When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
History / OriginalityGot a question about 1982-1992 Camaro or Firebird history? Have a question about original parts, options, RPO codes, when something was available, or how to document your car? Those questions, answers, and much more!
Yes, you are wrong! The special edition cars were still produced by ASC, but they were not factory cars. The 1007 does not include these aftermarket convertibles. It includes the 263 LT convertibles and the 744 Z28 convertibles. The special edition dash plate number was specific to the aftermarket build only.
I parroted nothing. You need to read closer and learn. My post says the LB9 was available with manual and auto because John mentioned the Coupe and TTOP cars. I never went into the specifics of coupe or convertible. Read what I posted and it is correct! The LB9 was available on the Z28 and the IROC-Z in manual as standard and auto for an extra charge. This was to note that the LB9/auto combination was available. The vert was not available with the LB9/auto combo, though. So in response to your post #27, stop posting things as fact when you don't know!
Well then I guess John will have to go back and edit more of his posts as in other threads he's stated the 1007 number includes the Special Editions & he also considers those "factory" convertibles regardless of the 2 or 3 in the 6th vin digit. Whatever.
You've clarified your earlier posts here but for the life of me I can't see how your revised explanation can be derived from your earlier posts within the continuity of the thread. Your earlier posts without the above clarification would, I think, lead others to the same conclusion as I. You need to realize Scott, that with your post total, your moderator label and your authoritative posting style, your words carry weight and without somebody questioning their veracity, will be taken as fact.
This isn't our first go around & I'm sure it won't be our last - we can just agree to not get along. However I would expect, the proper clarification of facts is better for the board and you, as a moderator, would endorse that.
So - to sum this up for the 1987 IROC Convertible models, the LB9 was only available with the manual 5 speed transmission and was not built with the G92 3:45 Performance Gears unless SPECIFICALLY ORDERED AS SUCH.
1) I typically do not go back and correct information that I posted incorrectly to cover my butt.. If I was wrong I will come out and state it as so...
2) I corrected myself at one point and stated that the
IROC - LB9/M5 & 3.45 OR LG4/A4 ( I will add that there is a possibility of LB9/M5 & 3.08 but never seen one)
Z28 - LB9/M5 & 3.08 OR LG4/A4
LT & SC - LG4/A4 (only way period in 1987)
Now I will contend that I have NEVER seen a 1987 IROC with the LB9/M5 & 3.08... So I believe they all or a majority of them came with it, but the Z28 was NA with the G92 (in 1987).
You've clarified your earlier posts here but for the life of me I can't see how your revised explanation can be derived from your earlier posts within the continuity of the thread. Your earlier posts without the above clarification would, I think, lead others to the same conclusion as I. You need to realize Scott, that with your post total, your moderator label and your authoritative posting style, your words carry weight and without somebody questioning their veracity, will be taken as fact.
This isn't our first go around & I'm sure it won't be our last - we can just agree to not get along. However I would expect, the proper clarification of facts is better for the board and you, as a moderator, would endorse that.
So - to sum this up for the 1987 IROC Convertible models, the LB9 was only available with the manual 5 speed transmission and was not built with the G92 3:45 Performance Gears unless SPECIFICALLY ORDERED AS SUCH.
For what it's worth.
I'm not sure what your issue with me is, but every single post I made in this thread is accurate and correct as I believe them to be so people can take what I post as fact. If a person misunderstands my post, a simple question can be asked and answered. The way you go about attacking people in your posts is not the proper way to get the correct response. Are you going to argue now that my response in post 17 is also saying that Z28s were available with G92, because I never said that either. Again, I posted only the gear ratios available on the Z28 and the IROC-Z.
You are finally correct in your last statement that the 87 IROC-Z convertible received G92 only when ordered that way.
And John is correct that the 87 Z28 did not have the G92 option available to it.
Hello Chris I know Gabe and I just bought a 1988 iroc convertible rpo says g80 g92 j65 mm5 dx3 stripe delete kc4 is it rare it has 80k miles and I have the original window sticker can you let me know thanks ted
Lets get back on track. Does anybody have a 1988 IROC with the LB9/T-5/G92 rear? I think it would be cool to see one. I've never seen kind of optioned IROC before. Really would be interested to see this kind of car with the DX3 stripe delete option too.
Would be nice to rip through those gears with the top down and hear the tires chirp between shifts and the exhaust bark!
I have an 88 lb9 g92 j65 mm5 convertible with stripe delete option on the rpo i also have the original window sticker listing as stripe delete $60 credit lol
Any other vert 1987-1988 with these options...I would like to see another like it...rpo
I have the same exact car . It's a 1988 convertible 5 speed g92 j65 lb9 with sticker delete option found this car 2 months ago for 2000 dollars ....... 50000 miles on car and runs really good ....
