dlinger

iTrader: (4)

I need some help understanding this. With out the commas and decimals it looks like $100 Million. That may be a record of a third gen if it is sold?

https://wyoming.craigslist.org/cto/d...770423593.html

gt4373

He's Dreaming

BizJetTech

iTrader: (3)

Looks like a bunch of BS to me.....it's possible it could be a 92 B4C but need more info to determine that.....regardless, it's not a $100K

chazman

iTrader: (4)

If I had a $10,000,000 car, I'd wash it and find a nicer place to store it.

BizJetTech

iTrader: (3)

is this the guy that wrote that ad ??

Big&BadGTA

iTrader: (1)

Is it really being offered at $100,000? Or is it $10,000,000? Hard to tell with all the dust.

Nice touches in the garage. The sun shade to protect against?

And who the heck speaks like this? "rascals"? "Camero"? I saw noting to show a "Nitrous oxide override injector", but assume with the low rear spoiler and TPI, it's a B4C. It's got AC, as shown in the engine pic.

vinny R

OMG!!

"Nice touches in the garage. The sun shade to protect against?"
I think this to keep those Cosmic rays out that penetrate the barn roof! This barn looks more like a garage!.

The sad thing is that with a guy like this who thinks he has the "holy grail", we may never know if this is a BC4 car like you guys think. No "serious buyer" would look at this car with an ad like this, unreal. This car could really be a nice find if the owner was a little more educated in more that just the 3rd gen world.

H8TRAFIC

blacksunshine'91

iTrader: (10)

How does he know there are only 54 still registered? What access to registries does he have that nobody here does?

Drew

iTrader: (58)

Flagged for stupidity. Ads like that make my head hurt.

dlinger

iTrader: (4)

I asked for vin and rpo's. He actually replied:"heres the info on the Camaro...Give an offer ......Thanks! BTW, It runs fine...."

BizJetTech

iTrader: (3)

Cool!
Just what I thought, a B4C - someone should pick it up.....

Abubaca

iTrader: (3)

It's really not a bad car. Shame too, because a car wash, vacuum and a little honesty about what it is would probably get it sold at a decent price.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

Anyone ever notice that all B4C 1LEs have steel driveshafts?

BizJetTech

iTrader: (3)

It was my understanding the 1LE included an aluminum drive shaft in that package
I am wondering if including RPO B4C changed that to a steel drive shaft
for the HD use (cop cars) I think RPO JG1 : SHAFT, PROP, ALUMINUM could be ordered on any car ???

BizJetTech

iTrader: (3)

My bad......in 1992, there was no stand alone option JG1
All cars with G92 included the RPO JG1 SHAFT, PROP, ALUMINUM

1988-1990 had stand alone RPO JG1 SHAFT, PROP, ALUMINUM which is what my 88 Formula 350 has on it.

88IROCvertZ

iTrader: (1)

blacksunshine'91

iTrader: (10)

My '92 T/A has the JG1 RPO and does not have the G92.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

For the record, JG1 could not be ordered separately. It only came on cars beyond a certain EPA weight class or 1LEs. GM decided which cars got them, not the customer.

I was just stating that every B4C 1LE I've ever seen, did NOT have a JG1 as you would expect with the 1LE package, but instead had a steel DS. I'm assuming for durability.

blacksunshine'91

iTrader: (10)

Ah, I get it. The '92 is a convertible.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

That doesn't sound right. Might have to check the books later...

What's more interesting to me is that by definition, a B4C has all the components of G92, yet here there's no G92 code.

Lots of funny things happen in SPID codes because GM used individual as well as multiple codes when referencing service parts. That's why you have things in the catalog that say with XXX and without XXX, or you'll have several listings with different codes and the same part number. I'd still contend that "1LE" isn't anything but a code for servicing the front brakes.

BizJetTech

iTrader: (3)

I'm not sure about that Chaz...... my 1988 Formula 350 has JG1 and it's a lightly optioned car (no power windows or locks, no ttops, etc) so it was certainly not a weight issue by any means.
Some cars have it, some dont but it did not have anything to do with what the car weighed - mine is a perfect example of that. The Formula was a light weight car in comparison
to a GTA and my GTA's did not have RPO JG1....go figure

chazman

iTrader: (4)

Weird.

BizJetTech

iTrader: (3)

Well, for 1992 Formula's anyway.....maybe not others? Not sure why G92 & JG1 would apply
to 92 Formulas only.....seems like that would be the case for others???

chazman

iTrader: (4)

Wow, that's cool. Looks like Pontiac made 20 1LE Formulas?

Drew

iTrader: (58)

The only 91-92 Firebirds with G92 are 1LE cars. The late Firebirds didn't use the G92 code unless the car is a 1LE.

BizJetTech

iTrader: (3)

Drew.....can you provide where you got the the data on this?
I have a collector friend that states he has a 92 Formula with G92 and NO 1LE option....

chazman

iTrader: (4)

That explains that. What about Biz' hardtop Formula?

Drew

iTrader: (58)

At least in 91 the Firebird used RPO R6P for the "G92" part grouping. The Firebird didn't need G92 because the gear ratios were standard with the L98 Auto, or LB9 5spd. They didn't need the G92 to trigger the performance gear ratio because by default the gear ratio wasn't an option. The only reason that G92 would show up is to 'trigger' 1LE.

This all comes back to that thing where "G92" isn't a performance package, it's an optional gear ratio. It just happens that in some or many cases ordering the optional gear ratio and deleting A/C was the order form magic to get a 1LE.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

I'll invest the time to pull out the references and dig for clarification when a SPID is posted. I'm not saying that a person is lying, I'm just saying the burden of proof falls on the person claiming something exists, rather than the person saying it doesn't exist. Know what I mean?

Drew

iTrader: (58)

This is the 1992 Camaro Rear Suspension parts listing from the 82-92 Camaro Parts and Illustration catalog. The diagram page is pretty much the same as the 1991 diagram I'll embed below...



#43 is the Driveshaft. Notice that it lists two options, JG1 or "Except JG1". If there were no JG1 code in 1992, it would say "G92" instead of "JG1", would it not?

Also note the entries for #44, the Rear Shocks. Notice how it lists (FE1), the base RS suspension, then it lists 1LE without B4C (True 1LE cars), then "B4C, 1LE" meaning cars with both 1LE and B4C codes (True B4C cars), and finally FE2 without 1LE (FE2 cars without 1LE brakes, essentially every other G92 1992 Camaro). Also note that the B4C and FE2 cars share the same part number. What that tells us is that the B4C isn't really the same as a 1LE. It shares the 1LE brakes, but everything else is pretty much typical FE2 or G92.

Now I'm a bit short on 1992 paperwork, because 1991 paperwork covers enough to collect to drive any collector to pulling out hair... But I'll bet if you look into the paperwork for 1992, it probably says that the B4C required the L98/auto or LB9/5spd with only 3.23 or 3.42 gears available, respectively. So again there'd be no need to use the G92 code because there's only one axle ratio available.