5.7 in 1985
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,298
Likes: 197
From: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Car: 87 Formula T-Top, 87 Formula HT
Engine: 5.1L TPI, 5.0L TPI
Transmission: 700R4, M5
Axle/Gears: Sag 3.73, B&W 3.45
5.7 in 1985
Been searching my Parts & Illustration catalogs, and I keep running into an anomoly.
I have found that they reference an in tank Fuel Pump for a 5.7 engine in 85.
The Cruise Control servo Cable for 85-88 (5.0F & 5.7-8)
Bracket Cruise control servo 85-89 (2.8S, 5.0F, 5.7-8)
EGR Solonoid Bracket 85-87 (5.0F, 5.7-8)
I would suspect that the 5.7 reference would be for 87+ only since thats when the engine was introduced in the F-body. BUT for most cases, even when they have the same part number they list the 5.7 seprerate of the 5.0 when they cross different years.
Typically this is how things appear:
85-87 F (5.0F) (EXC NM8 EXPORT)......14082433 Harness, EXH EMIS CONT VAC RR etc...
87......F (5.7-8)....................................14082433 Harness, EXH EMIS CONT VAC RR etc...
So could it be possible that GM is not telling us the whole story? Could it be possible that there very well may be some 85 T/A's out there with the 5.7 Engine, but it is not common knowledge and disreguarded?
the 1985 5.7-8 Fuel Pump part number is the same as the 5.0F part number for 85-86 BUT it has its own seperate line altogether...
Makes me wonder...
John
I have found that they reference an in tank Fuel Pump for a 5.7 engine in 85.
The Cruise Control servo Cable for 85-88 (5.0F & 5.7-8)
Bracket Cruise control servo 85-89 (2.8S, 5.0F, 5.7-8)
EGR Solonoid Bracket 85-87 (5.0F, 5.7-8)
I would suspect that the 5.7 reference would be for 87+ only since thats when the engine was introduced in the F-body. BUT for most cases, even when they have the same part number they list the 5.7 seprerate of the 5.0 when they cross different years.
Typically this is how things appear:
85-87 F (5.0F) (EXC NM8 EXPORT)......14082433 Harness, EXH EMIS CONT VAC RR etc...
87......F (5.7-8)....................................14082433 Harness, EXH EMIS CONT VAC RR etc...
So could it be possible that GM is not telling us the whole story? Could it be possible that there very well may be some 85 T/A's out there with the 5.7 Engine, but it is not common knowledge and disreguarded?
the 1985 5.7-8 Fuel Pump part number is the same as the 5.0F part number for 85-86 BUT it has its own seperate line altogether...
Makes me wonder...
John
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
okfoz :So could it be possible that GM is not telling us the whole story?
Probably not. GM:lala: telling us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me ***. Sorry about that I didn't know it would be *** out.
What happens if this means there was a test mule in Dec. 1985? I am saying on the line at the same time there could have been an IROC-Z in DEC of 1985 with the 5.7 going by the mileage I have seen on tape.
There could have been a 350 T/A made in Dec. 1985 or much earlier and they are saying this is the pump that is needed.
Good detective work :hail: okfoz. Let us know when you have found something else.
Chet
Probably not. GM:lala: telling us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me ***. Sorry about that I didn't know it would be *** out.
What happens if this means there was a test mule in Dec. 1985? I am saying on the line at the same time there could have been an IROC-Z in DEC of 1985 with the 5.7 going by the mileage I have seen on tape.
There could have been a 350 T/A made in Dec. 1985 or much earlier and they are saying this is the pump that is needed.
Good detective work :hail: okfoz. Let us know when you have found something else.
Chet
Last edited by raptoryfm660r; Jun 7, 2002 at 01:58 AM.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 7,386
Likes: 1
From: In a mint Third Gen!
Car: Red 87 IROC-Z28 T-Top
Engine: 5.7 Tuned Port Injection
Transmission: 700R4 Auto
Axle/Gears: BW 9-Bolt 3.27
The L98 was 1st used in 85, just not in the F-Body but in the Corvette. Its a misprint if its an F-Body catalog.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,298
Likes: 197
From: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Car: 87 Formula T-Top, 87 Formula HT
Engine: 5.1L TPI, 5.0L TPI
Transmission: 700R4, M5
Axle/Gears: Sag 3.73, B&W 3.45
What really cought me off guard is they reference the 5.7 in 85, nothing for 86, and then again for 87+.
They do not have it in every category, but there are several places where thye do reference an 85 5.7 for the F car. I wonder if it was going to happen, or it might have been a one off deal for a GM exec...
John
They do not have it in every category, but there are several places where thye do reference an 85 5.7 for the F car. I wonder if it was going to happen, or it might have been a one off deal for a GM exec...
John
Trending Topics
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Originally posted by okfoz
it might have been a one off deal for a GM exec...
John
it might have been a one off deal for a GM exec...
John
On page one it says: To lead. To improve. To be the best. NO MATTER WHAT.
I would think if Jack Smith (Chairman) or Rick Wagoner (President and chief executive officer) would want a one off type vehicle it would happen. It might have even happened more so back in the mid-eighties if some GM exec... wanted a little more power than the avearge Joe out there.
Chet
Guest
Posts: n/a
One off vehicles (even ones that are more than one-offs) are not designated in parts listings. My convertible is an example.
Not the first time I've seen stuff like that before. You know in 1987, LB9's didnt exist to many places. I even had a dealer give me a runaround.
Not the first time I've seen stuff like that before. You know in 1987, LB9's didnt exist to many places. I even had a dealer give me a runaround.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,298
Likes: 197
From: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Car: 87 Formula T-Top, 87 Formula HT
Engine: 5.1L TPI, 5.0L TPI
Transmission: 700R4, M5
Axle/Gears: Sag 3.73, B&W 3.45
madmax,
what year is your vert, 91-92 is in my parts & Ill manual, my book also has the Turbo information for 89...
