GTA at Barret Jackson
#51
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1987 GTA
Engine: PT88 Turbo DART 406
Transmission: th400
Axle/Gears: 9" ford
My guess is it will be relisted... The timing of it leads me to believe he will try to get at least 30K out of it...
#52
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
BJ is a JOKE... Here is the difference between the hacked BJ one... and a REAL LOW 600 mile GTA on fleabay.. this one is literally like NEW..
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Ponti...spagenameZWDVW
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Ponti...spagenameZWDVW
Also there are 2 TTAs on right now, 1,9xx miles for $29,999 and 8,1xx miles for $26,999.
#54
Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: wilb. ma.
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1990 trans am
Engine: 350 tpi
Transmission: 700r4
The big picture here is that the sticker on these cars was almost $25k. So with that in mind the 607 mile car is going to be a total loss if they don't get at least $30k because no one ever got the enjoyment of driving it. They could of put the $25k in a savings account and get more interest than that. Someone must need the money because its not really the time to sell that car yet. You would think to hold on to a car that long you would want to make some Real money on it. At least the guy selling the BJ car got to drive it a little and still make a small amout of money. And $5k profit is a small amout if this car was supposed to be an investment.
#57
Senior Member
Why does everyone assume that lower mile cars (the 607 mile one being a potential exception) were bought as "investments"? I'd venture to say 9 times out of 10, they were bought as a 2nd car, or a "toy", and they just didn't get beat up on daily... why is that so strange of a concept?
And in regards to that 607 mile car - as nice and clean as it looks, I wonder why the nose sitting on the ground, and the back end jacked way up?
#58
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: www.thirdgentech.com
Posts: 1,609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 2004 GTO
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T-56
BJ is a JOKE... Here is the difference between the hacked BJ one... and a REAL LOW 600 mile GTA on fleabay.. this one is literally like NEW..
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Ponti...spagenameZWDVW
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Ponti...spagenameZWDVW
Last edited by formul8!!; 01-23-2007 at 10:23 PM.
#59
Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: wilb. ma.
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1990 trans am
Engine: 350 tpi
Transmission: 700r4
$25k is correct i bought my ta in 1990 and sticker for my car was $19,767 to be exact. The reason i don't have a GTA today is that the other ones in the showroom were stickering for $25k. I don't think i could of gotten the deal done at $18k like i did on my TA. If i was only going to spend $17k i would of had to settle for a loaded plain firebird. As for being Loaded, they were all pretty much loaded with not many options avalible. Leather being one t-tops another. As for it being an investment or not personally i would put more than 33 miles a year on a "Toy". Just a cruise here and there would put a few hundred miles a year on. Kind of like the BJ car which would make more sense as someone's "Toy".
#60
Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: wilb. ma.
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1990 trans am
Engine: 350 tpi
Transmission: 700r4
O.K i did some research on the GTA source site and looking through all the magazine articles from 1987 to 1992 you could buy a GTA for as little as $20k up to $27K with 1987 being 20k-24k and working your way up to 1992 23k-27k. This is not counting 1989tta.
#62
Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1988 GTA
Engine: 350 TPI
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 3.70
yea I have the invoice on my 88GTA and it comes to something around 23-24k.
so like someone already said. not crazy I suppose for it to sell for that but not a good investment.
so like someone already said. not crazy I suppose for it to sell for that but not a good investment.
#64
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1987 GTA
Engine: PT88 Turbo DART 406
Transmission: th400
Axle/Gears: 9" ford
WOW>>> I guess the guide I have is either wrong or what the Dealers were paying on invoice.. Ill have to go look at it tonight... Probably an invoice sheet..
#65
Senior Member
My red '88 GTA stickered at $19,938 and has everything offered except:
AA8 - Notchback - $700
U52 - Digital Gauges - $275
822 - Leather Seat Trim - $375
The T-tops are officially listed as NA on the 5.7L V8, so we'll leave that off. The VATS system is listed as a mandatory option and is priced at $75.00 on the sticker, so we'll add that back.
