Second car possiblities?

Home  \  Domestic Cars  \  Second car possiblities?

Well I will be buying a second car soon, and am wondering what you guys think of these. ar_year=1987&model=CAM&num_records=&bkms=1151118003356&lang=en&isp=y&start_ year=1987&mod_bookmark_id=null&certified=&search_type=used&distance=100&mak e=CHEV&min_price=1&address=20625&advanced=&end_year=1987&max_price=2600&car dist=100 ar_year=1985&mod_bookmark_id=null&search_type=both&num_records=&make=PONT&d istance=200&model=TRANSAM&address=20625&certified=&advanced=&max_price=2500 &bkms=1151118679850&min_price=1&end_year=1985&start_year=1985&isp=y&lang=en &cardist=62 ar_year=1992&mod_bookmark_id=null&search_type=used&num_records=&make=CHEV&d istance=100&model=CAM&address=20625&certified=&advanced=&max_price=2000&bkm s=1151118188171&min_price=1&end_year=1992&start_year=1992&isp=y&lang=en&car dist=34

Car 1
1987 CHEVROLET CAMARO Z28 (20TH ANNIV), V8, 4spd, auto, ac, pdl, p/windows, tilt, new top, paint, BFG tires, batt, Rebuilt Trans & 4Bl Carb, Blaupunkt CD, $2500

Car 2
1985 Trans Am, red racing stripes V8 144k miles, auto, T-tops, 2495$

Car 3
1992 3.1li (Gas Saver) auto, T-tops. 1900$

I personally am trying to decide between car 1 and 2 because 3 I think is just too slow for only 600$ less. The 87' Camaro looks pretty good, being a convertible, and although high milegae, most things have been rebuilt, as for the 85' Trans am the racing stripes really set that thing off and it has T-tops so it isn't as good as having a convertible, but still nice. All of these cars seem to be in good shape and have current inspections on them. I will most likely be going to see car 1 and 2 next week. Let me know what you guys think

posted by  Pythias

What size engine is in the '87? Because the 305 had 190hp@4000RPM, 295lb-ft@3200RPM
Autos standard was 2.73
Compression Ratio 9.3:1

I might have misunderstood something, so you might want to check this site out lol:

1992 Chevrolet Camaro Coupe RS
Had 140HP, 185lb-ft of torque, fuel economy in the city was 17-18mpg and highway was 27.

1987 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 (20th Anniversary)
305 TPI = 190hp@4000RPM + weaker cam 295@3200RPM
Auto standard = 2.73
Compression ratio = 9.3:1,

1992 Chevrolet Camaro Coupe RS

185lb-ft of torque
Gas Mileage:

For the 1985 Trans Am, check this site out (Not sure which engine was in it).

Hope this stuff helps :thumbs: lol.

posted by  chris_knows

Thanks man! I think they both have 305's but I'm not sure. I'm prolly going to try and see them both this comming week and I'll keep you posted.

posted by  Pythias

Alright...I went with the Camaro, and apparently so did someone called "Littleman" who hasn't posted ever and is a member since January 2005 :laughing:

posted by  chris_knows

None of them.

posted by  PontiacFan27

they're both h code lg4 cars, so that's actually:

160hp, 250tq for the '85, and

155hp, 245tq for the '87--- according to the standard catalog of firebird...

i personally would look at the rs, because a lot of them came w/ 3.42 gears and i've heard many a tale on the f-body forums about 3.1 cars actually beating lg4 and l03 (305 tbi - 170hp, 255tq) cars....:2cents:

for the gas mileage, consistency of mpfi, and the fact that they are all about the same as far as quickness, i'd vote rs. plus, if you have 2 v8 cars, you'll find yourself spending even more money upgrading both of them instead of one to modify and one to drive. i'm trying to juggle 3 cars and a 4x4 right now...:banghead:

posted by  dodger65

so, in the states, the camaro 3.1 is considered a gas saver, a gas saver over here is considered 1.5

posted by  True_Brit

well, relative to other 3rd gen f-bodies, it's a gas saver....

