mrestrictrplate

iTrader: (2)

What magazine/ issue year was this article in?

Big&BadGTA

iTrader: (1)

detltu

iTrader: (1)

I appreciate the discussion. It does seem that everyone is fighting straw men here though.
Very rarely does anyone say that 1LE is the equivalent of a COPO. Maybe the closest thing the third gen Camaro had to a COPO , but front discs are a million miles away from a 427.
I would argue that the TTA and Firehawk make the 1LE almost a non-issue among the Firebird crowd.
You can argue whether it should or not, but the 1LE package does hold some value among collectors. B4C does as well. How much seems to vary and everyone is welcome to their opinion.
I think some people have made some good points that the story of the 1LE is still a pretty cool one. By 91-92 the 1LE had made other F-bodies a little better and made the 1LE package a little less special, but it's still a neat bit of history.

The good news is, the desire for everyone to prove their side of the argument usually results in some good information being provided so no harm no foul. Thanks for the discussion guys.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

The trouble is that these (1le) threads never go anywhere. The only reason this thread exists, is because I mentioned that all the attention 1LE gets is based on myths, and a few people took offense to that. https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/hist...ml#post6275207

Why do my statements in that thread, require yet another retelling of the "truth" about 1LE? What good does it do to list all the part numbers and differences in detail, if the person doing so is only using one half of the relevant catalog? What good does it do, when that person misses at least one part in that catalog known to be unique?

The harm done is that every time there is one of these threads, the myth and "I think" is repeated more than anything based on reality. The clarity of the facts is clouded by failed attempts at straightening things out, and popular opinion.

Worse yet, you can show evidence that the OP on page 1 is incomplete and inaccurate, or show proof that the 1LE myth was intentionally created, and you're just wasting your breath because the OP - a moderator no less, hasn't even bothered to acknowledge that he missed the front struts for 91-92, or that the front lower control arms are Camaro spec parts on 91-92 Firebirds.

BS threads like this, that should have never been started, get in the way of progress. I took the time to scan and upload documentation, and as far as I can tell, no one really bothered to look at it. Do you think I'm going to waste my time contributing in the future? No one cares, so why should I bother weighing in? I'm so sick of it, that I'm not very likely to post anything I learn about 1LE history in the future.

aliceempire

iTrader: (14)

I enjoy the actual history.
I enjoy the stories of the myths ( mind you that's because of knowing they are myths)
I mostly enjoy the hard data. Reading the part numbers and GM catalogs is beyond entertaining for me. (Thank you Drew, I did read all those)

What I'm not enjoying is the bickering every time 1LE is a topic. But that's the internet, especially of late. A place to argue, complain, lie, and harass. I guess I'm tired of the internet.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

Note the listed 1st gear ratio of the MK6 T5 on the data sheet. It says 2.75. Every published source of the day listed it as such and it was repeated over and over. We now know that the actual ratio was always 2.95. I also believe that peak power on an L98 cammed, N10, LB9 was 4600 RPM.

jmd

iTrader: (4)

Excellent mention. The T5 reverse ratio in the GM V8 models got mislabeled as 1st (it is p hysically in line after 4-3-2 in the trans). And the parts (countershaft and 1st gear) bearing on ratio were always the same as all GM V8 88-92 T5s.

detltu

iTrader: (1)

I appreciate the info, but the 1LE "truthers" don't end up coming across very well in these threads. The only thing you get pushback on is "it's just brakes" which it literally was a little more than that. It wasn't much and you can argue that the other things don't really matter or were necessary because of the brakes. That's fine. I don't understand why people get so offended that some people like 1LE's .

okfoz

From what I am gathering from this conversation the 1LE was actually more of a combination of the Camaro and Firebird worlds, with some tweaks. Where the Firebird got larger sway bars, and a softer ride suspension, the Camaro got a stiffer ride suspension, with smaller sway bars and a wonderbar. So you take the best, biggest, stiffest from both lines and you combine them into a single suspension package you get 1LE, AND you add the brakes on top of it. For the most part, the pieces and the parts were off-the shelf parts for one line or the other, but then you add them together, you seem to get 1LE... For 88-89 the Gas Tank had baffles, which became the standard tank either mid 1989, or in 1990. The shocks seem to be unique, but as someone pointed out, the point is moot because well, 30 year old shocks and struts are old, and would not be the same as when new..

So more or less, yes, with the exception of the larger front brakes, the pieces are not so special parts, mostly off the counter items, BUT in the combination they were offered makes them more than the sum of the parts.

