hey, im writing a paper for my english class and i want to prove that third gens are better than fourth. What can you all tell me about the advantages of the thirdgens?

 

They look better! Cheaper! Parts are way easier to get... Thirdgens are also easier to work on, as the 4th gen is a cab over engine design requiring you to have to drop the engine for anything major.

 

Third gens handle better or so it is said? Check for info on how many g's each pulls on the skidpad.
Third gens are lighter.

 

#1....NO OPTISPARK Of course the LS fourth gens didn't have it either but still. In the same realm of simplicity, you can pull the motor out the top, not have to yank it from the bottom.

Dan

 

check up on their wind resistances I think third gens are pretty slippery

 

Most of those ^^^ are opinions. Thirdgens do have better visibility, shorter front window, less prone to window motor failures, more engines to choose from, engine is easier to access because of the larger engine bay. 3rd Gen Leather is softer and less hard than 4th gen leather. 9 bolt rears are stronger than 10 bolts, but 3rd gens offered 10 bolts as well. And they do handle better than the 4th gens. I had a WS6 4th gen and it handled good, but my GTA handles better, much better and more stable in a slolom style manuever and can take the same turns at a slightly higher speed.

 

1. If you have a thirdgen and a forthgen with similar options(both 16x8 wheels, both hardtop, both cloth seats) with the same engine/tranny setup(LT1, LS1), the thirdgen will weigh approximately 200 pounds less.
2. You can retrofit a 4th gen dash and 4th gen door panels into a thirdgen. Can't do vice-versa.
3. Thirdgens can have wheels with a thirdgen offset or a 4th gen offset(with spacers). 4th gens can only have 4th Gen offset.
4. Way more engine bay room in a thirdgen
5. 3rd gens only require one hinge repair kit per door. 4th Gens require 2 per door. TDS sells hinge repair kits for approximately $80 a piece.
6. Thirdgens, especially firebirds, have more body parts to choose from if swapping parts from different years. Thirdgen firebirds had 6 different sets of tailllights: 82-84 Firebird, 82-84 Trans Am, 85-90 T/A, 85-92 Firebird, 91-92 T/A, 82-84 Export T/A. Also, bumpers, hoods, ground efx, etc.
7. Thirdgen doors are made of steel, not plastic/fiberglass like 4th gens. This means you can weld/shave the door locks and door handles on a thirdgen.

 

Where I am from (MD) most third gens are 20 years old. That means they can be registered historic. My insurance on my GTA, non-daily driver, is $150 per year! My GTA will never have to be inspected again (no sniffer test or anything) When I drive my thrid gen around town I get all kinds of attention (good and bad), fourth gens don't really get any. When stopped in a parking lot I get alot of questions about the GTA, don't see many crowds around the ragged out fourth gen. A TPI engine with some big polished runners and intake is dead sexy!

 

I have both a 4th and 3rd gen Trans Ams

The most noticable difference is cost!!!!

Initial purchase, Repair and modification costs are all substantially less expensive.

The 4th gen came standard with 16" or 17" tires and 4 wheel disc brakes.
The 3rd gens had 16" tires and 4 wheel disc brakes, but as optional equipment.

The 4th gens are quieter and are comfortable to drive, a bit too disconnected from the road than the 3rd gens. 4th gens do not have as much of the squeaks and rattles that the 3rs gens have.

As far as handling, the 4th gen can take corners with a bit more ease than my 3rd.

LT and LS 4th gens are similar but different in performance, that the 3rd gens can not approach without performance modifications. But that is the way it is supposed to be. The car evolved from the 3rd gen into the 4th, learning from the oversights from previous years.
Optispark and lower engine removal are just 2 disadvantages in the 4th gen.

Except in one area - visibility!!! You sit in the car and see wipers and mirrors - thats is it!
Try to gauge where the front end is on a early 4th gen firebird, good luck!