That adds up to a total of $21,363.... that figure should be pretty close to what a loaded '88 GTA would have priced out at. In contrast, by 1992 the GTA's base price alone was $26,370.
#67
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 26,117
Received 1,688 Likes
on
1,283 Posts
Car: Yes
Engine: Usually
Transmission: Sometimes
Axle/Gears: Behind me somewhere
OK, so here's the value of that $21,363 1988 car, shown in each year since then, if you had taken the $21,363 and invested it in a mutual fund making an annual average of 7½% and just left it sitting there (the financial equivalent of a 20-yr-old car with 600 miles on it). A conservative estimate on the rate of return, actually.
1988 21363
1989 22965
1990 24688
1991 26539
1992 28530
1993 30669
1994 32970
1995 35442
1996 38100
1997 40958
1998 44030
1999 47332
2000 50882
2001 54698
2002 58800
2003 63210
2004 67951
2005 73048
2006 78526
2007 84416
So, how good of an "investment" does that GTA look like now??? If the guy sells it for $30k, basically he's taking a bath... to the tune of
$55k
So somebody explain to me how a car, ESPECIALLY one of these cars, can be considered an "investment".
And keep in mind, that's the asking price; whether it will "sell" for that, is anybody's guess. Judging by the # of cars that come up on that show that sell for stratospheric prices and end up being re-listed, seems like there's an awful lot of stupid money on there, that suddenly gets smarter at checkbook-whooping-out time.
1988 21363
1989 22965
1990 24688
1991 26539
1992 28530
1993 30669
1994 32970
1995 35442
1996 38100
1997 40958
1998 44030
1999 47332
2000 50882
2001 54698
2002 58800
2003 63210
2004 67951
2005 73048
2006 78526
2007 84416
So, how good of an "investment" does that GTA look like now??? If the guy sells it for $30k, basically he's taking a bath... to the tune of
$55k
So somebody explain to me how a car, ESPECIALLY one of these cars, can be considered an "investment".
And keep in mind, that's the asking price; whether it will "sell" for that, is anybody's guess. Judging by the # of cars that come up on that show that sell for stratospheric prices and end up being re-listed, seems like there's an awful lot of stupid money on there, that suddenly gets smarter at checkbook-whooping-out time.
#68
Senior Member
We can only speculate as to how that car came to be offered for sale at this time... maybe it was in a museum, and maybe the owner passed away for all we know, and they are just trying to maximize what they can out of it?
Buying a "new" car is never a good "investment"... I don't think anyone in this entire post ever said it was?
#70
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Posts: 14,235
Received 164 Likes
on
119 Posts
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
WOW!!!, someone is using my arguement of Investments...
1) NO CAR IS A GOOD INVESTMENT - not yelling just emphasizing, that is the case.
2) Finding a 7.5% APR on in a mutual fund is kind of a stretch, just an FYI, 7% about doubles your money every 10 years and 10% about doubles every 7, unfortunately the only way you would have gotten that kind of return would have been to invest into microsoft back in the early 80's
3) Barret Jackson like it or not is an indicator of things to come, there were NO performance cars to speak of in the 80's except for the F-body, Mustang and Corvette, there were some obscure cars like the Dodge Omni GLH & GLHS, but they were unattractive at best. Style wise the 3rd gen f-body really has most 80's cars beat for style, then you add the performance aspect of the 350 offering in the late 80's and early 90's and the handeling ability nothing really compares from the era... When we can turn about .9g in stock form with good tires, and there are very few cars that are not all out performance cars that can really do that in todays numbers, the 3rd gen really had some intersting charactists.
Because of this and some other high sales from BJ it will push up the values of our cars like it or not. I personally love it...
BTW, I will keep my one of 42 Formula 350 Convertible for a while now
John
1) NO CAR IS A GOOD INVESTMENT - not yelling just emphasizing, that is the case.
