mileage than the S-10 (4.3L V6), I don't know why you keep thinking the suspension of the SS is going to be a problem. If I were actually looking at an F-Body (did for a while) I'd ONLY be looking at the SS, WS-6, or Firehawks. It's not like they're much more expensive, they have a better suspension, and they have more power. Simple choice.

posted by  Bino

I agree with Bino. But I'd just like to note that the Ram Air doesnt add 15hp, the LS1 engine also is different slightly from the LS1 in the Z/28.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Actually, I would much rather have the SS but its more expensive and the insurance is probably a lot more even though the horsepower difference is small. I would rather have it but I dont know if I can afford either at this point - if its reliable and a practical daily driver than I would probably be allowed to get it but my dad is biased against the new ones because people at his work have one or two and they say the motors on their windows have gone out and that everything breaks on them.

What is the 0-60 time for a GTI 1.8T (2002-03) with a manual? I had originally heard like 6.5 but now I hear 7.5. . .

posted by  Shift4

You need to stop measuring performance figures with non-performance figures. 0-60mph tells you Absolutely NOTHING relatively speaking about performance of the car. The 1/4 Mile time is a good indicator of straight line performance, while you can judge a little how well a car handles by it's slalom/skidpad results. 0-60 is just some random time magazines came up with to measure.

The 1/4 mile for a MKIV GTI is about a flat 15/high 14s.

posted by  thunderbird1100

are you sure the old 4.9 turbo cars didn't have turbos? :hi: :wink2:

posted by  dodger65

The forgotten turbo F-bodys. I've never seen a running one on the road.

posted by  thunderbird1100

teh 301 turbo was a dog in stock form, but, since the boost was mechanically controlled through a lever to the wastegate, you could simply take some small vice grips, clamp down in the middle of the rod, twist 90 degrees, and have enough boost to run 13s.

I've seen a lot of them over on the west coast.

http://www.musclecarcalendar.com/CVC112.jpg

http://www.texastransams.com/images/vintage_firebird_ads/81-trans-am-turbo- ad.jpg

posted by  ChrisV

I'll take the 89 Trans Am Turbo Indy 500 Pace car.

posted by  PontiacFan27

I had no idea there was a turbocharged V8 .

SWEET :thumbs:

posted by  Bino

Well it had a turbo, but it was a 301 Pontiac. Everyone will tell you the 301 was one of the worst excuses for a V8, or any engine, ever made.

posted by  vwhobo

yeah, but even then, 345 lb ft of torque wasn't too shabby, and it's EASY to upgrade. The main issue was the heads. Change teh boost, port the heads, and give it a decent cam, and it'll hold it's own with much more "mainstream" muscle engines.

posted by  ChrisV

Was the 301 based on any other production V8? Or... was it one of those engines that everybody (especially GM) has chosen to forget existed?

posted by  Bino

theres a 301 sitting in my brothers 79 bird on the side of the shop....worth keepin or should we just put tpi 350 in it? the car needs body work so the motor job /driveline job and brakes will wait till the body is mint

posted by  BanffAutoSpa_ap

Unlike other Pontiac V8's which all share the same architecture (no big block/small block/same mounts, bell housing bolt pattern, bore centers, etc) the 301 is one of a kind asshole baby. Performance parts aren't readily available and the ones that are tend to be expensive. Hell, some stock parts are getting hard to find. Unless somebody just has to have a 301, it's much cheaper overall to just go with another more common GM V8 even when including conversion costs.

posted by  vwhobo

Not to interfere with the Turbo Trans Am discussion (im enjoying it), but have you guys ever heard of a Syclone? GMC AWD Truck with a 4 port turbo on the 4.3L - 0-60 under 5 (4.8) and a 13.08 quarter mile STOCK.

If you guys have ever heard of these, would you rather have this or a Camaro Z28 (SS)?

posted by  Shift4

A Syclone without a doubt, if for no other reason than the stealth factor. When they were introduced they had one of the fasted 0-60 and 1/4 mile times of anything sold in the US.

http://www.travel-net.com/~mopar/images/syclone1.jpg

posted by  vwhobo

Yeah, a Syclone is so frickin sweet - the ULTIMATE sleeper because no-one knows how fast it is - think about a 13 flat in a truck. . . However, what would the insurance be like on this (you would immediately think it would be suicidal but just because its so unknown i dont know. . .)

Insurance is probably way too expensive on Camaro - whatdya think??

posted by  Shift4

I'm guessing you are a teenager from your first post so they would be very high, regardless of almost any car you would get. I would almost be willing to bet though that the Syclone would be lower than the Z28 because it is a pickup truck rather than a two door sports car. Despite the fact that it may indeed be faster.

posted by  hondaman

Whoa whoa whoa....