John

Drew

iTrader: (58)

I don't understand why people get so offended that some people don't like 1LE's. And it's not even that anyone doesn't like 1LE's, I'm indifferent on the matter. I don't like repeated myths, false info, and in the case of many 1LE classified ads, lies.

No one is saying it's literally just the brakes. Obviously I know there is a bit more to it. Admittedly "just brakes" is a simplification. All 1LE cars have the brakes. They don't all have all the other supposed unique parts. It's a generalized statement that focuses on the most important difference, and doesn't get bogged down in the ifs and butts. In some cases the 1LE rpo code really only applies to the brakes, other times it's more depending on if the car is an 88, or 89, or a Camaro, Firebird, B4C, but sometimes you just don't want to be that specific.

Wait, are the "1LE Truthers" the people who consider 1LE to mostly be upgraded brakes, or the people that insist on getting into the ifs and buts and making the issue more confusing than it needs to be? I didn't start this thread. I didn't start the last one. I voiced my opinion that 1LEs get a lot more credit than they are due, and a few people gotta crawl up my *** and call me on my opinion. What's really annoying is when those people questioning my opinion can't even get the damn facts straight, and it's my fault when these threads go this way?

Drew

iTrader: (58)

So more or less my opinion holds water and you didn't know WTH you were talking about. Got it.

detltu

iTrader: (1)

I don't think anybody cares that people don't like it. It just seems like every time a nice 1LE pops up or sells for a high price people have to pop up to "disprove the myth" or tell everyone why they are wrong to like the 1LE. I personally don't like T-tops, but I don't feel the need to tell everyone else why they shouldn't like T-tops. I also happen to like the 305 and people like to tell me why I'm wrong and would be better off with a 350. I'm honestly just happy that people like 3rd gens.

There are plenty of people out there who will advertise a 1LE as something incredibly special and super secret and whatever else. It seems like most people on this site know better by now. I get that the 1LE fans seem to be on a mission to prove it was more than "just brakes" but don't you think that is at least partially a response to people constantly telling them on here that the 1LE package is "just brakes".

okfoz

My point was this, in 1969, the Camaro was just a car, matter of fact they are just another car, but you take an off the shelf item, say like a ZL1 engine from the Corvette and you slap it in there and all of a sudden you have something special... Neither the engine NOR the Camaro are rather unusual, but rather common, But put the two together in a special package, and it is now something out of the ordinary.

The point holds true with the 1LE, Sure the Brakes were actually from the Caprice, but drilled for the 4.75" x5 lugs, you take that component, add to it the better suspension pieces from the Firebird on a Camaro, or the Camaro on A Firebird, and all of a sudden, all those "not special" parts which are standard on something else become more than just the parts alone.

I am honestly not sure why you are so hell bent on being an ***? Seriously you PM me with some BS thing, trying to rip me a new hole for pointing out that the 1LE was more than JUST brakes, you have been working your entire TGO life tearing down the 1LE, making sure that people HATE the damn car when in reality, someone out there really want's the POS, and I think it pisses you off that indeed someone out there did not read your insistent posts on how horrible they really are!. Seriously what is your issue? do you suffer from 1LE Envy? Of course you will say you don't that is the first thing you will say. Hell, you hate the TTA!!! WHY??? because they are all the same and all white! So freaking what? I bet if you owned one, or had one your opinion would be vastly different than what it is now...

YES Drew, for years and years you have said "It is just a brake package" I post very specific things FROM GM pointing out that indeed there was MORE to it than Just brakes. And you come unglued.... Get over yourself man, it is not that big of a deal. All that labor of you trying to keep people in Check, has fallen apart... NO ONE INVITED YOU TO POST IN THIS THREAD!!! YOU DID THAT ON YOUR OWN!

The fact that the 1LE was not any faster in a straight line negates the entire purpose of the 1LE, it was NOT a straight line car. IF it was it would have skinny tires on the front, and big slicks on the back, they could have called it the DEMON!!!

The 1LE was a PURPOSE made car, it was for road courses...

steves

I have a question. Besides the brakes. Did the B4C cars get the lower control arms? Or was the B4C just the same as a Z28 with the brakes added?

Drew

iTrader: (58)

Wall of Text - Didn't read.

You seem awfully concerned with me. If you have a problem with ME maybe you should address ME. Maybe even PM me like I PM'd you.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

If you look in the book, like John hasn't, the B4C 1LE doesn't have ANY of the 1LE without B4C hardware except the brakes.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

John seems to be concerned about it.