John
what year is your vert, 91-92 is in my parts & Ill manual, my book also has the Turbo information for 89...
John
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Bellefontaine, Ohio, USA
85 5.7 did live,
I have a 85 5.7 Z/28
I got the car from were I work in April 1986
It was a test mule for powertrain testing it was sent to us by GM for Powertrain testing
after the cylinder head failed it was pulled of test and sat there for aprox 6 months and GM released it to us we bid it and I won the bid. I received the title from GM April 23 1986
1985 Camaro Z/28 8th digit in vin number is "8" 350 TPI / with digital dash Back on Black "T"Top.
Car was minus the cylinder heads when I got it.
Installed a set of TrickFlow heads on it.
other than the vin 8 and the digital dash it looks like the average Z/28. Still have it to this day Garaged, Sunday only driver.
I have a 85 5.7 Z/28
I got the car from were I work in April 1986
It was a test mule for powertrain testing it was sent to us by GM for Powertrain testing
after the cylinder head failed it was pulled of test and sat there for aprox 6 months and GM released it to us we bid it and I won the bid. I received the title from GM April 23 1986
1985 Camaro Z/28 8th digit in vin number is "8" 350 TPI / with digital dash Back on Black "T"Top.
Car was minus the cylinder heads when I got it.
Installed a set of TrickFlow heads on it.
other than the vin 8 and the digital dash it looks like the average Z/28. Still have it to this day Garaged, Sunday only driver.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 7,386
Likes: 1
From: In a mint Third Gen!
Car: Red 87 IROC-Z28 T-Top
Engine: 5.7 Tuned Port Injection
Transmission: 700R4 Auto
Axle/Gears: BW 9-Bolt 3.27
I'd have to really see proof of all that 85CAMZ28TPI. Doesn't sound correct to me.
TGO Supporter
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 13,579
Likes: 9
From: Readsboro, VT
Car: 85 IROC-Z / 88 GTA
Engine: 403 LSx (Pending) / 355 Tuned Port
Transmission: T56 Magnum (Pending) / T5
Axle/Gears: 3.42 / ?
Once a week I run into somebody that had a factory 86 with an L98. Twice a week I run into somebody that had a factory 5 speed L98. Sometimes I even run into people with a stock 85 L98. Once I even ran into a guy that had a stock 350 in his 86, but his was carburated.
Maybe someday I'll run into somebody that actually has something that resembles proof. Maybe.
Maybe someday I'll run into somebody that actually has something that resembles proof. Maybe.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,298
Likes: 197
From: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Car: 87 Formula T-Top, 87 Formula HT
Engine: 5.1L TPI, 5.0L TPI
Transmission: 700R4, M5
Axle/Gears: Sag 3.73, B&W 3.45
85CAMZ28TPI
Show us a pic of the VIN so you can turn this site up side down...
John
Show us a pic of the VIN so you can turn this site up side down...
John
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,298
Likes: 197
From: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Car: 87 Formula T-Top, 87 Formula HT
Engine: 5.1L TPI, 5.0L TPI
Transmission: 700R4, M5
Axle/Gears: Sag 3.73, B&W 3.45
Well for all intents and purposes, 85CAMZ28TPI sent me an e-mail with a picture of his title, and it looks VERY convincing.
I looked at it closely and it appears to be VERY genuine.
An 85 Camaro with a 350...
John
I looked at it closely and it appears to be VERY genuine.
An 85 Camaro with a 350...
John
Last edited by okfoz; Jun 18, 2002 at 09:41 AM.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,298
Likes: 197
From: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Car: 87 Formula T-Top, 87 Formula HT
Engine: 5.1L TPI, 5.0L TPI
Transmission: 700R4, M5
Axle/Gears: Sag 3.73, B&W 3.45
and a close up of the VIN, Notice that the 8's are similar for the 6th didget and the 8th didget, but when zoomed in on they differ slightly. This leads me to believe that it is not altered.
Thus I believe we have a car that is not subposed to exist...
As for the comment earlier that test mules not having a VIN, every car that GM makes INCLUDING many Concept Vehicles have a VIN.
John
Thus I believe we have a car that is not subposed to exist...
As for the comment earlier that test mules not having a VIN, every car that GM makes INCLUDING many Concept Vehicles have a VIN.
John
Last edited by okfoz; Jun 18, 2002 at 09:38 AM.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,298
Likes: 197
From: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Car: 87 Formula T-Top, 87 Formula HT
Engine: 5.1L TPI, 5.0L TPI
Transmission: 700R4, M5
Axle/Gears: Sag 3.73, B&W 3.45
curiosity is killing me, does it have T-tops?
John
John
TGO Supporter
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 13,579
Likes: 9
From: Readsboro, VT
Car: 85 IROC-Z / 88 GTA
Engine: 403 LSx (Pending) / 355 Tuned Port
Transmission: T56 Magnum (Pending) / T5
Axle/Gears: 3.42 / ?
that 8 looks suspiciously identical to the 8 two positions ahead of it. Look at the watermarking inside of the "8". Both of them have the exact same watermarking, dispite the surroundings around the 8s not being the same.
Photochop.
EDIT: I take that back. I downloaded and zoomed in on it, and they aren't the same. I played around with it in the rudamentary picture program I've got at work and can't find anything that necessarily shows that it's a photochop. I'm going to have to get a friend at the dealer to run the VIN and see what I get.
Photochop.
EDIT: I take that back. I downloaded and zoomed in on it, and they aren't the same. I played around with it in the rudamentary picture program I've got at work and can't find anything that necessarily shows that it's a photochop. I'm going to have to get a friend at the dealer to run the VIN and see what I get.
