Forums » Grassroots Motorsports » Can we discuss V6 4th(?) gen F-bodies? 1 2

• 

  Sept. 17, 2009 11:22 p.m. FindlaySpeedMan New Reader

  Just got a close look at a young fellow's pride and joy last night. It was, of course a late F-body with a v6 and a stick.

  Some thoughts that came to mind:

  1.Every time I see a Camarobird in person, I'm struck by how small they are. Magazine photogs always make them look huuuge. But they're dinky, even the 69 era Camarobirds.

  1. On the V6 F-body, 98 % of the engine is behind the front axle. Hmmm....looks like the V6 might have pretty good chassis balance.

  2. GM put a very crappy looking log-style exhaust manifold on these things, also, the intake piping had an obvious bad bottle neck in it. Looks like some simple mods would unlock some decent power.

  3. V6? Check. 5-speed? Check. RWD? Check. If this thing were Japanese, it'd have a rabid fanbase, but since it's the base F-body, it just gets written off as a "bitch basket". Which is good, that means I can get a nice one for cheap.

  4. I wonder how hard it would be to turbo one?

  5. Turbo it? Who'm I kidding? It's an F-body! If I want more power I drop in a bigger Chebby, then the sky's the limit, and it's a relatively cheap sky.

  Any thoughts from the Great Racing Mind concerning V6 f-bodies? How bad is the front suspension, really? Has anybody spent any time with one? I wonder how it'd do as a fun DD?

• 

  Sept. 17, 2009 11:28 p.m. ReverendDexter HalfDork

  You're the first person I've ever seen refer to an F-body as small.

  '98 Cobra; '96 Bronco; '77 Celica GT Liftback; '90 5.0 'vert

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 12:14 a.m. FindlaySpeedMan New Reader

  Huh.

  Compared to a classic Mini, I guess they're huge, but compared to most cars here on the road in the MidWest, they don't look very big at all. The magazines and other enthusiasts I'm exposed to sing a litany about F-bodies being big/huge/porky/wide/huge/ungainly/huge/huge/huge/huge. That's probably why I get the impression of them as huge cars. Then, when I stand right next to one, I think, "Hey, it's pretty normal sized. Kinda small, actually."

  I'd guess an F-body to be a few inches shorter than the average midsize car, a bit longer than my buddy's 4-door Golf. At a long, hard glance, you see just enough car to cover the cockpit, engine, and tires. No matter how you slice it, they just don't seem to merit the "OMFG ITS SO ENORMOUSE ITS LIKE RIDING AN ELEPHANT" sorta attitude that gets pointed at them. They are wider than average, but still narrower than, say, an F-150.

  That's why I'm wondering about them, specially the V6/5sp, since they seem unjustly maligned, which makes me smell a bargain.

  'Course, Im a pretty fat bastard, so my definition of normal-sized might be different than others.

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 12:27 a.m. MitchellC HalfDork

  My mom drives a 4th gen Camaro. The view over the hood, the doors, and the interior proportions make them feel pretty long.

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 2:11 a.m. 2002maniac Reader

  If it were an import it would weigh 1000lbs less.

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 4:31 a.m. petegossett Dork

  At one time those were a hot car for G-Stock.

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 4:38 a.m. blizazer New Reader

  If you're looking to turbo, then there could be ideas / parts gleaned from the L67 FWD 3.8 motor. Meaning rotating bits and boost tolerance.

  I recall a 1LE lightweight package but only hearing about V8's with this, I wonder if you could content a V6 car similarly.

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 6:05 a.m. Will Reader

  I hear it's a huge pain to work on the engines in those cars, especially changing spark plugs.

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 6:29 a.m. Gearheadotaku New Reader

  The 95-02 cars w/ 3.8 V6 are pretty nice if your find a 5-speed. 200 hp 225lbs ft right out of the box. All the suspension goodies from from a Z28 or T/A just bolt up. There was a 3800 performance pkg that had a limited slip dif, faster rack, stiffer springs and bars. They are few and far between though. The 98-02 cars are the best, big brakes on all models and nicer inside.

  I always wondered what one of these would b like with a built 3.8 Turbo motor, like the Gand National.