I'm not sure what your issue with me is, but every single post I made in this thread is accurate and correct as I believe them to be so people can take what I post as fact. If a person misunderstands my post, a simple question can be asked and answered. The way you go about attacking people in your posts is not the proper way to get the correct response. Are you going to argue now that my response in post 17 is also saying that Z28s were available with G92, because I never said that either. Again, I posted only the gear ratios available on the Z28 and the IROC-Z.
You are finally correct in your last statement that the 87 IROC-Z convertible received G92 only when ordered that way.
And John is correct that the 87 Z28 did not have the G92 option available to it.
From everything I've read: in 87 ALL 305 TPI cars were ONLY equipped with 5 spd AND required G92 as part of that package and could not have J65 (Z08 cars).
I have a 305 tpi 700R4 G92 car but special edition so it doesn't factor in because it's not a Z08 car.
ALL automatics were TBI cars & J65 was not available. I'm not sure on the J65 but according to everything I've seen & read NO Z08 87's with the TBI/Auto had J65.
1988 was a whole different animal. Lots of options & high production numbers.
1989 again was different but I thought J65 was unavailable for the Z08 cars.
He told me about it...He just went for a drive to look at the car first.......He took a shot and bought it..Had no idea it had those options..You wanted to buy the hard top for the interior he told me..
Convertibles They have to be rare...with the g92,j65,g80,mm5..I am reading more about the years offered..1987 and 1988 5 speed only vert..........1989 and up no more g92 on vers............Any other ones on here.????..
I have one too, an 88. I cant seem to find much about them. Did you ever find out how many were made?
I have the same package. My car was missing the paperwork but I just ordered it from Allied Vaughn vehicle invoice team. Only news to me was decal and stripe delete. IROC vert. DX3 g80 g92 j65 kc4 lb9 mm5 n96 Also heavy duty battery. Power antenna and yf5 California emissions. Originally a white car but is now in blue and gray.
I feel fortunate to have gotten it. I only knew it was a v8 convertible manual trans. It’s a hoot to drive. Unknown miles and rumor of a cam. Poly bushings under it when I got it.
Well, add my car to the 1988 IROC vert G92 list... just picked this car up with 103K miles... needs some real tlc...(somebody set the timing with the ESC still connected... wow was that off...)
I have the same package. My car was missing the paperwork but I just ordered it from Allied Vaughn vehicle invoice team. Only news to me was decal and stripe delete. IROC vert. DX3 g80 g92 j65 kc4 lb9 mm5 n96 Also heavy duty battery. Power antenna and yf5 California emissions. Originally a white car but is now in blue and gray.
I feel fortunate to have gotten it. I only knew it was a v8 convertible manual trans. It’s a hoot to drive. Unknown miles and rumor of a cam. Poly bushings under it when I got it.
this one is now for sale. It’s listed in the classifieds.
I'm not sure who made the video. Yes, more rare as a TPI 5spd. I have not heard some of these other claims regarding not supposed to exist. For 87 G92 and TPI was a default for 5spd. I believe 88 & 89 was the same. Not many 5sod convertibles, that part is true. Some other claims might need more research.
Stunning car BTW!
The video was made by Matt Garrett. He has an awesome collection of cars and has had many awesome cars over the years.
Like many of us we all believe some things we have read and always heard that isn't correct information. Like TTA/1LE cars having an 18 gallon gas tank with a special swinging fuel pickup. Truth is it's the same size 15.5 gallon gas tank as in all the cars but with a different high wall baffle and fuel strainer/sock. The same hanger/sending unit and pump too as a non-1LE car with the same powertrain. (Note: I'm not making these claims about 1988 1LE cars. I don't know 1988 1LE cars.) Some later 89 and all 90+ cars got the improved "1LE" fuel systems. Even 90+ V6 cars. In later years (late 1991 and especially 1992) 1LE is just a big front brake and aluminum driveshaft package.
His reason for there not being any convertibles like his in 89+ is wrong. The actual reason is that you could not order an IROC-Z with 5.0L TPI, 5 speed, 4 wheel disc brakes, performance axle ratio, dual cat exhaust, and factory T-tops. All ACS convertibles either VIN 2 or 3 had to start off as a CC1 factory T-top car. VIN 3 cars didn't have RPO CC1 on the SPID label even though they were built as a CC1 T-top car. ASC did not build convertibles starting from hardtop cars. Pontiac had no such limitation on Firebirds with factory T-tops and high performance powertrains in 1989 or 1990+ on LB9 cars. Hell you could even get a late 91 and 92 Formula 350 with CC1 T-tops if you got the optional light weight black PW7 Trans Am wheels.