Last edited by Jim85IROC; Jun 18, 2002 at 10:27 AM.
TGO Supporter
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 13,579
Likes: 9
From: Readsboro, VT
Car: 85 IROC-Z / 88 GTA
Engine: 403 LSx (Pending) / 355 Tuned Port
Transmission: T56 Magnum (Pending) / T5
Axle/Gears: 3.42 / ?
I just ran the VIN online and this is what I got:
The VIN you entered: 1G1FP8781FN127746 is invalid.
However the VIN you entered is very close to those listed below.
YOU MAY SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING AS A SUBSTITUTE VIN:
1. 1G1FP87F1FN127746 1985 Chevrolet/Camaro/5.0L V8 TPI HO OHV
(Substituted: F in position 8)
Imagine that.
The VIN you entered: 1G1FP8781FN127746 is invalid.
However the VIN you entered is very close to those listed below.
YOU MAY SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING AS A SUBSTITUTE VIN:
1. 1G1FP87F1FN127746 1985 Chevrolet/Camaro/5.0L V8 TPI HO OHV
(Substituted: F in position 8)
Imagine that.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
I am not questioning the vehicle or what engine it has but
Why did GM or the dealership find it necessary to title the vehicle?
Since he was the first buyer shouldn't he have gotten the certificate of origin from GM and not the title.
What I am seeing here is a scanned legal document from the state of Ohio. A state worker has typed those numbers from some other document. I think that is what we should be looking at is the certificate of origin for a vehicle or the other document he or she was doing the typing from.
Now that would show the numbers that are needed such as the series or model, H.P. numbers.
Before I handed mine off to the state of Indiana I photocopied mine. He should have done the same. That would have been better proof than this title.
Chet
Why did GM or the dealership find it necessary to title the vehicle?
Since he was the first buyer shouldn't he have gotten the certificate of origin from GM and not the title.
What I am seeing here is a scanned legal document from the state of Ohio. A state worker has typed those numbers from some other document. I think that is what we should be looking at is the certificate of origin for a vehicle or the other document he or she was doing the typing from.
Now that would show the numbers that are needed such as the series or model, H.P. numbers.
Before I handed mine off to the state of Indiana I photocopied mine. He should have done the same. That would have been better proof than this title.
Chet
Last edited by raptoryfm660r; May 24, 2008 at 09:15 PM.
TGO Supporter
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 13,579
Likes: 9
From: Readsboro, VT
Car: 85 IROC-Z / 88 GTA
Engine: 403 LSx (Pending) / 355 Tuned Port
Transmission: T56 Magnum (Pending) / T5
Axle/Gears: 3.42 / ?
The whole issue is now moot. The production sequence portion of the VIN is unique for every single car within the model lineup, so for that VIN to be returned as legit with the "F" engine code more or less dispells any myth about the "8" being accurate. No 2 f-bodies would come off the line with the same production sequence number. No 2 VINS are identical save for the engine digit. The sequence number would be different. The fact that carfax returned a legit VIN with the "F" code dispells any potental for that VIN posted above to be legit.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,298
Likes: 197
From: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Car: 87 Formula T-Top, 87 Formula HT
Engine: 5.1L TPI, 5.0L TPI
Transmission: 700R4, M5
Axle/Gears: Sag 3.73, B&W 3.45
Jim85IROC,
Where did your run that VIN? I am curious,
Try this one, and is it valid?
1G2FS21F4HN246234
John
Where did your run that VIN? I am curious,
Try this one, and is it valid?
1G2FS21F4HN246234
John
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yea, thats a little weird.
In 92 I bought a 65 Mustang, it was fairly well optioned and had matching VIN numbers in the right places. The title for the car did not match the VIN on the vehicle, one digit was in error. The VIN was supposed to say 5R07xxxxxx but instead read 5R08xxxxx. The difference? 07 is coupe, 08 is convertible. Small typo. I could, in theory, have passed the car off as a convertible by cutting the top off. Instead, I went to the DMV to have the VIN verified and changed and stupidly enough it was a difficult thing to do.
Not sayin thats what happened to this car, but it looks to me like something is amiss. Time to verify the check digit.
In 92 I bought a 65 Mustang, it was fairly well optioned and had matching VIN numbers in the right places. The title for the car did not match the VIN on the vehicle, one digit was in error. The VIN was supposed to say 5R07xxxxxx but instead read 5R08xxxxx. The difference? 07 is coupe, 08 is convertible. Small typo. I could, in theory, have passed the car off as a convertible by cutting the top off. Instead, I went to the DMV to have the VIN verified and changed and stupidly enough it was a difficult thing to do.
Not sayin thats what happened to this car, but it looks to me like something is amiss. Time to verify the check digit.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just verified the check digit. If it were an '8' in the engine location, the check digit would have to be an X. Its not, its 1. 1 verifies with an F being in the engine designation location.
Thats not a valid VIN number, its not a legit 350 car. Sorry guys.
Thats not a valid VIN number, its not a legit 350 car. Sorry guys.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,298
Likes: 197
From: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Car: 87 Formula T-Top, 87 Formula HT
Engine: 5.1L TPI, 5.0L TPI
Transmission: 700R4, M5
Axle/Gears: Sag 3.73, B&W 3.45
I do not remember the rest of the VIN, but a few years back when I went to look at some 91/92 firehawks, I noticed that the 8th didget on the 92 was a 7. So I tried to run that number, and lo and behold it came up invalid.
John
John
TGO Supporter
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 13,579
Likes: 9
From: Readsboro, VT
Car: 85 IROC-Z / 88 GTA
Engine: 403 LSx (Pending) / 355 Tuned Port
Transmission: T56 Magnum (Pending) / T5
Axle/Gears: 3.42 / ?