1.5 is a gas saver here, too--just not in a camaro/firebird:wink2:

posted by  dodger65

EDIT: on a side note none has voted for the 85' Trans am yet lol, I think I am defn going to go see both cars before i make a decision, but the Trans Am is only 1500$cash at a dealership, but the 87' Camaro there were only 1k produced... so I dunno I'm going to try and hook up with the guys next week. Thanks for all the opinion.s

Yeah but the RS 3.1li is only 140hp and 180 torque. I don't think I want to be that sluggish for only about 3miles more per gallon. I was looking at a 94' Z28 6 speed with t tops, high mileage but I think it is out of my price range, it's on ebay right now. I think I will take a look at the 85. And also the second car I get would mostly be stock with the exception of maybe a nice exhaust, other then that I would only modify the Mustang.

posted by  Pythias don't read good, do you? :banghead:

i'm saying just drive the 3.1 once after driving the lg4 cars. you will most likely be surprised, based on your current mindset. lg4 cars are not fast stock.

posted by  dodger65

I voted for the '87 Camaro, before viewing the mileage, I would probably steer towards the Pontiac after having seen the mileage on the Camaro (I'm assuming it's miles rather than Killometres?)

posted by  Cliffy

I did read what you had said but come on, I can't see a car with 140hp and 180 torque being able to compare to cars with 160hp and 260 torque? I know they aren't fast stock but I think they are faster than the RS. I dunno I'm gonnna go do some more research, but like I siad I will prolly go see the 2 in person next week and if neither look that great I will go take a look at the Rs.

Yes Cliffy those are miles but everything from the tranny to the engine has been rebuilt on it so it isn't tooo bad, but I am going to find out more info before I buy something with that many miles.

So far this is the closest 1/4 time

1993 Chevrolet Camaro V-6 9.0 16.6

1985 Pontiac Trans Am (Hot Rod Magazine)


Engine: 305ci (5.0L HO "L-69"), 9.5:1 Compression Ratio, Rochester 4 BBL, HP: 190, TQ: 240

Drivetrain: 5 Speed Manual Transmission, 3.73:1 Rear Axle.
1/4 mile: 15.30 @ 92.41 MPH

Skid Pad: .92g

Granted that 85' trans am is a 5 speed, but I doubt the auto will slow it down by 1.3 seconds.

Edit: Can't find any on the 87' Camaro but all the Camaro's around there are in the low 15's.

posted by  Pythias

i voted for the 85 trans am, not knowing what it looks like or performs but reading about it, sounds like its in better condition

posted by  True_Brit

If you click the link I posted in my first post you can see what it looks like, white with red racing stripes, not to bad.

posted by  Pythias

i didnt bother to be honest but ive had a look, and to be truthful, that doesnt look like an 85, that does look good though!!!

id pick that one!!!

posted by  True_Brit

I voted Z28. It does have a lot of miles, but its a convertible which I think is pretty damn sweet and its a cool car. Its got the most power, right? I know its got more than the RS.

#2 is a cool looking car too... the racing stripes do set it off and it does have lower mileage. Both #1 and #2 look pretty good IMHO.

posted by  StiMan

the cars you are looking at are not "l69"'s or lb9's. they are lg4's. they most likely do not have a 3.73 rear (most likely 2.73 or 3.08) the rs should have a 3.42 standard. unless you find some lg4 specs, it's like comparing an apple to a top fuel car. just drive them all, you'll see....

ps: the 5 speed does make a slight difference, as 1st gear is a little lower, but not likely 1.3 secs...

posted by  dodger65

it is an 85, but i think it's supposed to have the "neutral density" taillights

posted by  dodger65

I see, I do not know much about the 80's Camaro's and Firebirds or their 305 engines, and I was not trying to argue with you, just express what I saw from my point of view, I understand what you are saying about the gears because my Mustang has 2.73 gears, but it is also what saves my gas mileage while on the highway so I don't mind that. I will prolly try to drive all of them. And since they are alll automatics I figure I rather have a V8 with spaced out gears, better get up and go, and 2 less miles per gallon. But that was my thinking we will see.

posted by  Pythias

what i meant is, it doesnt look old!
i know it is an 85 but doesnt look it to me

posted by  True_Brit

i understand. i used to think the same way about 16 years ago when shopping for my first f-body. we drove an assload of 85-87 lg4 cars just b/c they were v8's and found out they were overpriced slugs w/ those crappy emissions quadrajunks--and they were only 3-5 years old then. ended up getting an 85 v6 car that cost a lot less and was way nicer than any of the v8's. i ended up having it til it had 275,000 miles on it and i drove it head on into a dodge ram p/u. the engine lives on to this day in my cousin's camaro... imo, the v8 cars feel nose heavy, too. :2cents:

posted by  dodger65

Yeah I gotcha, but now since the prices are so low on them, and I got a way around emissions I don't mind too much. Although my personal preference I think I would take the Camaro over the Trans am because.