2) Finding a 7.5% APR on in a mutual fund is kind of a stretch, just an FYI, 7% about doubles your money every 10 years and 10% about doubles every 7, unfortunately the only way you would have gotten that kind of return would have been to invest into microsoft back in the early 80's
3) Barret Jackson like it or not is an indicator of things to come, there were NO performance cars to speak of in the 80's except for the F-body, Mustang and Corvette, there were some obscure cars like the Dodge Omni GLH & GLHS, but they were unattractive at best. Style wise the 3rd gen f-body really has most 80's cars beat for style, then you add the performance aspect of the 350 offering in the late 80's and early 90's and the handeling ability nothing really compares from the era... When we can turn about .9g in stock form with good tires, and there are very few cars that are not all out performance cars that can really do that in todays numbers, the 3rd gen really had some intersting charactists.
Because of this and some other high sales from BJ it will push up the values of our cars like it or not. I personally love it...
BTW, I will keep my one of 42 Formula 350 Convertible for a while now
John
#71
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Posts: 14,235
Received 164 Likes
on
119 Posts
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
BTW, the rims appear to have the correct offset as it appears that the rears have less of an offset than the Fronts. The GNX used 4 Black painted fronts from the Trans Am. If it is a Late year 87 then it may have gotten the different rims, but I can never recall whether the extra little hole is 87 or post 87, these rims obvously have the little notch. The lugs are definately a Chrome aftermarket lug, considering how inexpensive the original style lugs are I am surprised someone did not keep them. However these may be a Gorilla lug that only takes the Key to unscrew, mine are that way...
John
John
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1992 Formula
Engine: 350
Transmission: auto stock
Axle/Gears: 3:42
RPM LOT, man your car is so beautiful, I saw the thread with your link, nice ride! Anyway, we are a dying breed, are F bodies are not worth much, try selling your car ( not a beat up junkie ) and see the garbarge you get and price crying. I paid 10,0-00.00 in December 2002 for my 1991 Formula 5.0, from a collector in Michigan, like NEW in and out with 8,900 miles. Andy
#73
Senior Member
BTW, the rims appear to have the correct offset as it appears that the rears have less of an offset than the Fronts. The GNX used 4 Black painted fronts from the Trans Am. If it is a Late year 87 then it may have gotten the different rims, but I can never recall whether the extra little hole is 87 or post 87, these rims obvously have the little notch. The lugs are definately a Chrome aftermarket lug, considering how inexpensive the original style lugs are I am surprised someone did not keep them. However these may be a Gorilla lug that only takes the Key to unscrew, mine are that way...
John
John
The rear rims on that car are clearly deeper than normal rears (which is why I am thinking that they are fronts), and the fronts are clearly deeper than those rears... so whatever they're from, they are deeper than stock fronts...
I am attaching a pic to show what I mean (no, the other car pictured is not mine... but it is an '88 that I found, and the picture illustrates my point pretty well)...
Oh, and 88-92 has the "notches"... '87 did not.
On second look, that '87 is also missing the "FUEL INJECTION" on the door handle...
Here are 2 GNX pics I found online... the rear offset is HUGE on a GNX... and even the front on a GNX appears wider than a Trans Am spec rim... so I maintain my position that they were definately not 4 black "Trans Am" rims all around... but lookin at these, they are also the pre-'88 style meshing... hmm...
So basically, I have no idea what rims are on that GTA - maybe they were widened, who knows... but they DEFINATELY are not stock offsets front & rear...
Last edited by Stuart S; 01-24-2007 at 03:03 PM.
#74
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
RPM LOT, man your car is so beautiful, I saw the thread with your link, nice ride! Anyway, we are a dying breed, are F bodies are not worth much, try selling your car ( not a beat up junkie ) and see the garbarge you get and price crying. I paid 10,0-00.00 in December 2002 for my 1991 Formula 5.0, from a collector in Michigan, like NEW in and out with 8,900 miles. Andy
#75
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: K.C. Mo.
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: '89 GTA 9,000 MILES
Engine: 350
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27 9 bolt
BJ is for people with more money than sense.
I don't care how bad I wanted that '70 HEMI CUDA convertible or how much money I had I wouldn't be dumb enough to pay what was it 2 million ?