Seriously? You have no less than a History/Originality Moderator that just tried to equate mixing and matching catalog parts and upgrading the front brakes with a 69 ZL1.

Don't you think it's at least partially a response to magazine articles and classifieds ads, and websites, and noobs, bragging about the 18 gallon special super secret fuel tank given to Moses by God to give the MIGHTY 1LE an edge over the dirty heathen Mustangs?

I didn't start this crap, the 1LE folks did. I'm just trying to be a voice of reason.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

You posted things from one half of the catalog, didn't look at the other half at all, and claimed it was the truth? You didn't even catch that the front struts in 91-92 on the Firebird are unique for 1LE.

You claim to be an expert on a topic, when you're factually wrong. You brag about how your info is always accurate, but it wasn't. I came unglued because you should know better than to do something that stupid. I came unglued because you know what I was getting at but you intentionally took my comments out of context so you could tell everyone how wrong I am, while you didn't have your facts straight.

Like I said, I think it's disgusting that you're trying to attack my opinion when you clearly haven't done the research to back your own.

okfoz

I have never bragged about how accurate my statements are, and I am usually the first to point out that I was in error when I am. So stop gas-lighting Drew. A few posts earlier you said you did not read my post... But again, you lied, and you did read my post as you replied to it!!! What gives dude? My first statement in this thread was "I was not going to look thru the Camaro Catalog" Or are you blind?

So I was wrong, I missed some things in the Parts catalog, because, well, in my copy they were not listed as being different. Or when I did a search on 1LE in my digital copy it did not come back in my query. It does not mean I was wrong, it means I missed it, and indeed the 1LE is MORE than just front brakes, But unlike you I was willing to post facts from GM that show that indeed it was more than just brakes. But you have been preaching for what seems more than a decade that "it is just brakes".

My point was not to compare a 1LE to a ZL1, my point was when you combine things and they are out of the ordinary, they become something unique, not that a 1LE would ever be equatable to a 69 COPO ZL1 car. Get over yourself.

Thanks for making my point that the 1LE was more than "Brakes"

GEN Xer

iTrader: (1)

So what you guys are saying, is that it is just brakes and shocks, with upgraded LCA's on 91,92?

okfoz

From what I am gathering:
1) Front Brakes, and all that it entails, spindles (knuckles), Master Cyl, Prop Valve, etc.
1a) 88 got 89+ Rear Brakes
2) The Rear and Front LCA's on the Firebird (which were standard on the Camaro)
3) The Wonderbar which was a Camaro only thing, apparently ended up on 1LE Firebirds, not sure what years.
4) The Struts and Shocks Might be year dependent, but maybe over the entire 88-92, not sure, not completely listed in my IPC
5) The Camaro got the WS6 sway bars from the Firebird.
6) The 88-89 Got a special Gas Tank. Which ended up being standard for 90-92.
7) Apparently some special Bushings too???

I might be missing something, I imagine Drew, the wonder 1LE guru will have some input to where I am wrong...

That is what this thread is for sorting out what was truly different. Too bad we have progressed down this toilet of **** throwing.
John

Drew

iTrader: (58)

Really? You once stated that your last name spelled backwards is defined as being infallibly accurate. I remember specifically because it struck me as one of the most conceited things I've ever heard. Who needs to get over himself?

You don't suppose in 13 minutes I could have scanned through your reply and found a few noteworthy morsels of genius?

You missed it, but you claimed your post was "The truth". Therefore it wasn't "the truth", and you were WRONG.

I've posted plenty from GM to support my arguments. Go back and look, I said "just brakes" is a simplification of the facts. It's not difficult to look deeper into the issue and learn more, but frequently it's not relevant to the discussion. Why blow it up into breaking down what quantifies a 1LE for every year and situation, when it's not germane to the topic? Why try to act like an authority on the topic, when you're not even willing to put in the work to look through both books? I actually have looked through both books, yet you argue with me when you should know by now that I've got a pretty good handle on thirdgen history.

1LE doesn't always refer to anything more than the front brakes. The B4C/1LE is an example of this. 1LE alone is brakes plus. 1LE + B4C is just a G92 with upgraded front brakes. B4C without 1LE is just a G92. When you take that into consideration, the 1LE code always calls out the brakes.

The magazines and websites, and classifieds ads have been preaching that it's everything from the oil cooler to a gas tank and swinging fuel pickup that don't even exist since 1990!

And yet that's the metaphor you picked. And you wonder why I find the "hype" and propaganda laughable?