Originally posted by okfoz
Jim85IROC,
Where did your run that VIN? I am curious,
Try this one, and is it valid?
1G2FS21F4HN246234
John
Jim85IROC,
Where did your run that VIN? I am curious,
Try this one, and is it valid?
1G2FS21F4HN246234
John
Supreme Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,415
Likes: 2
From: Surrey, BC
OK well because test mules were not intended to be released to the public, they weren't supposed to receive vins.
Okfoz, how come the Nomad doesn't have a VIN if the Concept cars have VINs? The VIN's purpose is to indentify the car and what indentifying does a Concept Car have to do?
Now if the test mule indeed had a VIN, then I remember Raptorfm saying that the "official" GM test 350 IROC, looked like a butchered 305; so it would have a 305 VIN.
okfoz, why would 85CAMZ28 send just you the pics, and not post them himself on this site?
I'm also going to stand with the fact that test mules did not have EPA certification and to get EPA certification for a car is apparently very hard.
Okfoz, how come the Nomad doesn't have a VIN if the Concept cars have VINs? The VIN's purpose is to indentify the car and what indentifying does a Concept Car have to do?
Now if the test mule indeed had a VIN, then I remember Raptorfm saying that the "official" GM test 350 IROC, looked like a butchered 305; so it would have a 305 VIN.
okfoz, why would 85CAMZ28 send just you the pics, and not post them himself on this site?
I'm also going to stand with the fact that test mules did not have EPA certification and to get EPA certification for a car is apparently very hard.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,298
Likes: 197
From: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Car: 87 Formula T-Top, 87 Formula HT
Engine: 5.1L TPI, 5.0L TPI
Transmission: 700R4, M5
Axle/Gears: Sag 3.73, B&W 3.45
IF you read my post, you will notice that I mention SOME concept cars have VINs. Considering that I have made parts for some comcept cars and I have seen the VIN on some of them. They might not be in the windshield like you expect tho, so do not count them out because the're not obvious.
As for the EPA, I would suspect that like the FAA, GM could make a one off, and declare it to be ok. Considering that the drive train would be identical to a Corvette, it would not be a far stretch to certify it that way. In some cases back in the 80's I believe it was not necessary to certify certain vehicles anyway IF they had a low Production run. I have read this, and heard this.
He sent me the pix because he was having a hard time with posting it. I asked him for a pic of the VIN when he got one.
Keep in mind that IF I make a 2002 Whatchamacallit, that I need to only conform to the EPA regulations for the Engine I install in my Whatchamacallit. Therefore if I install a 1994 LT1, I only need to conform to the rules in 1994. If I install a 2002 LS1 then I need to conform to 2002 rules. If I install a 1967 Buick 430 then I only need to conform to 1967. Keep in mind that this does not include transplants. If I plop a 1950 Engine in my 1987, I still need to conform to the rules of 1987 EPA standards.
Did you notice that Ford just auctioned off a crap load of their concept vehicles? I saw that on the news about 2 days ago, don't tell me it does not happen.
Also consider that a 1998 Firehawk does not "oficially" exist. Back in 1998 there was a short run of Firehawks that got all of the firehawk equipment, but SLP does not claim them as being an official "Firehawk"
as found on the firehawk.org website:
Although different, this is a very similar situation.
Notice that there NOT considered Production Vehicles It does not discount the fact that they were made AND accoding to the statement, it does not say that they are NOT Firehawks. it just sais they are not "production Firehawks."
John
As for the EPA, I would suspect that like the FAA, GM could make a one off, and declare it to be ok. Considering that the drive train would be identical to a Corvette, it would not be a far stretch to certify it that way. In some cases back in the 80's I believe it was not necessary to certify certain vehicles anyway IF they had a low Production run. I have read this, and heard this.
He sent me the pix because he was having a hard time with posting it. I asked him for a pic of the VIN when he got one.
Keep in mind that IF I make a 2002 Whatchamacallit, that I need to only conform to the EPA regulations for the Engine I install in my Whatchamacallit. Therefore if I install a 1994 LT1, I only need to conform to the rules in 1994. If I install a 2002 LS1 then I need to conform to 2002 rules. If I install a 1967 Buick 430 then I only need to conform to 1967. Keep in mind that this does not include transplants. If I plop a 1950 Engine in my 1987, I still need to conform to the rules of 1987 EPA standards.
Did you notice that Ford just auctioned off a crap load of their concept vehicles? I saw that on the news about 2 days ago, don't tell me it does not happen.
Also consider that a 1998 Firehawk does not "oficially" exist. Back in 1998 there was a short run of Firehawks that got all of the firehawk equipment, but SLP does not claim them as being an official "Firehawk"
as found on the firehawk.org website:
To clarify what has become a confusing situation for certain enthusiasts, SLP Engineering, Inc. did not produce 1998 model year Firehawks at its Montreal, Quebec, Canada production facilities.
SLP did however add Firehawk content to 6 1998 model Trans Ams and Formulas. That work was performed at our Troy, Michigan facility. The 6 vehicles were purchased locally from Pontiac/GMC dealers, converted in Troy, then used for 1998/9 model year marketing and sales activities.
In addition, it should be noted these vehicles do NOT contain the GM RPO WU6 option code. While these vehicles do contain Firehawk content, they are NOT considered production Firehawks by SLP.
-Reg Harris
SLP did however add Firehawk content to 6 1998 model Trans Ams and Formulas. That work was performed at our Troy, Michigan facility. The 6 vehicles were purchased locally from Pontiac/GMC dealers, converted in Troy, then used for 1998/9 model year marketing and sales activities.
In addition, it should be noted these vehicles do NOT contain the GM RPO WU6 option code. While these vehicles do contain Firehawk content, they are NOT considered production Firehawks by SLP.