These people are retards for doing that. Mommy dropped them on their head when they were children.
I don't care how bad I wanted that '70 HEMI CUDA convertible or how much money I had I wouldn't be dumb enough to pay what was it 2 million ?
These people are retards for doing that. Mommy dropped them on their head when they were children.
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1992 Formula
Engine: 350
Transmission: auto stock
Axle/Gears: 3:42
RPM, sadly it is my daily now for over 2 years, it just passed 40,000 2 weeks ago. Send me your email as I have more at my home computer (this is my work). Is your car always stord in there? Thanks! ANdy
#78
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Erin, Ont
Posts: 602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJ is for people with more money than sense.
I don't care how bad I wanted that '70 HEMI CUDA convertible or how much money I had I wouldn't be dumb enough to pay what was it 2 million ?
These people are retards for doing that. Mommy dropped them on their head when they were children.
I don't care how bad I wanted that '70 HEMI CUDA convertible or how much money I had I wouldn't be dumb enough to pay what was it 2 million ?
These people are retards for doing that. Mommy dropped them on their head when they were children.
My problem is that people start to compare their 318 car to that Hemi, thinking that since the Hemi car is worth xxx dollars then the 318 has to be worth a pile also. The rare and or extremely renoun artists pull $$ because of the 'special' nature of their work, a real HEMI, COPO, L88, W30, 428SCJ,etc...are rare and the 'special' versions of otherwise base cars.... There is no reason (IMO) that a 383, 318 or even a 340 (non-6pack car) should pull the money that they do at the BJ auction. (In the real market, I would argue based on tracking the regular car mags, traders etc..that they don't, but people try and will argue that their car is worth it because they saw that price at the BJ auction).
This is why in my original reply to this post, I felt that the BJ has poisoned the car market. Base cars are pulling extremely high dollar figues at the BJ auction, but at other popular and prestigeous collector car auctions, like RM's, and Mecum, the cars either don't sell because of the reserve price being extremely unresonalble (is this because of BJ), and or they don't fetch near the value(s) that are being seen at the BJ auction, instead they sell for a lot less! If we look at that GTA at BJ, many on here have stated that the car was not even a perfect example of one, yet it pulled big $$ - in the real world, many of you suggest that the car was worth xx dollars not a penny more. Will this anamoly (the BJ GTA) make us all believe GTA's in similar condition are worth the same amount? Does this example prove that the car (GTA) in the e-bay listing provided is worth even more? We will have to wait and see....I will argue that this is just another example of unrealistic prices that the market is not willing to accept or bare. Agian, as support for my argument, look at all the even nicer thirdgen's for sale, (1LE's B4C, TTA, and Firehawks) that can't even touch the prices that are achieved at the BJ auction.
-Andrew
Last edited by kaptinkafeen; 01-25-2007 at 04:41 PM.
#79
Senior Member
#80
It isn't stupid to pay $2M for a Hemi Cuda if you can afford to gamble that it might be worth $3M a couple of years later. I remember when the first one sold for $1M. When that same car sold for double that a couple of years later, it doesn't look so stupid does it?
I'd pay $1000 for a cat turd if I knew someone was very likely to pay me $2000 for it this time next year :-)
I'd pay $1000 for a cat turd if I knew someone was very likely to pay me $2000 for it this time next year :-)
#81
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
It isn't stupid to pay $2M for a Hemi Cuda if you can afford to gamble that it might be worth $3M a couple of years later. I remember when the first one sold for $1M. When that same car sold for double that a couple of years later, it doesn't look so stupid does it?
I'd pay $1000 for a cat turd if I knew someone was very likely to pay me $2000 for it this time next year :-)
I'd pay $1000 for a cat turd if I knew someone was very likely to pay me $2000 for it this time next year :-)
But seriously, a very good point.
#82
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Posts: 14,235
Received 164 Likes
on
119 Posts
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 think what you are seeing at BJ is the fact that so many car enthusiests attend.