The 1989 N10 dual cat exhaust system will fit ASC convertibles just fine. It's tight against the riveted in rocker reinforcements ASC installed but it does fit. Many members here know this because they own 1989 ASC Firebird convertibles with LB9 MK6 N10 and L98 MD8 N10 powertrains. ACS claims they didn't make any VIN 2 or VIN 3 1990 Firebird convertibles. 1991 and 1992 VIN 3 ASC Firebird/Trans Am convertibles were just as gimped as their Camaro counterparts.
Pontiac tended to not gimp their Firebirds with high performance powertrains as much as Chevrolet did their Camaros. Example you will never see a Formula, Trans Am, or GTA with a L98 engine and 2.73/2.77 rear end gears.
As awesome as a 1988 G92 IROC-Z 5 speed convertible is it's at best second best to a 1989 Pontiac convertible. 89 TTA convertible, 89 Formula, Trans Am, or GTA convertible with L98, MD8, KC4, N10, JG1, "PBR" J65 or LB9, MK6, KC4, N10, JG1, "PBR" J65. Even better if it has the U1A CD player.
These are my opinions. To each their own.
Another opinion of mine is 1991/1992 convertibles are built miles better then 1990 down convertibles. The 1990 and earlier cars are flexible rattle traps compared to the 91/92 convertibles and late 91/92 hardtop and T-top cars are much better than their 90 down counterparts.
Last edited by Airwolfe; 06-05-2024 at 08:51 AM.
Reason: See replies below about RPO code CC1 on SPID label.
Airwolfe, you made a claim that needs to be addressed.
"VIN 3 cars didn't have RPO CC1 on the SPID label even though they were built as a CC1 T-top car." This is incorrect. VIN 3 cars did have CC1 on the SPID and the build sheet.
1987 Camaro SPID labels show CC1. 1988 on up do not show it on the SPID. I do see that the build sheets do represent CC1 even though the SPID does not.
Last edited by scottmoyer; 06-05-2024 at 11:50 AM.
Reason: Corrected incorrect response.
Like many of us we all believe some things we have read and always heard that isn't correct information.
Very well I am suffering from believing things I have read, heard, and seen with my own two eyes that is incorrect information. Sometimes my memory of things over the decades has gotten foggy and fuzzy too. I'm going to blame brain fog from being sick AF for the last two weeks too. I took my 80 year old step dad to out patient for a bladder ultrasound and labs before his urology doctor appointment a week later and somehow caught everything at the hospital they had from a hang nail to the bubonic plague. I might have brain damage from the 9000 degree fever I had that felt like it would melt solid tungsten or coughed up part of my brain and didn't notice it mixed in with the lung I coughed and sneezed up. Yesterday was the first day I was over the coughing and sneezing fits.
Originally Posted by scottmoyer
Airwolfe, you made a claim that needs to be addressed.
"VIN 3 cars didn't have RPO CC1 on the SPID label even though they were built as a CC1 T-top car."
This is incorrect. VIN 3 cars did have CC1 on the SPID and the build sheet.
I'm a Firebird guy and my passion is 87 to 92 with my focus mainly on 89 to 92 Firebirds. I know less about 88 Firebirds and even less about 87 Firebirds. I know an order of magnitude less about 82 to 86 Firebirds. I like Camaros too but they aren't my passion. My 3rd gen Camaro knowledge is solid on general/basic stuff and crossover stuff in common between Camaros and Firebirds. I wouldn't claim to be a subject matter expert on 3rd gen Camaros and Firebirds and even in my self important delusional mind I don't even think so.
I also suffer of the opposite condition I hate about the 3rd gen World. Everything 3rd gen is about Camaros. I see everything through Firebird tinted lens and have to remind myself that Camaros exist too.
.
I'm wrong about the RPO code CC1 not being on the SPID label of official factory GM VIN 3 ASC convertibles.
It's not on the SPID label for 1988 to 1992 model year VIN 3 ASC convertibles.
After doing more research than I was intending to do I did find CC1 on the SPID labels of 1987 model year Norwood, OH built VIN 3 RPO Z08 ASC Camaro convertibles.
.
I made no claims as to CC1, CC1 Hatch Roof, or CC1 T-top appearing on the build sheets. I have found those terms on the built sheets so far for 1988 to 1992 Van Nuys, CA built VIN 3 RPO Z08 ASC Camaro convertibles. I'm still looking for 1987 model year Norwood, OH VIN 3 RPO Z08 ASC Camaro build sheets and 1987 model year Van Nuys, CA built VIN 3 RPO Z08 ASC Camaro SPID labels and build sheets.
For right now I have dug as deep into this rabbit hole as I want. Did they even build VIN 3 RPO Z08 ASC convertibles in Van Nuys, CA for the 1987 model year?
If someone wants to just point me to the answer with pics of 1987 model year VIN 3 SPID labels and build sheets I'm not to proud to take the answer given to me on a silver platter.
.