-Reg Harris
Notice that there NOT considered Production Vehicles It does not discount the fact that they were made AND accoding to the statement, it does not say that they are NOT Firehawks. it just sais they are not "production Firehawks."
John
Supreme Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,415
Likes: 2
From: Surrey, BC
Originally posted by okfoz
As for the EPA, I would suspect that like the FAA, GM could make a one off, and declare it to be ok. Considering that the drive train would be identical to a Corvette, it would not be a far stretch to certify it that way. In some cases back in the 80's I believe it was not necessary to certify certain vehicles anyway IF they had a low Production run. I have read this, and heard this.
As for the EPA, I would suspect that like the FAA, GM could make a one off, and declare it to be ok. Considering that the drive train would be identical to a Corvette, it would not be a far stretch to certify it that way. In some cases back in the 80's I believe it was not necessary to certify certain vehicles anyway IF they had a low Production run. I have read this, and heard this.
He sent me the pix because he was having a hard time with posting it. I asked him for a pic of the VIN when he got one.
Did you notice that Ford just auctioned off a crap load of their concept vehicles? I saw that on the news about 2 days ago, don't tell me it does not happen.
Also consider that a 1998 Firehawk does not "oficially" exist. Back in 1998 there was a short run of Firehawks that got all of the firehawk equipment, but SLP does not claim them as being an official "Firehawk"
Although different, this is a very similar situation.
Notice that there NOT considered Production Vehicles It does not discount the fact that they were made AND accoding to the statement, it does not say that they are NOT Firehawks. it just sais they are not "production Firehawks."
If indeed there was a 85 L98, I'm sure GM would have more than one of them sent to 85CAM's work. They would send more than one because what if one of them failed? They usually do numerous tests, not solitary ones.
Where do you work 85CAMZ28TPI?
Now if you excuse me, I'm going into my backyard to search for UFOs.
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Bellefontaine, Ohio, USA
Thanks John,
I could not post the title last night for some reason or the other
It seems painfully ovious you guys do not beleive this Camaro exsist.
I am by far no expert on GM although I worked in GM dealerships for a few years.
But I do know what I have. I work at the worlds third largest independant proving grounds and have seen my share GM, Ford Chrysler and various other's, As I mentioned before I was able to buy this Camaro when it failed pt2 test it was one of 14 camaro's we had there at that time the one I got was doing piggy back test done by Delco (now known as Delphi) and GM the test involved brakes, Strain guage work on the chassi, and powertrain testing, 4 of the camaro's on test went back to Delco when testing was done 6 of them were crushed after they hit the barrier wall and 4 of them were auctioned off sealed bids internally after a dispute with GM and the proving grounds on charges for test being conducted after 6 months of storage. Mine was one of them the other 3 were sold to other employee's as well 2 of them I know were wrecked within a few years and 1 other moved to Airizona someplace.
If you run the vin it will come back invalid as it was not a standard production run.
as far a EPA rating yes it does have one as this car was liscenced and drove on various routes designated by the test engineer at that time which was public roads as well as test faclity's roads.
The car were titled to Delco at that time when we received them.
The reason for this I have not a clue. We have al kinds of test ules from manufacturer's at the present time all bearing a EPA rating for the vehicle some may be 2003 vehicles but have 2004 powertrains in them to this day on test facility.
It is not uncommon for the proving grounds to hold private auctions when a client does not pay for the complete billing on testing. It is also common for the Clients to donate the test mules to the facility after testing is done for there disposal, the exception being priorty sheet metal cars.
I will snap a few photos of the vin plate and send them along not that I care if you guys beleive me or not as I am not trying to profit etc. on this car from anyone.It is not For Sale.
I would have the photos tonight except someone wanted my digital camera more than I did and took it from my truck about a month ago.
As I am sure you guys will jump all over this post as before enjoy
When the vin plate photo slaps you in the face maybe that will jump you back to reality.
Enjoy.
I could not post the title last night for some reason or the other
It seems painfully ovious you guys do not beleive this Camaro exsist.
I am by far no expert on GM although I worked in GM dealerships for a few years.
But I do know what I have. I work at the worlds third largest independant proving grounds and have seen my share GM, Ford Chrysler and various other's, As I mentioned before I was able to buy this Camaro when it failed pt2 test it was one of 14 camaro's we had there at that time the one I got was doing piggy back test done by Delco (now known as Delphi) and GM the test involved brakes, Strain guage work on the chassi, and powertrain testing, 4 of the camaro's on test went back to Delco when testing was done 6 of them were crushed after they hit the barrier wall and 4 of them were auctioned off sealed bids internally after a dispute with GM and the proving grounds on charges for test being conducted after 6 months of storage. Mine was one of them the other 3 were sold to other employee's as well 2 of them I know were wrecked within a few years and 1 other moved to Airizona someplace.
If you run the vin it will come back invalid as it was not a standard production run.
as far a EPA rating yes it does have one as this car was liscenced and drove on various routes designated by the test engineer at that time which was public roads as well as test faclity's roads.
The car were titled to Delco at that time when we received them.
The reason for this I have not a clue. We have al kinds of test ules from manufacturer's at the present time all bearing a EPA rating for the vehicle some may be 2003 vehicles but have 2004 powertrains in them to this day on test facility.
It is not uncommon for the proving grounds to hold private auctions when a client does not pay for the complete billing on testing. It is also common for the Clients to donate the test mules to the facility after testing is done for there disposal, the exception being priorty sheet metal cars.
I will snap a few photos of the vin plate and send them along not that I care if you guys beleive me or not as I am not trying to profit etc. on this car from anyone.It is not For Sale.
I would have the photos tonight except someone wanted my digital camera more than I did and took it from my truck about a month ago.
As I am sure you guys will jump all over this post as before enjoy
When the vin plate photo slaps you in the face maybe that will jump you back to reality.
