'91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

Hello everyone, not sure whether this is the best place to ask this question, but there doesn't seem to be a section about basic driving questions...

I have a '92 Z28, and am now considering a '91 which isn't anywhere close to me. My car is the only 3rd gen Camaro I've ever spent any real amount of time driving. My understanding is that '92 used lots of body adhesive which provided a "tighter" driving experience. Can anyone comment as to whether the difference is noticeable between '91 and '92, or does a '91 really feel pretty much the same on the road (including during "spirited" twisty road driving)?

Thanks a million for any actual experience-based input!

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

I had a 91 RS 28 years ago and was a fun car to drive. 305 5 speed. I now have a 92 z28 5.7

I did not notice much difference as I was young when I had the RS. Put almost 100k miles on it with no major issues.

The z28 is tight but does have a squeak here and there. But not major

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

Thanks for your answer. Since I'm watching an auction that ends in two hours, your quick response is appreciated!

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

I have a '91 GTA and a '91 T/A convertible. Nothing different really. If anything, I actually prefer driving the '91.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

It's pretty much the same, no noticeable difference. Suspension and body mods are much more noticeable

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

I agree no real difference. The mileage, amount of abuse, and overall condition(especially the suspension components) has a lot more effect on how the car drives than what year it was made. Good luck, hopefully you will have another thirdgen soon.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

Thanks everyone for your input. I've always wondered whether the body adhesive made a noticeable difference driving, or whether it just added a bunch of weight and goo...

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

that was a nice z28 .. i thought about bidding on it ..

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

Yeah... Today I'm kind of regretting not hanging in a little longer, but I really try to keep some self discipline in auctions... Otherwise a different kind of regret can happen!

But that one really ticked boxes for me. Fixed roof, manual, G92, no stupid mods, no cracks in the sail panels. It didn't seem to have led a difficult life. Oh well.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

im going against the grain a little here and saying there is a difference. the way it drives and handles will be the same. the difference that all of the seam sealer (adhesive) they used on the 92 models is that it stops almost all of the squeaks that 3rd gens are famous for.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

My '91 is quieter than my '92. The '91 has C&C T-tops and a set of outer SFCs. The '92 is a convertible and has both inner and outer SFCs.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

I thought the adhesives came along with the '91s, but I'm probably wrong. I thought I'd remembered hearing about the adhesives in some of the press about Pontiac rolling out a convertible for the first time in years for 1991. One of the reasons given that Pontiac finally did launch a convertible was the tighter, quieter feel produced by these adhesives.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

I recall hearing that the adhesive started during the 91 year model. I don’t think all the 91’s got it, but later in the model year I believe it did.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

My 91 T-Top car was the tightest Thirdgen I ever drove even at over 100k mi. Ive always believed it got the adhesive treatment.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

I’ve driven many different thirdgens of varying ages, conditions and mileage and would say that condition and mileage has more of a factor on the squeaks and rattles than anything else.

A low mileage, babied 1982 hardtop is going to be a more solid car than a 150K mile T-Top daily driver 1992.

All things being equal though, I would say there seems to be little perceptible difference in squeaks/rattles and structural integrity from about 88’ and later. The earlier cars did seem to be looser.

My Dad had a 92’ RS that he bought in 1994 with 34K miles on it and that’s the newest, lowest mile thirdgen I recall experiencing back when they were relatively new cars. Other than the T-Tops squeaking on cold days, it seemed to be a pretty solid car and didn’t have too many squeaks and rattles. I bought my 89’ GTA in 1999 with 100K miles and at that time, my Dad’s RS also had about the same mileage. Both cars were in similar condition (well cared for daily drivers). Honestly, both cars felt about the same as far as squeaks and rattles. The 92’ may have had adhesive in the seams and the 89’ didn’t, but it wasn’t very noticeable.

I had an 86’ IROC before the GTA and with 100K miles and even being a hardtop, it squeaked, rattled and creaked quite a bit. It definitely had a harder life than the GTA did, so that probably had a lot to do with it as well. Back then I also had various friends with an 83’, 84’ and an 85’ and they were more like my 86’ than my 89’ or the 92’.

So, take my personal observations for what they’re worth, but I would not consider the added adhesive a decision factor in which year car to buy. It just didn’t seem to make much of a perceptible difference, although I’m also remembering from many years ago. In any case, mileage and condition are going to be bigger factors.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

Was going to post a picture of the "glue" but I can't seem to find it. Maybe tomorrow

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

Having owned a few 92s and my 91 (which have nearly the identical miles and options), driven back to back, the 92s have far less squeaks and rattles than the previous year cars. My cars have within a couple thousand miles from each other and similar option. It's a big deal to me.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

I thought this was the case as well but haven't found any solid documentation in the Camaro or Firebird sales literature to provide as reference. In fact I don't see it noted at all. We've got a reference in the 1991 Firebird Tech Data but I'm unsure where it came from and if it's specifically referring to the Convertible or not based on how it was written.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

Long before there was an internet (at least that I was aware of), I too was under the impression that the body adhesive started sometime in '91, and that my '91 RS had it. Did a lot of reading and research on the cars before I bought mine, but I really can't recall where I thought I saw that.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

Mine is a late 91, July, and it is loaded with adhesive. It is a vert so that may have something to do with it but it is definitely visible on my car.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

So what did the factory do, adhesive wise? I assume they glued all the areas where panels were lap welded together? Was the adhesive applied before or after welding?

Was the adhesive semi flexible, in cured form? Like a polyurethane adhesive?

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

In college I had a 92 Firebird convertible with 75k miles on it. Now I have a 91 Firebird convertible with 75k miles on it. There's no difference that I can tell, it still squeaks/rattles/talks to you.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...9e7d469ccf.jpg

Here is the picture I was looking for. I've seen this on the front and rear "frame rails" and a few other spots. What a surprisingly great product.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

So as I thought I recalled, GM applied the adhesive before welding the panels together. NICE!

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

Hmmm...I don't think I have a way of determining when my RS was built. I don't have the car any more, but do have the window sticker. Doesn't "seem" to have a date on it, but it does have a FEB in the lower right corner of the lower left box. Not sure if that means February or not.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

what is the VIN? That can get you an approximate timeframes when it was built.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

By the last 8?

ML157199.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

Compnine will show a rough build date. PM your complete VIN and I can check.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

It was the 57199th camaro built out of 70007. The is 82% of the way thru production

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

No, he is talking about a 91, not a 92. And there were 70008 built in 92🤓

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

Correct. 100,838 camaros were made in 91.

Re: '91 vs. '92 Driving Experience
 

I'll second ev305tpi!

I got some time in his 91 and 92 1LEs, both in mint condition (6-8k miles). It's rare to get a chance to experience comparable cars back to back these days. The 92 was noticeably better in terms of noise, vibration, harshness, squeaks, rattles... The car felt tighter. It won't equate to faster lap times, but the driving experience is of a slightly higher quality.

Again, this is some nuanced stuff and most people won't notice it; furthermore, this stuff is unnoticeable on the average beat up old thirdgen.