In the staying in my lane theme I want to mention that 1991 and 1992 VIN 3 ASC Firebird/Trans Am convertibles have no mention of CC1, CC1 Hatch Roof, CC1 T-top anywhere on the Windows Sticker, Factory Invoice, SPID Label, or Build Sheet.
Also if it would save my life I couldn't tell you what the RPO code for a 91/92 Firebird/Trans Am convertible is. LOL I either never knew it or have completely forgotten it.
Airwolfe, I went back and checked all of my SPID labels for 88-90 and it appears that I was wrong on my claim that CC1 is on the SPID. It definitely is on the build sheet, but you are correct that it isn't on the SPID. It seems that CC1 was only on Norwood convertible SPIDs in 1987. My apologies.
Airwolfe, I went back and checked all of my SPID labels for 88-90 and it appears that I was wrong on my claim that CC1 is on the SPID. It definitely is on the build sheet, but you are correct that it isn't on the SPID. It seems that CC1 was only on Norwood convertible SPIDs in 1987. My apologies.
No problem.
I would have bet good money you were right and I was wrong and had misremembered or was just mistaken. Camaros aren't my jam and I know they are yours. I probably know more about 86/87 Turbo Buicks & 93 Mustang Cobras than 3rd gen Camaros. Firebirds are my jam though.
Only reason I felt confident when I first claimed CC1 wasn't on the SPID label was because one day I was in my friends shop that is a huge 3rd gen fan and collector and noticed "Man there sure is a lot of 3rd gen convertibles in here today. I wonder if any of the VIN 3 verts had CC1 on the SPID label?" So I went and looked at all of them. Nope none of them had CC1. He also had every year except for a 1987. 88 to 90 IROC-Z and 91/92 Trans Am. I remembered looking at others he had over the years and other friends I know that wouldn't mind me one bit looking at their window stickers, SPIDs, factory invoices, and build sheets. Maybe dozen and a half total and didn't remember seeing CC1 on the SPID. Not the biggest sample size though. None of them had an 87 either and a lot of this was a long time ago. Logged into my NAS and all I had were 88 to 92. Searched BaT, C&B, eBay, Google all the normal dealers. Found some 87s and sure enough VIN 3, CC1, NOD, and Z08. Knew I was wrong then and also noticed all I had found so far are Norwood, OH cars. Looked about 15 minutes more for Van Nuys 87s but didn't find any.
Are there any 87 Van Nuys built VIN 3 ASC convertibles?
Also if it would save my life I couldn't tell you what the RPO code for a 91/92 Firebird/Trans Am convertible is. LOL I either never knew it or have completely forgotten it.
I don't think there is. I don't have it on my SPID, however, there is an RPO code for the top color which may be as close to saying it's a Convertible RPO code than anything else.
I almost added to the end of my sentence "or there just isn't one" but had seconds thoughts about it because I couldn't believe there isn't a RPO code for a convertible Firebird/Trans Am. GM seems to have an RPO code for everything. The more I have thought about it I'm with you and think there just isn't a RPO code for it. Only thing I have ever seen is top color like you said. Not on windows sticker, factory invoice, SPID, or build sheet have I ever seen anything that jumps out at me convertible RPO code. On none of the lists of GM RPO codes do I remember seeing one either.
There just has to be one. Doesn't there have to be a RPO code for it? How did you order a Firebird/Trans Am without one?
Keep in mind the SPID sticker stood for Service Parts Identification, which was used by the dealership for parts repair, that contained the RPOs.
No convertible RPO code might make sense given it is in the VIN, although so is the engine.
That none of the ASC Firebirds had CC1, despite they were actually T-Top cars to start with from the factory, makes sense because from the SPID standpoint the cars are not T-Top cars and no T-Top parts would be applicable.
Originally Posted by Airwolfe
I almost added to the end of my sentence "or there just isn't one" but had seconds thoughts about it because I couldn't believe there isn't a RPO code for a convertible Firebird/Trans Am. GM seems to have an RPO code for everything. The more I have thought about it I'm with you and think there just isn't a RPO code for it. Only thing I have ever seen is top color like you said. Not on windows sticker, factory invoice, SPID, or build sheet have I ever seen anything that jumps out at me convertible RPO code. On none of the lists of GM RPO codes do I remember seeing one either.
There just has to be one. Doesn't there have to be a RPO code for it? How did you order a Firebird/Trans Am without one?
I almost bought this car 1 day before Matt. It was 2,000 miles away and $10,000. I felt rushed so didn't pull the trigger. I regretted not buying it, so shortly thereafter, I called Matt, told him the story and inquired about purchasing it. He said, you can't have it for that mutually known price. I said I understood and was prepared to pay more. The "more" was $23K. Ouch! I declined.
Weird thing is, the car used to have 60K miles, it now apparently has 20K. Must be a misprint.
01-25-2015, 09:03 AM