Enjoy.
Member
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
From: NJ
Car: 88 GTA
Engine: 305
Transmission: Auto
Axle/Gears: 3.23
This kid i know has an 85 iroc and he claims its a 350 tpi. i raced him with my 350 and pissed all over him, told he it was impossible but he says it is. i looked at the vin one night and i guess i looked at the wrong digit because the engine code was an x, no 7 or 8 near it.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 7,386
Likes: 1
From: In a mint Third Gen!
Car: Red 87 IROC-Z28 T-Top
Engine: 5.7 Tuned Port Injection
Transmission: 700R4 Auto
Axle/Gears: BW 9-Bolt 3.27
I want to see lots of pictures of this thing, I can't say anything else until then.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Then how do you explain the incorrect check digit? I'm as willing as anyone to believe the car is legit, but nobody has addressed this. I'd bet that GM was using a computer to pop out the VIN numbers after all the paperwork and such I've seen and if they did, the computer was calculating and determining the check digit. Its clearly in error. You could post a pic of your VIN for me, and if the numbers match the title I'll still wonder why the check digit is wrong. A picture wont help. You seem to express that you know alot about GM and test cars, so... you should know if anyone does why its wrong. Got a good reason?
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,298
Likes: 197
From: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Car: 87 Formula T-Top, 87 Formula HT
Engine: 5.1L TPI, 5.0L TPI
Transmission: 700R4, M5
Axle/Gears: Sag 3.73, B&W 3.45
GM might have used a different formula for "non production" vehicles. Although its a production vehicle, consider that the check didget formula does not work for my 1990 Riviera.
1G4EZ13C0LU409230
with the formula I get 328
319 is the closest divisible number
remainder = 9
With the formula I get a check didget of 9, its clearly a 0
John
1G4EZ13C0LU409230
with the formula I get 328
319 is the closest divisible number
remainder = 9
With the formula I get a check didget of 9, its clearly a 0
John
Guest
Posts: n/a
Possible, but I kinda doubt it. Seems weird to me that with an F it works fine. Its not like I searched hard for what letter or number would work, I just picked F and it worked. Maybe GM pulled a 305TPI car off the line, dumped a 350 in it, and stamped the VIN with an 8 and didnt change the check digit, but what I see is an invalid VIN number.
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Bellefontaine, Ohio, USA
I tried to do some research today with some GM sources on this and the other 13 vehicles we had some 17 years ago and like all response's I have gotten from our GM sources is that test mules just happen no set pattern to them, I was assured though that all 14 were all produced in one day on the same line one right after the other and spec'd out to the testing components the testing group designated. I was also told most likely what had occured was the testing did occur outside of there proving grounds was because of there work load and the type of testing needed when I mentioned the type of car and what it was I was told this was a standard test to determine most likely the braking and chassi as that would be the two main things in the engineer's mind when doing a proposed powertrain swap in production and testing of this nature normally occurs 1-2 years prior to the release of any production run of the powertrain in that line. I asked about the EPA rating and was told if the engine was used in any GM line and meet the rating they could use that rating in there test vehicles. As I recall strain guaging all these vehicles they were all T topped vehicles and all had standard production run brake components in case any of you do not know the reason for strain guaging the vehicle chassi it is to determin the stress factor on the component's, if I recall right and I can verify this by crawling around under mine the vehicles all had at least 12 strain guages all on the unibody frame and floor pan area, as well as thermo coupled brakes to read out the brake temperature I know all vehicles did under go a FMVSS 105 test which is a brake test to determine if the vehicle could stop within a distance determined by it's weight class and vehicle type, I asked my Partner in the instrumentation Lab area if he recalled them and he said yes kind of and isn't that were you got you Camaro from so I counted him out I would have talked to the test engineer at our facility that had the project except he moved on to bigger and better things at Navistar several years back I am trying to track down the 4 that went back to Delco to determine if they were still around or what there fate was. I was told so far the guy is indeed still there and that he has changed postion and was out until Tuesday of next week but he would return my call after gets back.
I may be able to track down the Test results for the FMVSS testing as these records are keep forever.They to also would show the type of vehicle vin numers and testing dates, engine size brake diameter brake thicknes caliper piston size as well as various other recorded data that was tooken at the time of the test. So off to the records room I will go when I can swing the time at work.
So how GM pulls car for test seem painfully ovious the next cars on the line get the treatment when the order comes down.
Much Like Chrysler these days.
I may be able to track down the Test results for the FMVSS testing as these records are keep forever.They to also would show the type of vehicle vin numers and testing dates, engine size brake diameter brake thicknes caliper piston size as well as various other recorded data that was tooken at the time of the test. So off to the records room I will go when I can swing the time at work.
So how GM pulls car for test seem painfully ovious the next cars on the line get the treatment when the order comes down.
Much Like Chrysler these days.
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
From: Healdsburg CA
Bottom line is that NO f-body with a 350 was produced for sale by GM in 85.
That much is true.
The fact that the check digit IS NOT correct simply means that someone else stuck a 350 in it and doctered the paper work.
By the way, if you get pulled over, and the Highway Patrol runs the VIN number, it will come back as invalid, and you will spend the night in jail
That much is true.
The fact that the check digit IS NOT correct simply means that someone else stuck a 350 in it and doctered the paper work.
By the way, if you get pulled over, and the Highway Patrol runs the VIN number, it will come back as invalid, and you will spend the night in jail
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,464
Likes: 219
From: Florida
Car: 87 IROC-Z, 82 Pace Car
I don't want to say either way, but I played with PhotoChop as Jim referred to it and here's my result.