You're supposed to be a moderator, and an authority. You're not supposed to let your personal opinion of me get the better of you. You should know better than to claim you're telling the full truth when you haven't even looked through half of the relevant catalog. How can you make blanket statements about what 1LE included when on a Firebird AND Camaro forum when you haven't even looked into what the differences may be?

I'm angry because you sabotaged a thread for no reason, and you created a fresh bait thread, all while ignoring your responsibility to due diligence. You should have studied up on the topic before you jumped in trying to correct my off-the-cuff comment. I expected more from you.

GEN Xer

iTrader: (1)

I misstated my last question- What I should have said was "So the only thing on the 1LE you couldn't get on ANOTHER fbody was brakes struts and the lca's"

Drew

iTrader: (58)

I never claimed to be an expert on 1LEs. I have spent a couple hours going through both catalogs checking and comparing part numbers, and I've done a lot to debunk several myths over the years, including a few perpetuated by Mr Zofko.

You didn't need to create this thread to sort out what was truly different, because we've already done so to a disgusting extent. You didn't present anything new to the discussion, at least not intentionally, but you did suggest that somehow Iroc control arms are extra heavy duty, or some such nonsense.

Just saying, if you don't know, and don't care to actually learn, why'd you even start the thread? Because you were sick of how I frequently share my opinion. Gee.

okfoz

It is the combination of things, when you break it down into the simplest of terms, the Brakes are the most obvious. 88 & 89 also included a Fuel Tank. The Struts and Shocks are apparently also unique, being year specific, as the IPC shows they are unique for a few years.

The LCAs were part of the Camaro, but different for Firebird, so no, they were not apparently specifically unique to all models, just unique to the Firebird side...

John

Drew

iTrader: (58)

Front brakes. Front struts. Rear shocks. Rear LCA bushings. <<<Those are the BIG things, if you include all the cars that would be covered by your question.

In 2019, the newest 1LE spec shocks and struts are still 25+ years old. Same with the bushings. So what really matters?

Drew

iTrader: (58)

Oh ****, look out y'all, John just paraphrased what I said that started all this.

okfoz

Because at one time they were different, and they were installed specifically on the 1LE. Which we all know is "just brakes"

Drew

iTrader: (58)

Funny how you have so much trouble with "just brakes", when your reducing the context of the discussion down to two words in quotes, is a simplification of my statement, and my statement is a simplification of the facts.

okfoz

So it is not "Just Brakes?" IS it more than that? is that what you are now trying to say? I am confused! For what seems to be 2 decades you have told us that it is "Just Brakes" when, in fact, it is more than just the brakes... Wait? What? Granted, there are other smaller bits and pieces, but it is not just the brakes...

You could have civilly added to the conversation, pointed out what was in the Camaro IPC, and we all could have sorted it out. But you had to go on your crusade hunting your Big White Whale. Well done Captain, well done.

BizJetTech

iTrader: (3)

IMO, you guys are picking the fly shi* out of the pepper.....I agree with Drew, (overall) the 1LE is brakes. Yes, there are other tidbits to it but I think that the "core" of the 1LE is brakes

Drew

iTrader: (58)

I could say the same to you John, but I take offense to being referred to as a White Whale. I self-identify as a Troy-Built Chipper/Shredder.

To be fair, I was quite civil until I was repeatedly trolled. I'd even say I was mostly civil within the threads, and I gave you the respect of taking my gripe private rather than air it on the forum.

If you want to speak in absolutes, it's not "just brakes" and it's not "more than just brakes". So what does it matter? I wasn't speaking in absolutes.

steves

Thanks!

detltu

iTrader: (1)

I mean if you think I'm not going to brag about the 18 gallon fuel tank God gave to Moses you are sorely mistaken.
We didn't write the articles. If people post incorrect information by all means correct them. Point them to any of the numerous threads where it has been discussed ad nauseum. No problem there. It seems like all it takes is someone saying "1LE sold for good money" and one of the first responses will be someone poo-pooing the 1LE. That's kind of what restarted this discussion here so it's not always the "1LE folks" who start the stuff.

I feel like it is a little bit of the same reaction when someone wants to make a performance modification to a 305. The first response is usually - get a 350. I don't like T-tops personally but you won't find me popping up every time a T-top car is sold telling everyone they suck. I'm glad people like them and generally just glad people like 3rd gens.

GN1295

Thank goodness. If meds are required for you to speak on this topic, maybe you shouldn't. Sad.

GN1295

I guess you weren't done.