Fortunately or Unfortunately, depending on your point of view these extreme collectors who pay top dollar for the perverbial cat turd, once they begin playing games, and if someone really wants a car they will play with them just to jack up the price. I have been to auctions and that is really the case. I happened to go to this auction and some old lady had died, she had a 1982 Caviler 4 door with no options, Keep in mind this was around 1996, the car only had 30,000 miles but it went for $4000... I watched these two guys and they were stupid, both of them thought the other wanted it so they were playing a game. In the end one got stuck with it, his jaw dropped when the other smirked glanced over and waived off.
Another aspect is that there are alot of serious car buyers in one place they come world wide, in your local area there are not that many serious buyers, mostly tire kickers and why most cars sit a long time before selling.
----------------
As for the GNX using black painted GTA rims... I fail to see the difference in the pix and what I have pix of...
The REASON why they look like the 86-87 style cross laced rims is the GNX was made in 1987... ALSO keep in mind that the RWD Regal did not require 2 different offset rims. IIRC OUR 16" front rims are considered zero offset in factory form, our rear rims are about 3/4" offset to the outside. Regals, Monte Carlos, Cutlass & Grand Prix all used the zero offset. If someone is local with a set of cross laced rims and wants to argue we can go the the Buick Museum across the street from me and we can settle it.
JOhn
Fortunately or Unfortunately, depending on your point of view these extreme collectors who pay top dollar for the perverbial cat turd, once they begin playing games, and if someone really wants a car they will play with them just to jack up the price. I have been to auctions and that is really the case. I happened to go to this auction and some old lady had died, she had a 1982 Caviler 4 door with no options, Keep in mind this was around 1996, the car only had 30,000 miles but it went for $4000... I watched these two guys and they were stupid, both of them thought the other wanted it so they were playing a game. In the end one got stuck with it, his jaw dropped when the other smirked glanced over and waived off.
Another aspect is that there are alot of serious car buyers in one place they come world wide, in your local area there are not that many serious buyers, mostly tire kickers and why most cars sit a long time before selling.
----------------
As for the GNX using black painted GTA rims... I fail to see the difference in the pix and what I have pix of...
The REASON why they look like the 86-87 style cross laced rims is the GNX was made in 1987... ALSO keep in mind that the RWD Regal did not require 2 different offset rims. IIRC OUR 16" front rims are considered zero offset in factory form, our rear rims are about 3/4" offset to the outside. Regals, Monte Carlos, Cutlass & Grand Prix all used the zero offset. If someone is local with a set of cross laced rims and wants to argue we can go the the Buick Museum across the street from me and we can settle it.
JOhn
#83
Senior Member
I realize you are the "Formula Guru" around here... but I have to say, I've personally owned (3) three WS6 TA's (two '87's and an '89), all with factory Crosslace wheels over the years... and I have a pretty good handle on what is "correct" for these cars...
Last edited by Stuart S; 01-26-2007 at 09:22 AM.
#84
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Various barns
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 92 Camaro RS, 72 Camaro SS
Engine: 305TBI, til it pukes
Transmission: Auto
So I'm thinkin this is a good deal! He's down to 5400.00 this week.
Looks pretty nice. Somebody buy it so I don't have to!
http://www.mfba.org/showthread.php?t=45493
Looks pretty nice. Somebody buy it so I don't have to!
http://www.mfba.org/showthread.php?t=45493
#85
Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1989 GTA CONVERTIBLE
Engine: 355 tpi
Transmission: ART CARR 700 R4
Axle/Gears: 3.70
all i can say is wow..the seller made out great..it is a nice gta..very nice and perfection is overrated.aside from that my gta conv.puts that car to shame ,but i f someone offered me that price it would be sold also.. there is always someone who will pay whatever it takes..remember a fool and his money are soon parted..but congrats to all involved with it..i have seen some cars go through bj that are in as good of shape as an old police car...and pull in crazy money go figure....but it is really nice to see a few thirdgens in there .....every where u look chevelle , nova etc..
#86
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: www.thirdgentech.com
Posts: 1,609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 2004 GTO
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T-56
#87
Senior Member
Thank you for verifying it. I thought so.
