Someone said there were no 3rd gens made with a 350 engine and 5-speed trans. True? If so, why?

 

Yes it is true.

None of us that I know of were there at the time the decision is made, so we don't know for sure. But 2 likely causes were warranty / reliability issues, and difficulties with emissions certification.

 

It's true, but just watch someone come along and deny it. Some people say that it was because GM couldn't warranty the T-5 behind the torque of the 350. More likely it was because they couldn't emissions-certify it.

 

the closest guess we have is that since the T5 was rated so low for TQ, and a abusive person with a 305 could easily break it, with a 350 in front of it, esp with how torquey the TPI350 was, it would cause reliability issues

so rather then make them and have them break, they made all 350s autos

 

I tought you could get 1LE with 350 and manual.

 

I still think it's because it would of made the 3rd gen as fast as a vette at the time, and we all know GM would never let that happen...

 

And of course there are always those that 'thought' you could do it, even though none are known to exist in any form.

You want a 350 and a T-5? Go get a car with a T-5 and put a 350 in it.

 

On paper, that can GM will never let it happen... but remember the L69? 10hp less than the vette. The TTA? 10hp less than the vette.

Both were obviously faster than the vettes of the same year... much faster. The L69 murdered the Corvette in almost every category except maybe handling, but it killed it in every speed related category. The TTA could run low 13's stock. The vette never did untill the LS1 came out. Enough said.

I think GM never put the 5 speed behind the 350 because of emitions as well.

If it was a durability issue, it never would have been behind the 305 either.

 

I did that.

 

The Vette got a six speed manual but I really like Porsche's idea of a Tiptronic for those leaning towards autos but maximizing the control the manual offers.
I prefer autos for simplicity and having an arm and leg free (or not) I do tend to do things in the car...like eat or drink that shifting makes a challenge.
I always felt the 350 with auto was a safety concern but also because of insurance on F cars (my belief)
They felt the bigger block was watered down for the audience the car catered to, unlike the Vette that is more mature and upscale. Cadillac suffered in the same regard due to the stereotype of owners but I've found Cadillac sales people to be awesome...they really get to know the customer, at least in my case...even when only going for parts. I've had a pleasant experience ...for them the performance issue HAD to be addressed for a marque getting long in the tooth but once considered The World Standard
-B
Bill

 

So a 1988 camaro with 350 tpi is faster than the 1988 corvette??

 

I'm sure that's what it was. The TPI cars didn't get a 5spd until 87, 2 years after its debut.

I broke the 5spd in my L69 car a couple of times, even a World Class once.

Have to remember, the only manual trans for the 350 in the '80's was a T10(Doug Nash enhanced) and the ZF 6spd. Those were plenty strong enough to handle the torque of the 350.

 

I found a car with a 350 in it and added the T5.

 

I got the point of your post but just wanted to remind you of the big block vettes in the mid sixties. I believe the 66 w/ the 427 ran a very low 13 sec e.t.

 

Oh i know, but I was just referring to the '84+ Corvettes because that was about when it became embarassingly obvious that the F-body cars were faster than the Corvette.

Just for the record... the '66-70 Big block cars (427 and 454) ran high 12's with only slicks. In stock trim they ran in the 14's, but thats because of the garbage bias-ply tires they came with.

 

No, we are talking pre TPI. The L69 was a 305 carbed engine. An 88 Vette would beat an 88 Camaro.

 

Ohh sorry . Thanks for the answer

 

ok, if they couldnt put the t-5 behind the 350, why did they put it behind the 305 wiht the l98 cam that made MORE POWER!! the 305 with teh l98 cam made a little less power then its bigger bore brother.
T-5 in a 350 would of been nice if it was a little stronger.

And im sure that there were LT1 6spd vettes running low 13's since they run mid to high 12's witha 6spd ls1.

 

What about the Doug Nash 4+3?

 

That's why I said Doug Nash enhanced. It was a Borg Warner T10 with an overdrive unit attached.

Warranting that trans made Doug Nash go out of business. Had to sell the 4+1 to Richmond to break even. Then closed the doors.

 

Oh I thought it was it's own tranny, not a modified T10. I've never seen one out of the car.

Yeah that tranny had its share of problems. Most guys I know with Vettes that had the 4+3 have swapped it.

 

I'd say the approx. 15 more HP and almost 50 more ft./lbs. of TQ had something to do with it. A T-5 will NOT last behind a 350 TPI that is driven aggressively, they barely handle the better 305s and sometimes even don't.

 

It really depends on how you drive. My T-5 is living quite nicely behind my 350, but I don't abuse it.

 

Read my post again.

 

I should have worded my reply better. I'm more or less agreeing with you.

 

I have a 350/5 speed...and i didnt have to put it in :-)
The credit for that goes to the previous owner.

 

that still doesnt explain to me why the 305 5spd got the more agressive cam when the auto got the crap if the auto could hold more? just doesnt seem right to me. I think a 5spd in the 190hp 305 would of made it feel faster!! Then there is the whole thing that why did GM continue to make the 305 at all after they 350 came back? And why so many variations? Should of been 350 TPI, 305 TPI and the 6cyl IMO.

 

They did that throughout the 80's. Like in 85 you could get the Iron duke, V6, LG4, L69 and LB9.
I guess the auto version of the LB9 got the weaker cam because the 5-speed version was considered the high performance version so they gave it all the goodies.

 

Yeah. The 5-Speed LB9 was more of an enthusiats 305 I guess you could say. The Third Gen and the Gens before it were about choices and that was 1 of the things that made them so successful.