PurelyPMD

iTrader: (3)

I would agree with Bruce Hawkins on the blindfold test. A couple of years ago I had a low mile 90 LB9 MK6 Formula at the same time I had my 91 1LE Formula and 1LE Z28 and I could tell the difference - blind folded. I won't get into the mix of the personal squabbles here or the motivations each may have, it's not important.

History has proven time and again that when any manufacturer produces a vehicle specifically intended for track use, it will lead the pack in value. Big brake and Tanker Corvette's, Z28's and ZL1's are just some simple examples and in no way shape or form am I lumping 1LE's into that same category. That said, they were designed, built and released with the intention of beating the mustangs at the track, they did that - famously, and are now being recognized for it.



This is what it's all about!

chazman

iTrader: (4)

There is actually no source from the period which lists it correctly as a 2.95 ratio. Even the GM Heritage Center has it as a 2.75 in it's data.

PurelyPMD

iTrader: (3)

I know you like to be accurate Drew so I'll help you here just a bit. You will not find a single 1LE Camaro with CC1 T-Tops, they weren't a delete, they were not available. Same would be true for Pontiac until 1991 when for whatever reason they built 27 of them - 8 Formulas and 19 TA's with 15 of those Z49 export models (Canada). In 1992 a few leaked through as well with 1 Formula & 1 TA built with the CC1 option code.

Just to add to the story, you will also not find a single 1LE Camaro with C60 Air Conditioning but you will find 11 1991 Formulas and 9 1992 Formula 1LE's with C60 A/C all of them B4U Hawks.

As for your comment regarding the "Bigger" spindles - the spindles were indeed bigger, they were machined for the larger wheel bearing and also pushed the front wheels outboard a 1/2" I believe for stability. I'm also surprised that Mark hasn't corrected you on this but the rotors came from the C10 truck program (share the part number) and the calipers although "like" the Corvette were actually larger and carried their own part number, they were not shared.

BizJetTech

iTrader: (3)

Chazman - see attachment - this is a 1991 GM document that lists it as a 2.95 ratio - were you speaking of a specific year ??

BizJetTech

iTrader: (3)

Here is the page for the LB9 / M39 5 speed - 2.95 ratio (see attachment)

Drew

iTrader: (58)

You do know that the spindles are exactly the same, right? The inner race of the wheel bearing that rids on the spindle is the same physical size 1LE vs Non-1LE. The outside of the race matches the rotor. It's still the same spindle. The outer wheel bearing is different because they were adapting a rotor from another car to the F-body spindle.

And this is why I hate this topic. I literally have to hold hands and guide people through this stuff.

edit: Oops, I missed this part...

The caliper casting isn't unique to the 1LE Camaro. Fairly sure that the casting is shared with one or another variety of the Corvette, the only difference is where the casting was machined for the brake hose. I'd look into it further, and document proof, but like I've said I really don't a damn anymore.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

Thanks, biz. Yeah, the '89-'90 time frame. I remember every data sheet from every road test had the MK6 version of the T5 with a 2.75 ratio vs the M39 with a 2.95.. They were all in fact 2.95.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

Well, ya know how hard it is to change the status quo...

scottmoyer

Looks like this thread needs moderation.

Drew, get to your corner, John, get to yours. Take a few deep breaths, and wait for the bell before you guys come back into the ring! BTW, I'm holding the bell, so wait for it......

scottmoyer

I'm assuming that this is known, but was just misstated. The 1992 Camaro 1LE/B4C is a 1LE with AC. I'm thinking you were referencing 1LE only cars and not ALL of them. This comment is only for future reference in case someone reads this thread and think they found the holy grail.

RPOZ28

Agreed!......Sick of the 1LE bashing! Like it or not...……..Walk away!...…...I find the history interesting...….BILL

85@IRocZ

iTrader: (6)

Just wondering if the 1le b4c's had no speed limiters,different computer chips, bigger amp alternators.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

They all had steel driveshafts instead of Al JG1.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

The speed limitation was generally only on EFI cars without speed rated tires. The limitation on auto trans cars was due to the transmission valving. Somewhere above 120mph a 700R4 will usually downshift from OD to third gear.

Wouldn't expect a B4C specific MEMCAL to exist, Typically I'd check the books, but that has proven to be a waste of my time. I'll leave that for someone else to look into.

There have been alternator rumors. Some B4Cs were fitted with CS-144 alternators, but it seems like that was something that was done aftermarket. The adapter bracket is an off-the-shelf part for the Cadillac.