I just found this information in a newly acquired reference, "Standard Catalog of Camaro (1967-2002)" by John Gunnell, ISBN 0-87349-495-4.

What I read deals with 1990 Camaro production figures. Basically, it states that production stopped on December 22, 1989. Several references I've read state this. It's also known that the 1991 Camaro production officially started on February 22, 1990. What's interesting is that GM records indicate that 39 Camaros were built in January, 1990. These records do NOT indicate if these Camaros were 1990, 1991, 1991 pilot models or a mix of the above. Has anyone ever heard of this?

 

I saw the same thing, BTW that is a really good book. My guess is that they are 1991 pilot cars. *** I wish DCS was still around!!!

 

Generally speaking, I agree it's a good book. There is information contained that I've never seen elsewhere. However, like all other publications I've read, there are mistakes and omissions. Also, you'd think they would publish pics of only factory original Camaros. The one that bothers me the most is on page 129. It shows an '89 IROC-Z convertible in black with aftermarket silver/pink striping and dark pink rockers!! The caption reads, " This 1989 IROC-Z convertible came with a flashy black and pink paint scheme." Doesn't this statement imply this is the original color scheme? Disgusting. I also like the 1987 Z28 on page 119. It shows a bright metallic blue Z with blue striping and silver rockers (an original). The caption reads, " This Z28 came decked out in black with silver." What?

Willie

 

what about the one that shows a 87 IROC and calls it a 90?

page 133

 

what about the one that shows a 87 IROC and calls it a 90?

Yep. And on and on....

 

My car must have built at the end of the production i have a 91 RS when i pulled the dash there was a tag floting on it for inspection and it had the inspection date of aug 25 1990. So they had a 6 month span of production on camaros?

 

The 1991 production run was extremely long due to the shortness of the 1990 run. 1991 production began in February 1990 and ran thru July (approximate) 1991.

Willie

 

Willie,
Send me any questions of concern regarding this. I helped the author get some of the info that's printed. (Look in the "Thanks To" section in the front and he mentions me ) I have not had the time to go thru the book and verify it's accuracy. He asked me to do so and I would appreciate any feedback from you regarding this.

Send me an email with your questions and I'll contact the publisher.


BTW, what do you guys think of the Dark red IROC for 1987 and the Indy Pace car for 93? Those are my cars!!!

 

 

Scott,

That would be great. Thanks. You know, I had a funny feeling about the '87 IROC-Z in there.... Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

I don't have many questions but I have a ton of comments. It's difficult to believe the errors I found in this reference and I'd like to point them out.

One comment I need to make is that when a non-original car is shown, this fact needs to be mentioned. It is never mentioned on any of the "non-original" cars I see pictured.

You know I have a "thing" for '87 convertibles. The one thing that REALLY bothers me about this publication is that it does not recognize this car in the least bit. Geez, it's an anniversary Camaro and not one word about it. Yes, there is a pic of one on page 118 (actually a prototype '86), but no verbage. In fact, look at page 116 under "I.D. Data". It states, "....the sixth symbol [VIN] indicated body type: 2=two-door hatchback style 87. The seventh digit...." Where's 3=two-door convertible???

You know, I'd love to collaborate on a Camaro reference someday.... you will never see errors like these I've found.

Willie

 

I think they just got some info crossed. They are showing an 87, call it a 90, but then state that leather was available for the first time. Leather was an 87 option.

I noticed quite a few inconsistencies that I need to document. They state that the L69 wasn't available on the Z28 in 85, but then later say it was. They also say the IROC had raised white letter tires as standard. They document the third brake light entrance in 87 instead of 86. One big kicker I found was that a five speed manual was standard on 82's. I think I need to get the corrections to the publisher.

 

I think I need to get the corrections to the publisher.

Absolutely! Mistakes like these become the very core of misinformation.

Willie

 

Willie, for what it's worth.... the Firebird edition of this book contains the same types of inaccuracies and misinformation you mentioned here as well.

I agree with your observations.... while the "novice" folks who pick up these books will never know the difference, it is VERY frustrating to those of us who take pride in our varying degrees of knowledge about our particular cars and their history.