1. I don't like flip up and down headlights on Firebirds, it is just a pain in the ass when the motors go.

2. I kinda prefer the way the Camaro looks, and of course a convertible over T-tops.

I'll see next week though.

Lol nice too so you guys took the engine out of your wrecked car and put it into his camaro? Why was that? Give us the full story, I'm interested.

posted by  Pythias

Why would you want any of them?

posted by  PontiacFan27

why would you want your car? personal preference. can't he like what he likes?

posted by  dodger65

for the record, it seems like the 87-up headlight motors are much more reliable and quieter than the earlier motors...

after i wrecked the car (it was my fault, so i didn't get any insurance out of it) i stripped it, b/c it was in very good shape before the crash. i would have fixed it, but it hit so hard, it buckled the front floorpans... the engine still ran great, so i stuck it a corner of the garage until my cousin blew up the motor in his camaro. he didn't have any money so i just gave it to him. my dad stopped over after he swapped it and said it still runs really strong, but my cousin is doing his best to destroy yet anoither transmission. :banghead: the trans only had about 10k miles on a rebuild w/ extra clutch packs, corvette servo and a transgo shift kit, so i stuck it in my brother's car until he put a 350 in his, then i stuck it in my 88, where it lives today...

posted by  dodger65

Because I'm looking for a second car that can be daily driven, with some kind of power. My plan all along was to buy a second car after my Mustang, so I didn't have to rely on my Mustang for transportation, especially since I plan on modifying it, it is alot easier to have another car I can drive when I have this one in the shop, or have something done to it.

And thats a pretty sweet story Dodger, that motors gotta have a ton of miles, but still goin strong, nice to hear.

posted by  Pythias

Those cars aren't gonna be reliable, dont have much power at all, and are gonna be bad on gas. Dont bother getting one of those.

posted by  PontiacFan27

This is true.
You don't need two play cars. Suck it up and buy an Accord if you want reliability and good gas mileage.

posted by  What

once again. personal preferences. i've had an f-body in one form or another for a daily driver for a very long time and it's served me well... gas mileage, reliability and otherwise...

posted by  dodger65

I've always loved that generation Camaro. I myself wouldn't mind a Z28 or RS as that's the body style I like (not the Berlinetta). Personally I'd say the RS, as I like the t-top look, I do like the convertibles, but if you ever have to replace the top it becomes well.. a costly pain.

You're lucky about the emssions, if it was me I'd have to choose the 87' since it'd be exempt after this year (in Ontario).

I've never been a huge 3rd generation Firebird fan, but some do look decent (that would be one of them), but the Camaro's just seem a little better styled (to me). Let us know how the tests and viewings go :thumbs:

posted by  car_crazy89

The Trans Am is out, went to see it today and it was bought before my eyes, literally.

posted by  Pythias

damn, oh well, lets have a proper look at the others lol

posted by  True_Brit

you know, id go for the Chevrolet Camaro RS Coupe, it looks better and 3.1 would be enough for me!!!

posted by  True_Brit

Yes, a True Brit you are.

I think Pythias is a proper American.

posted by  What

oh wait, i know, to insult other people and make yourself feel better.

posted by  glagon1979


posted by  Benson

3.1 liters would be enough for alot of people if it made the kind of power 3.1 liters should. Its a useless engine, which would serve the world better as a boat anchor or paperweight.

posted by  PontiacFan27

did a 3.1 piss in your cheerios today or something?

posted by  dodger65

I'd love to see a pile of shit taking a piss, thats comedy gold.

No, the motors are just crap.

posted by  PontiacFan27

do you know what engine really sucks?

the Iron Duke

thank god it doesnt have that engine:laughing:

posted by  nighthawk


posted by  PontiacFan27

Oh my god just stay away from those 80's F-Body's. Trust me I've had too much bad experience with them. Not unless you found it driven by an old lady who drove it only on sundays and kept it in a garage.