  If your looking to do a motor swap for a V8 anyhow, find a 93-95 3.4 car. They are super cheap. Then again fairly nice early V8 cars can be had for under 4K if you shop.

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 6:33 a.m. slefain Dork

  During the mid-late 90s A/T Mustang GT owners had to watch out for V6 5-speed F-bodies. There was a span of years where an A/T equipped V8 Mustang was slower than a V6 5-speed F-body. The V6 GM used in the the last few years when coupled with a manual transmission is a fun little car. You can swap rear gears and open up the exhaust a bit for more fun. Yeah the F-body is a pig, but handling is good. Finding one that hasn't been beaten to death is the hard part.

  If I had a signature I would probably put it here.

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 7:12 a.m. spitfirebill Dork

  ReverendDexter wrote: You're the first person I've ever seen refer to an F-body as small.

  Thats what I was thinking.

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 8:22 a.m. HeavyDuty Reader

  The hood of my 68 is almost as long as the hood on a buddy of mine's old Cady Fleetwood. Look at old pics of the old Trans Am series when they had the under 2 liter class and those cars do look tiny to me next to the 'maros and 'stangs.

  I'd actually love the car you are talking about. A little web searching and you should be able to find a site dedicated to twin turboing those. It's on the list of things to do for me. I'd get the link for you but then I wouldn't get any work done today. If it's for sale and you are passing on it I actually might be interested.

  Current line up: 68 'maro, 71 Crown, 79 Royale, 83 S-10 Blazer, 85 AE86, 87 Yugo, 88 Volvo 740 Turbo, 90 Yugo, 2001 2500 HD Crew. Gone but not forgotten - 88 Celica All Trac, 91 s-10, 92 H22 Accord

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 8:30 a.m. P71 SuperDork

  I'm a fan. The 3800 V6 in those is closely related to both the excellent supercharged FWD 3800 (GTP natch) and the legendary turbo 3.8 (GN natch). Lots of ways to make some serious boosted horsepower with one of those. Pretty darn quick stock as well. All of the V8/WS6/1LE suspension bits bolt right on. They are cheap too!

  My personal problem is I'd cry every time I'd see an LS1 one go by.

  Michael Pinto

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 8:36 a.m. dean1484 Dork

  I had an 83 V6 with a 5 speed. I loved that car. The only option it had was ac and a rear defog. Everything else was either not on the car or it had the manual version. It was light, nimble and just generally a fun car to drive. The V6 was a POS. It had that electronic carb that could not decide if it was central injection or if it was a carb. I put massive 255-60-15 Goodyear eagle GT's on it (best tire at the time).
  

  I would live to get that car back now it was a great car. It got in the mid to high 20's around town and in the low 30's on the highway.
  

  My car was dark brown. No wing. I put a louver on the rear hatch for both the "cool factor" as well as for security and it kept the temps in the car down a bit. Back in the mid 80's it was a really cool car that was sort of fast. By today's standards most paperweights are faster but it was fun. I have wanted to get an early 90's (93-94) s in MA they emission testing starts in 95 and see what it could be built in to.

  Respectfully, Dean

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 9:35 a.m. Soma007 New Reader

  FindlaySpeedMan wrote: Any thoughts from the Great Racing Mind concerning V6 f-bodies?

  Yes, don't bother. Seriously. Cheap V8's are out there for not much more money and they are light years faster. The 3.8 cars are probably good for high 15's in the quarter where as a LS1 will do low 13's.

  Aside from the drivetrain they are identical to the V8 cars with the exception of the spring/swaybars. That means they have all of the drawbacks of a 4th gen without the engine that makes it all worth it.

  Disclaimer: I am a former 93 Trans Am owner. I thought about buying a V6 instead but once I drove them both I forgot about that idea in about .012 seconds.

  Jason

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 12:13 p.m. HeavyDuty Reader

  Ah, but there is more to life than the 1/4, isn't there? Cheaper insurance, milage, etc. Plus, most of the v8's I see at this point have lead a rough life. For the money that I see v6's going for - it's a thought that I can't seem to shake. I just can't seem to find a stick near me. My pop's was a GM rep and during the summer he'd usually get a Camaro as a company car. I've spent time driving both and I don't think even stock that the V6 is bad.