The GMC Syclone was one hell of a truck but I'd love to see proof of a stock GMC Syclone do 13.00's or 13.10's. I've seen 2 normally at my local track and neither are close to a flat 13, one is slightly modded the other not. You're trying to tell me a 3400lb 280hp AWD truck is faster than a 3200-3300lb 300+hp STi or Evolution? Don't think so, didnt the Syclone only come in 4AT anyways? Anyways, those loal guys both run in the mid-high 13s in their syclones. They are slightly quicker than the normal stock LT1 Camaro here. Just saying, dont spread BS times about an awesome truck.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Am I the only one that feels he should start off with 130hp or less?

posted by  99integra

The only reason you think that is because your truck has 98hp; oh wait I forgot about the new K&N air filter, 100hp. :laughing:

posted by  torinoman80

Shut the corn gobbler hole up :banghead:

posted by  99integra

You are correct, the Syclone/Typhoon was only available with a 4AT. But, an AT is generally faster in the 1/4 than a manual transmission anyway, so that "drawback" could actually be beneficial for this particular arguement. Don't get me wrong, I've never heard of a stock Sy/Ty going 13.1 in the 1/4... much more like mid 13's.

posted by  Bino

All depends on the person. My cousin Shane is one of the safest most trustworthy people I know, you could sit him in a Mustang Cobra and he would never have that thing over 70mph, or past 3/5 throttle. On the other hand there are the dangerous kinds of people who you put them in a Ford Pinto and they will find a way to wreck in it. My first car was a 94' V6 Firebird and I did a few dangerous things in it but I learned quickly and am a much better driver now because of my experiences. And no it did not take wrecking or tickets to make me realize this.

posted by  Pythias

Alright, so you're saying start with a lesser horsepower car? I would kinda agree with you. . . I will most likely get an S-10 Xtreme because it looks so darn sweet, but what about a GTI or a moderately quick car? Any reccomendations?? About the only 4 door i like is a mazdaspeed Protege although I dont want to get stuck being the choefeur for my friends. . . Its pretty sweet although its not that fast (which for a first car is good). Are there any that you can reccomend where the 0-50 is like 6-8 and its practical?


Hey, I wasnt just makin those numbers up theyr rite here (http://www.sportmachines.com/magrack/sport_truck_10-90.html)

posted by  Shift4

And..... I stand corrected...

posted by  Bino

It all depends on the manual vs. automatic tranny offered.

posted by  thunderbird1100

That looks like a pre-production model they tested as they have "estmiated" price and such. Sometimes manufacturers give hot versions of the production car to get up interest. I dont see how there is a way to get a 4AT 3400lb truck with only 280hp to a 13.08 1/4 mile COMPLETELY stock. Times shouldn't vary that much because it's an auto so there's less chance of screw-ups. I'll ask next time what the Syclone owners I know they think is the quickest time it can run (they drove theirs to mid-high 13 seconds 1/4 miles...).

posted by  thunderbird1100

What makes an S-10 Extreme, extreme?

posted by  Sgt. Pepper

An S-10 Xtreme differs from the regular one in that it has a body kit from the factory and is two inches lower than the regular S-10 due to the ZQ8 sport suspension - it drives like a RWD sports car. Its pretty sweet and was intended to be a platform for people who intended to modify their truck further or wanted a custom street truck with a full factory waranty

posted by  Shift4

So there is no engine performance differences?

posted by  Sgt. Pepper

nope, you could get the 4.3L High Output but that was only a few horsepower extra anyway. The suspension it has makes it handle like a sports car but you still get the practicality of a truck. It was meant for the younger crowd when it came out. . .

But the short answer is, no, it had the same engine as the regular S-10


If you want to see what they look like, go go here and click "your trucks" (www.s-10xtreme.com)

posted by  Shift4

OK Thx for clearing that up. I have a normal S-10 but it is the most basic model. Practically everything is manual.

So ya the engine is much different than mine. Thx again :thumbs:

posted by  Sgt. Pepper

I've read quite a few articles that state 280hp was an amazingly understated figure. I guess most of the vehicles actually produced in excess of 300hp off the showroom floor.

It also makes a huge difference where the track is that the times were done. A high altitude track is going to add quite a bit of time to the run. Running at sea level is going to make the vehicle dramatically quicker.

posted by  Bino

Hey i got a 1994 firebird formula lt1 6speed which is the same car that you are talking about. I usually average around 14mpg :banghead: in the city and 25 on the high. Mine is completly stock also.

I have to put premuim gas in it, but if you wana put regualar than you have to put octain boost in aswell. My quarter is about a 14.1. My top speed is around 155. but thats and est. im to afraid to try it. :laughing:
My car seems Very reliable havent had trouble with anything yet. But the skip shift gets VERY ANNOYING :cussing: especually when yer tryin to show off and it goes to fourth and just bearly moves lol.

Im turning 16 also and for the very lowest liability ins. with good grades is costing 606 every 6 months but that is the bear minimum.

I love this car also i dont think i could have picked a better car. :clap:

posted by  83transam

HOLY FRICK?!?!?! 606 FOR 6 MONTHS?!?!?!? THATS RIDICULOUS!!!!! HOW DID YOU MANAGE TO GET IT FOR SO CHEAP!?! Ha, sorry i wasnt quite THAT excited but that is ridiculous!! The cheapest I could find for 6 months on a new account with all that stuff (lowest of everything) was 2400!!

posted by  Shift4

I dono i had to work with them for a while and find out all my options...and they wanted to charge me 1200 for six months with full coverage, but i called the bank cuz my car has a loan on it and the bank said it would be ok for liability which that droped it to about 850 for six months and then i also got the good student discount cuz my grades were b average :thumbs: and that droped it to 606 for six months. And all of those quotes were the lowest insurence i could get. It only covers 500 dollars of the damage and NOTHING to my car.

posted by  83transam

Your Message