The engines... are crap. I call them the smog motors since that's what they basically were. Most people I know just end up putting a carb and end up removing the fuel injection system. The 5.0 and 5.7 engines produced crap for horsepower. You'll find that stock those engines produced under 200 hp and though they produce insane torque it doesn't seem to have that snappy take off you'd expect from that much torque.

The only reason anyone would want an 80's F-Body is because you can do a LSX swap. Stick in a LS1 and lighten the car a bit and those cars do fly. I'd replace the hood and the back window since those things are extremely heavy on the F-body's. I should know since I almost broke my back lifting the hood and I had help doing it too.

My suggestion is to get the 92 with the 3.1 because don't be surprised how responsive those engines are compared to the 5.0 and 5.7's. If you feel less of a man without the V8 don't be. Get yourself a LT1 or LS1 and stick it in there. Plus with any luck you won't find the door hanging down when you open it like most 80's Camaro's. Not to mention that maybe the car won't rattle as much either since that's something you can't find missing in those Camaro's.

Take it from a guy who's had not one not two but three 86-87 Camaro's. BTW T-tops are hard to stop from leaking.

posted by  DukenukemX

you're not lying about that... :cussing:

maybe you just have bad luck w/ those cars. i haven't had near that much trouble w/ my 85, 86 or 88 firebirds or my brother's 87 and 4 (yes 4) 91 firebirds...:2cents:

posted by  dodger65

Every Camaro I had was just lots of problems. Though I did get them from people who did nothing but punish these things to the ground. I never did anything to improve their performance but I did try things like a new torque converter and even rebuilding the engine and trans.

While I tried to restore the power that I thought was lost from age I decided to look up how much those TPI engines produced. I had a 5.7 in my Camaro. I was shocked to find out that they produced not even 200 hp. I was ready to punch myself. :doh:

I said to myself it was time I got a Camaro with a LT1 or LS1. I got myself a Corvette with a LS1 instead. :laughing:

What's really sad was that some car's today produce more power then those TPI engines compared with I4's. Nothing but Smog motors from the 1980's. Though that doesn't mean with the right amount of money that they can't produce the power.

I even went so far as to think about doing a LT1 intake swap to replace the TPI intake. Was a good idea since I had already rebuilt the motor. It's cheap and it can easily upgrade the TPI from a barely 200 hp to nearly 300 hp. Though the problem was finding a LT1 intake and having the guts to cut and drill certain areas to have it fit. Here's a link for anyone who's interested.

The only other option was to find a LS1 and swap that in but finding a LS1 with a trans is not easy. Not to mention cheap. Eventually I found it was cheaper to search for a Camaro with a LS1 or even better find a really cheap Corvette with a LS1.

posted by  DukenukemX

hey, why doncha buy something completely different? ;)

I can't use the engine in my Falcon like I thought, so it's no use to me, and too nice to scrap.

3.8 V6 w/AOD. Decent power and mileage. Real straight... real cheap...

posted by  ChrisV

Not a bad looking car Chris V and you aren't too far from me, but

1. For an automatic I wouldn't want the shifter? Mounted on the steering wheel like that, I rather have it beside me. And although a nice looking car, Most Thunderbirds just don't catch my fancy. You got anything else you're looking to sell?

posted by  Pythias

Nothing else. I'm trying to get a good drivetrain for my Falcon. Thought the 3.8 would be a great modern engine for it, but I have to modify the shock towers too much to fit. Too bad, as I like the thought of using the seats, stereo, and overdrive. The Falcon has a column shift, stock, and it would hook right up. Asa cruiser, having a column shift is actually kind of nice, and it doesn't get in the way of "extracurricular activities"

Actually, I could see this as having a 5.0 swapped into it, or even a 460. Make for a fun boulevardier/cruiser for cheap. If I didn't have so many projects right now, I'd do just that.

posted by  ChrisV

I see, that body style just isn't too my taste, or it would be a bid possibility, and I understand what you mean about "extracurricular activities", and you are right it keeps it out of the way :laughing:. I'm SURe you will find a buyer for it though, I would say just bump it up to 700$ even and put it in the autotrader, then that covers the expense of putting it in there and you just have it advertised more.

posted by  Pythias

Your Message