  Current line up: 68 'maro, 71 Crown, 79 Royale, 83 S-10 Blazer, 85 AE86, 87 Yugo, 88 Volvo 740 Turbo, 90 Yugo, 2001 2500 HD Crew. Gone but not forgotten - 88 Celica All Trac, 91 s-10, 92 H22 Accord

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 1:22 p.m. belteshazzar SuperDork

  ive driven a few v6 4th gens. they were okay in my opinion. for daily driver duty, at the right price, sure.

  spending money I don't have to buy parts I don't need to impress people I don't know

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 1:27 p.m. EricM HalfDork

  LOL

  'round here they all have automatics, a painted interior and a huge sub woofer.

  Bad decisions make good stories

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 1:32 p.m. walterj Dork

  I owned me a gen-you-wine RS model with a 305 and a 5 speed with T-tops. Everything anyone has ever said that was bad about them is true.

  I expect that the V6 is worse just because its 2 cylinders less exciting. Even if it was 100% behind the axle - GM would find a way to destroy the balance of the car.

  Bawitdaba-da bang-da bang-diggy-diggy-diggy Said the boogie-said up jump the boogie --Kidd Rock

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 1:35 p.m. Soma007 New Reader

  In reply to HeavyDuty:

  As a reformed drag racer absolutely. But why put up with a big, heavy, hard to see out of, mediocre handling car that looks fast but isn't? The gas milage isn't much better with the V6 (especally highway) and I would have gladly paid the slightly more expensive insurance just to get that V8 rumble.

  Sorry but if you're a car enthusiast and you want an F-body get the V8. Or at least take one for a spirited test drive and then decide.

  Jason

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 1:38 p.m. TucoRamirez New Reader

  I've had mine (97 z28) about a year and it's both big and small. It inefficiently uses space. It has lots of spare cargo room but not enough wiggle room under the hood. I easily fit 4 17x9s with tires in the back,. but a small to medium sized midwestern woman (full sized on the coast) almost looks cramped in the passenger seat.
  

  Get a clean v6 and drop in a 5.3 LS tuned to rev for a 327 screamer.

  Externally, it's not super huge in the modern sense. I am worried about not being able to see cones. Dynamically, for a pig, it does all the pig dances really good. Wet or dry, it's tossable like a Miata in light snow.

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 1:42 p.m. belteshazzar SuperDork

  walterj wrote: I owned me a gen-you-wine RS model with a 305 and a 5 speed with T-tops. Everything anyone has ever said that was bad about them is true. I expect that the V6 is worse just because its 2 cylinders less exciting. Even if it was 100% behind the axle - GM would find a way to destroy the balance of the car.

  you're talking about a 3rd gen. interestingly enough, that car was probably as slow or slower than a 4th gen with 3800 and manual trans. and less efficient.

  spending money I don't have to buy parts I don't need to impress people I don't know

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 2:58 p.m. HeavyDuty Reader

  In reply to Soma007:

  We'll have to agree to disagree. While I certainly love the rumble of my 68 I have no problem with building up a V6. Of course being more of a road course guy some of my favorite Camaros of all time were v6 powered. Don't even get me started on the Turbo Firebirds! If I build one we'll set up a grudge match one day...

  Current line up: 68 'maro, 71 Crown, 79 Royale, 83 S-10 Blazer, 85 AE86, 87 Yugo, 88 Volvo 740 Turbo, 90 Yugo, 2001 2500 HD Crew. Gone but not forgotten - 88 Celica All Trac, 91 s-10, 92 H22 Accord

• 

  Sept. 18, 2009 4:46 p.m. TucoRamirez New Reader

  Trans Am GTA Turbo. Good six.

• 

  Sept. 19, 2009 6:04 p.m. curtis73 HalfDork

  By comparison to many other options, the F-body is heavy, bulky, and flimsy. Weight balance and traction are big issues too. They also come with horrifically weak 7.5" rear axles. So weak that GM intentionally put a restrictor in the hydraulic line for the clutch so you couldn't dump it.

  Take a good stock V8 and simply go wider tires and you're just asking for it.
  

  Having said that, I wouldn't mind owning one... but they do not excel at the things you think they do and I think you might be disappointed if you purchase one for its weight balance and nimble handling.

  I'm bringing sexy back

1 2  

You'll need to log in to post.