 

As for the cam choose manual cars allows had a better cam than autos. As for the Vette vs Camaro the Camaro was know to be fast form 67 to 73 exepct the 427 Vettes. After smog regulations the camaro couldn't keep up until the third gens. The early vette only had an additional 10 hp because of their better flowing exhuast manifolds and GM's need for the Corvette to have the most power.

 

I swear I read somewhere that GM sold a very very limited number of the 1LE's with a 350 5spd combo. Have to see if can remember where I read it...

 

Yea, they did. They sold them right alongside a bunch of 10 year old unregistered 82 Camaro Pace cars, and a few 83 Corvettes with LT1 engines.

 

unregistered pace cars what a moron.

Everyone is trying to make up stories to make their cars worth more.

 

Yeah, mine came with the special factory edition time machine, it lets me warp back in time and sell my car at an added value!

 

Lets see a pic of your RPO codes. I bet it doesn't have "Time Machine High Resale Value Activator" TM1.

 

just thought I'd chime in about the camaros and vettes thing, the only time I know of the camaros being faster are the nickis and yenkos in 67 and 69, and the COPOs in 69. Gotta love the COPO

 

Well the Nickey and Yenko Camaro's werent really factory cars. The COPO on the other hand was. There was also a ZL1 Vette made in 69, but only 2 were produced.

 

what is your definition of aggressive?

 

aggressive=fast

or as fast as possible

-poping the clutch alot comes to mind(me)
-holding the gas down betwen shifts(power shifting i think)

 

No it didnt really have anything to do with warranting it, or emissions, the transmission doesnt have much to do with emissions anyways. The reason they didnt make the L98 with the T5 is because the T5s torque rating was only 300 ft lbs, and the L98 makes 345 ft lbs of torque. Thats why they only made it with the TPI 305 and T5, because with just that combo, the 305 was at the torque limit of 300, so it was already pushing it.

 

The 1983-84 Z-28 L-69 could run off and leave a Vette of the same vintage in the dust.

Don't forget the 69-70 Vettes could also have a 350 hp 350 which is the same engine as the 70 LT-1 except a hydraulic cam and q-jet. They would take care of the little 302 Z pretty easy. The LT-1 Vette also had 370 hp in 1970 and the Z-28 the same year only had 360hp. The same 10 hp. seems odd.

I think you could get a LB-9 305 TPI for the first time with a 5-speed in 1986.

 

Nope, 305 TPI 5spd is 87 and up when the 350 came to town.

 

What does the trans have to do with emissions?

 

This question gets asked over and over again. The fact is no one on here has ever seen a real documented 350 w/manual transmission car ever.

I think the only way we could believe it is if the RPO sticker has both L98 or B2L codes on it with the code for the T-5. Which I do not know.

There should be a sticky on the main board that says "No thirdgens never came with a 350 and 5spd!!" That's probably the most common and overly asked and discussed thing on this board.

 

Firehawks had 350 6 speed.

 

Yes, and what's your point? Everyone here already knows that, and is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

The firehawk was NOT a factory GM car, either.

 

There were 69 Camaros that had the ZL1 motor put in... there were only 2 Corvettes made with it.

And the ZL1 Camaro was a real killer back then... It outran absolutely everything.... Hemis, 440-6 packs, Boss 429s, L88s...

With only slicks those cars ran high 10s.

The COPO Camaros had a Corvette 427 engine installed, but with a high rise aluminum 4bbl intake and a 850cfm Holley. These cars usually outran the TriPower 427 Corvettes as well. Suspension was a big part of that though... the Corvette never really got a real 'drag race' suspension back then like the Camaro did.

 

Me, too.

 

wrong. there has been a few occasions where other cars hp figures have surpassed the Corvettes.

1) first off, id like to point out in 84' the L69 had 15hp less than the Vette of the same year. the Crossfire Vette was rated at 205hp, where the L69 was at 190
2)the TTA had 250 underrated hp. the Vette of the same year peaked at 245
3) remember the advertising games Buick was playing with Chevy about the hp ratings between the GN and Vette? in 86, the Vette came with 230hp, so Buick rated the GN at 235. then for 87 Chevy upped the Vettes #s to 240, so Buick toyed with them again and made the turbo Buicks 245.
some more misinformation here:

1) there are a few guys on www.corvetteforum.com and the crossfire net that have hit high 14s in 100% factory stock 84' Vettes. ive never heard of a bone stock L69 getting into the 14s
2) there are bone stock LT1 6speed Vettes that have hit very low 13s. in fact, one guy has run a 12.9 in his. a 2.0 60ft and 6000rpm powershifts are the key to good times. BTW - ill do you a favor and not mention what the LT4 Vettes of 96 vintage were capable of
3) if you want to get technical, the Callaway option (RPO B2K) made the Corvette a mid 12 sec car. that was availible from 87 - 91. some will argue that this wasnt a production car. yes, it wasnt assembled in house, but it DID have an RPO code. if i remember correctly, Pontiac didnt do the assembly of the TTAs either

i dont understand why the majority of the fbody guys always bash Corvettes. were all GM, and we have the same engines. its the same arguement i hear day in and day out: "GM cant have a car stronger than the Vette". well, yes... thats right. if you are paying 50k for a car with basically the same engine (minor intake and exhaust differences) as a 30k car, shouldnt it have a bit more power? either way, even if the engines are exactly the same, the Vette will always have a weight advantage (C4 on up), giving it an edge over the fbody

 

I had heard that the reason 350s never came with the t-5 is because (specifically on the convertibles and t-top models) the frame is not strong enough and will twist (reason why T-Tops in the 350s were discontinued after 89?). I'm sure the emissions and torque rating of the T-5 also has some contribution to the decision to leave them auto. Does this sound like a load of horse crap or could I be right?