I took the first #8 and placed it on top of the second 8, and as the 1st character. Modifying the VIN on the title can be easily done. Especially if you have two titles from the same state with one having the "F" and the other having an "8". I'm not saying that this is a doctored title, I'm just showing that it can be easily done. Especially when it's saved as a jpg image.
I took the first #8 and placed it on top of the second 8, and as the 1st character. Modifying the VIN on the title can be easily done. Especially if you have two titles from the same state with one having the "F" and the other having an "8". I'm not saying that this is a doctored title, I'm just showing that it can be easily done. Especially when it's saved as a jpg image.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,120
Likes: 18
From: Quakertown, PA
Car: 1992 Camaro Z28 Convertible Z03
Engine: 383 SuperRam
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 2.73
not to defend or criticize the originality of the title, it is alot easier to photoshop something over soemthing else if the thing it is going over is the same.
all you have to do is lower the opacity of the top layer and it will blend it to the 8 there on lower layer. now if there was nothing, or some other digit there, it may not come out as good.
I believe this guy. yeah he may spend the night in jail if the vin comes up in valid but I beleive him, people who work in places like that sometimes get the opportunity of a life time, maybe he has a car that no one else does. and if he does...not to many people on this site will accept it this seems.
all you have to do is lower the opacity of the top layer and it will blend it to the 8 there on lower layer. now if there was nothing, or some other digit there, it may not come out as good.
I believe this guy. yeah he may spend the night in jail if the vin comes up in valid but I beleive him, people who work in places like that sometimes get the opportunity of a life time, maybe he has a car that no one else does. and if he does...not to many people on this site will accept it this seems.
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,464
Likes: 219
From: Florida
Car: 87 IROC-Z, 82 Pace Car
86,
Look at the VIN on the title. I put an over the 1st character. There was no blending, no opacity adjustments or anything. I used the rectangle selection tool, selected the 1st 8, copied, then pasted it into the other locations. I didn't even crop the excess from the outside of the 8. I pasted the entire square that was selected and copied. It still blends in good!
Like I said, though, that I don't believe that this was done on the title above, but it isn't that hard to actually do if you wanted to.
Look at the VIN on the title. I put an over the 1st character. There was no blending, no opacity adjustments or anything. I used the rectangle selection tool, selected the 1st 8, copied, then pasted it into the other locations. I didn't even crop the excess from the outside of the 8. I pasted the entire square that was selected and copied. It still blends in good!
Like I said, though, that I don't believe that this was done on the title above, but it isn't that hard to actually do if you wanted to.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,298
Likes: 197
From: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Car: 87 Formula T-Top, 87 Formula HT
Engine: 5.1L TPI, 5.0L TPI
Transmission: 700R4, M5
Axle/Gears: Sag 3.73, B&W 3.45
I believe this guy. yeah he may spend the night in jail if the vin comes up in valid but I beleive him, people who work in places like that sometimes get the opportunity of a life time, maybe he has a car that no one else does. and if he does...not to many people on this site will accept it this seems.
John
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 960
Likes: 1
From: Fletcher, NC, USA
Car: 1982 Recaro T/A
Engine: LU5 CFI 305 V8
Transmission: TH-200C
Axle/Gears: 3.23 F-body Fanatic: Yes
You'll notice how it's been about a month since we saw any sign from 85CAMZ28TPI and we have yet to see the promised pictures of the VIN plate. Why? because it's really just a 5.0-liter TPI, one of many thousands made that year.
That VIN title picture is a retouched picture done up in photoshop or something else (I faithfully use Paint Shop Pro). First of all the two 8's are clearly very similar. Not identical, but VERY similar, too similar. the space inside the holes of the two 8's is too similar to be real, and are clearly copies of each other, given the complex and variable nature of the background everywhere else. The parallel diagonal lines bordering the first 8 are identical on the second 8 and clearly should not have been there if you look at the background pattern. <b>Busted!</b> The only differences between the 8's is JPG artifacting, a.k.a. compression. J-PEG is to JPG as M-PEG is to MP3's and MPG video. They were created and defined by the same technology group. Now if you've ever listened to a low bitrate MP3, you know about the high-frequency bleeps and whistles in the background and the imperfect nature of the song. Same with JPG. When you zoom really deep on those VIN digits they look to be unique, but the two 8's are just way too close to each other, in fact they're identical and the *only* difference between them is the compression in the JPG format. That title is from a 305 TPI Camaro. Period.
If anyone wants to bet some cold hard cash on the fact that title is a fake, let me know, but consider that substituting an F for the engine code and ending up with 1G1FP8781FN127746 produces a valid VIN which has documented history in the tiny town of BELLEFONTAINE OHIO of all places, which incidentally is where 85CAMZ28TPI has been known to run around hitting animals with his 305. <b>Busted!</b> Don't take my word, here's the Carfax report, with highlights highlighted:
Now doesn't that just crack you up? What kind of respect is that for a super-rare 1985 350 TPI Camaro test mule? Tsk, tsk.
Seriously though, like someone said, there cannot possibly be two VIN's with the same last 6 digits from a given plant for a given year. Since we know that particular VIN is a known, documented 5.0-liter TPI, and since we know that only the 'Vette got a 350 TPI that year, it's apparent he's just messing with your minds. If anyone is up to the challenge, let me know and we'll get some deeper zooms of the title from 85CAMZ28TPI. Or will we? He seems to have vanished.
<b>Next time someone wants to spread misinformation about a non-existent rare car that would challenge our thinking, they should at least first take the time and make sure they have the talent to fool others, unlike this clown, this liar.</b>
By the way Okfoz, I don't know how you got a check digit of "9" on your 1990 Riviera but the right check digit is "0". I have a check digit calculator on my site if you want to test it out for yourself. Enter the VIN with a question mark in place of the check digit and it will calculate it for you. ( So you enter 1G4EZ13C?LU409230 ) Select "verbose output" to see the actual formula: http://ohok.com/82recaro/vin.mv
I hope this puts to rest any lingering doubts about this myth. But of course we all know it'll pop up again in the future, to be re-contemplated by fresh new impressionable minds. All without a shred of evidence.