#88
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yea I did. The rim isnt clean, to begin with. Take another look at the photos of the BJ car, the front and rear offsets are clearly different. I dont see any issues with the offset. Some of it is distance, some is reflection, and some is photo angle. You should know how much perspective in a photo can fool you.
As for GNX wheels, go see them in person and park some thirdgen crosslace wheels next to it. The difference is obvious.
As for GNX wheels, go see them in person and park some thirdgen crosslace wheels next to it. The difference is obvious.
#89
Senior Member
Yea I did. The rim isnt clean, to begin with. Take another look at the photos of the BJ car, the front and rear offsets are clearly different. I dont see any issues with the offset. Some of it is distance, some is reflection, and some is photo angle. You should know how much perspective in a photo can fool you.
Here's a picture of a "clean" rear WS6 wheel for you. Yes, it's an '87 rim, but the offset didn't change '88-92, either. I don't care what angle you look, the ones on that car are clearly deeper.
I know it is. That was my point the whole time. Others on here kept stating incorrectly that they were the same as TA fronts...
#90
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here's what the BJ car is, inner lip shown in cad. Please note the dimensions are actual with no correction made for the isometric view of the car or actual size (although I might be able to pull that off without too much difficulty). Also note the origin points of the 2 axis I have shown and the actual dimensions should be sized up accordingly, making the front lip that much wider than the back.
Also, here's a picture of my TA, the rear rims are rear rims... correct offset and all.
Personally if you really think they are wrong, go track down the car and measure for yourself. The picture isnt going to prove a thing and I'll bet the actual measurement will only show you they are correct.
Also, here's a picture of my TA, the rear rims are rear rims... correct offset and all.
Personally if you really think they are wrong, go track down the car and measure for yourself. The picture isnt going to prove a thing and I'll bet the actual measurement will only show you they are correct.
#95
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ok, actual dimensions.
Without lines... the photo is useless. All you're doing is guessing. If you dont know where the viewpoint is and its relation to center, you cant determine the size difference. If you took any serious photo classes or drafting classes where they teach isometric views, you can determine the size of a distant object in relation to a close object. Anyway, based on the rims being 16" (1'-4"), the widths are as shown... actual size. They seem to match my GTA and TA pretty close, at least as close as you'd ever get from a photo.
Without lines... the photo is useless. All you're doing is guessing. If you dont know where the viewpoint is and its relation to center, you cant determine the size difference. If you took any serious photo classes or drafting classes where they teach isometric views, you can determine the size of a distant object in relation to a close object. Anyway, based on the rims being 16" (1'-4"), the widths are as shown... actual size. They seem to match my GTA and TA pretty close, at least as close as you'd ever get from a photo.
#96
Senior Member
Keep convincing yourself, madmax...
Nobody is arguing the fact that the fronts are deeper than the rears...
However, the rears do appear deeper than normal rears...
Nobody is arguing the fact that the fronts are deeper than the rears...
However, the rears do appear deeper than normal rears...
#97
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,453
Likes: 0
Received 57 Likes
on
31 Posts
Car: 1989 Camaro-1LE
Engine: TPI(s)
Transmission: 5 speed (MM5, MK6)
Axle/Gears: 3.45, 3.73
Something to note. The first GTA wheels in 1987 where two piece construction with the centre crosslaced area welded into the hoops. In 1988-onward, the wheels were cast one piece.
So my point ... the GN-X could have easily had different off sets. Just a spec change on the orders rather than a re-cast for a new rim.
Mark.
So my point ... the GN-X could have easily had different off sets. Just a spec change on the orders rather than a re-cast for a new rim.
Mark.
#99
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Posts: 14,235
Received 164 Likes
on
119 Posts
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
OK, After looking at the pictures it does appear that the GNX has a slitghtly deeper offset than the Front TA wheels... I Stand corrected... At least I am willing to admint I was wrong. If someone wants to send me $5.00 to go into the museum across the street I will go measue the GNX wheels...
JOhn
JOhn