GT
That VIN title picture is a retouched picture done up in photoshop or something else (I faithfully use Paint Shop Pro). First of all the two 8's are clearly very similar. Not identical, but VERY similar, too similar. the space inside the holes of the two 8's is too similar to be real, and are clearly copies of each other, given the complex and variable nature of the background everywhere else. The parallel diagonal lines bordering the first 8 are identical on the second 8 and clearly should not have been there if you look at the background pattern. <b>Busted!</b> The only differences between the 8's is JPG artifacting, a.k.a. compression. J-PEG is to JPG as M-PEG is to MP3's and MPG video. They were created and defined by the same technology group. Now if you've ever listened to a low bitrate MP3, you know about the high-frequency bleeps and whistles in the background and the imperfect nature of the song. Same with JPG. When you zoom really deep on those VIN digits they look to be unique, but the two 8's are just way too close to each other, in fact they're identical and the *only* difference between them is the compression in the JPG format. That title is from a 305 TPI Camaro. Period.
If anyone wants to bet some cold hard cash on the fact that title is a fake, let me know, but consider that substituting an F for the engine code and ending up with 1G1FP8781FN127746 produces a valid VIN which has documented history in the tiny town of BELLEFONTAINE OHIO of all places, which incidentally is where 85CAMZ28TPI has been known to run around hitting animals with his 305. <b>Busted!</b> Don't take my word, here's the Carfax report, with highlights highlighted:
Code:
VIN: 1G1FP87F1FN127746 Year/Make/Model: 1985 CHEVROLET CAMARO Body Style: COUPE Engine: <font color="red">5.0L V8 TPI HO OHV</font> Fuel: GASOLINE Driveline: REAR WHEEL DRIVE Carburetion: FUEL INJECTED Cylinders: 8 Manufactured in: UNITED STATES Problem Titles Checked: Results: Salvage/Junk Checked - No Salvage/Junk Title Found Rebuilt/Reconstructed Checked - No Rebuilt/Reconstructed Title Found Flood Damage Checked - No Flood Damage Title Found Damage Disclosure Checked - No Damage Disclosure Found Manufacturer Buyback (LEMON) Checked - No Manufacturer Buyback Found Exceeds Mechanical Limits (EML) Checked - No EML Found Not Actual Mileage (NAM) Checked - No NAM Found Problems Checked: Results: <font color="red">Accident Checked - Accident Record Found</font> Salvage Auction Checked - No Salvage Auction Record Found Failed Emissions Inspection Checked - No Failed Emissions Record Found Fire Damage Checked - No Fire Damage Record Found Crash Test Vehicle Checked - No Crash Test Vehicle Record Found Grey Market Vehicle Checked - No Grey Market Vehicle Record Found Registrations Checked: Results: Lease Checked - No Lease Registration Found Rental Checked - No Rental Registration Found Government Checked - No Government Registration Found Taxi Checked - No Taxi Registration Found Fleet Checked - No Fleet Registration Found Commercial Checked - No Commercial Registration Found Non-Profit Checked - No Non-Profit Registration Found The CARFAX database contains a total of 5 vehicle history records on this 1985 CHEVROLET CAMARO (1G1FP87F1FN127746): DATE ODOMETER INFORMATION GENERAL REPORTED READING SOURCE COMMENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------- 10/02/1992 Ohio Title issued Motor Vehicle Dept. Bellefontaine, OH Title #4600003865 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 12/03/1992 Ohio Title issued Motor Vehicle Dept. Bellefontaine, OH Title #4600007148 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/13/1993 Ohio Title issued Motor Vehicle Dept. Bellefontaine, OH Title #4600021405 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 09/28/1993 81,956 Ohio Title issued Motor Vehicle Dept. Bellefontaine, OH Title #4600024118 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 05/26/1995 Ohio <font color="red">Accident Reported</font> Police Report <font color="red">Vehicle involved in crash</font> Marion, OH <font color="red">with an animal</font> Case #950541290
Seriously though, like someone said, there cannot possibly be two VIN's with the same last 6 digits from a given plant for a given year. Since we know that particular VIN is a known, documented 5.0-liter TPI, and since we know that only the 'Vette got a 350 TPI that year, it's apparent he's just messing with your minds. If anyone is up to the challenge, let me know and we'll get some deeper zooms of the title from 85CAMZ28TPI. Or will we? He seems to have vanished.
<b>Next time someone wants to spread misinformation about a non-existent rare car that would challenge our thinking, they should at least first take the time and make sure they have the talent to fool others, unlike this clown, this liar.</b>
By the way Okfoz, I don't know how you got a check digit of "9" on your 1990 Riviera but the right check digit is "0". I have a check digit calculator on my site if you want to test it out for yourself. Enter the VIN with a question mark in place of the check digit and it will calculate it for you. ( So you enter 1G4EZ13C?LU409230 ) Select "verbose output" to see the actual formula: http://ohok.com/82recaro/vin.mv
I hope this puts to rest any lingering doubts about this myth. But of course we all know it'll pop up again in the future, to be re-contemplated by fresh new impressionable minds. All without a shred of evidence.
GT
Last edited by kizz; Jul 18, 2002 at 01:46 AM.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I wonder how accurate that info you got really is? Because...
Another floating digit here...
Originally posted by kizz
--------------------------------------------------------------------
09/28/1993 81,956 Ohio Title issued
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Bellefontaine, OH
Title #4600024118
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
09/28/1993 81,956 Ohio Title issued
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Bellefontaine, OH
Title #4600024118
--------------------------------------------------------------------