Although the 4th gen is better in braking, performance and handling -
I prefer my 3rd!!!
when you kick the passing gear in and the 4 barrel opens up while you are driving with the t-tops off and the radio is playing = there is no substitute. It is less refined, it has is quirks as well as its advantages, but in my opinion (the v-8 models) captured more of a "muscle car" feel than the 4ths. The 4ths were on the threshold of vette performance and styling. 4ths could be considered a sports car onstead of a muscle car, even though in the 80's and early 90's there wasn't that much muscle.

 

They havent made a muscle car since 1972..............period!

 

That's funny right there

4th gens are better built cars than 3rd gens. From the firewall back, they are basically the same car. 4th gens still had the converter hump even though there was no converter there. Nowhere near the squeaks and rattles of the 3rd gen. Handling goes to the 3rd gen but not by much and the ride was terrible to get it. Braking definitely goes to the 4th gen. Although 1LE braked cars did brake very well. 3rd gen leather was probably worse than 4th gens only because the bolsters wore out so fast.

Having owned two 3rd gens, 84 Z28 and 89 TTA, and one 4th gen, 96 WS6, they both had good points. They all were fun to drive and enjoyed. But the nod would have to go to the 4th gen as the better car, IMHO.

Oh, and you can pull the engine out from the top on a 4th gen. All you need is the happy hooker and it'll come right out.

 

this I would have to disagree with. You can do a cam swap WAY easier in a 4th gen. It does not require the intake to be removed. The timing cover unbolts from the oil pan and comes off with out having to unbolt the oil pan and drop the front. swapping the valve springs or heads is definitely harder though it does not require engine removal, even if you got to head studs. But this thread is about 3rd gens. SO

The 3rd gen PCV system does not ingest oil like the LS1 PCV system does. Early LS1's are prone to piston slap, not a problem in 3rd gens. There is more room to do work under the hood of the 3rd gen. The 3rd gen is lighter. Stock for stock the 3rd gen pulls more G's on a skid pad than a 4th gen or a C4 vette. I personnaly like the 82-89 instrumentation vs the 4th gens, The on the right in the 3rd gen that way your arm isn't blocking it. I really like the way my WS6 looks, but I LOVE the box style of the 3rd gen. When you look under the hood of a 3rd gen, you might get a carb with who knows what intake or a number of fuel injected style intakes a small block a big block, LTx LSx maybe some turbo's or a supercharger. Under the hood of a 4th gen 99% you going to either see an LTx intake, a black plastic LSx or if the guy had a 1k laying around a FAST intake. If the 4th gen has a S/C or turbo and you want to see it, hopefully you brought a jack.

 

Correct. Of course people seem to want to call f-bodys sports cars too.

Looks, quality, and such are subjective. Stick with facts like weight, aero, and other solid figures.

 

The F-Body has never been a muscle car.

Although most think muscle cars came back with the GN, Monte Carlo SS, or Olds Hurst/442, they didn't fit the original definition. The 04-06 GTO, whether you agree or not, by definition was a muscle car.

 

Thirds look better, have nicer interiors, have a lower drag coefficient, are lighter, and handle a lot better. I've driven many of both, and while the 4th gens can be pretty fast in a straight line they're like driving a land barge around. I'd rather put an LS1 into a 3rd gen than buy an LS1 4th gen any day. You will end up with a faster car that's superior in almost every way.

 

?????
My '73 T/A 455SD w/4spd is not a muscle car?

Thanks for setting me straight!
I must have been wrong to sell it as a muscle car last year at auction.


My 4th gen is a better built car overall, but I still prefer my 3rd gen.

Right now I would prefer it running, but it is not the only car I have.

I actually have the 1984 T/A, 1992 Firebird, 1991 GTA and the 1993 T/A.
The 3 third gens will combine to make 2 very nice 3rd gens.
As far as f-bodies are concerned - I have had a 1983 T/A crossfire, 1984 T/A, 1973 T/A, 1971 Camaro SS and a 1980 Turbo T/A.
Some have been parted out, but most were fixed and sold

The 3rd gen costs are cheaper overall.
It also depends if you are modifying or keeping it original as well.

I have driven the LS powered 4th gens and they are very nice cars.
GM seemed to have distanced them from competing with the mustang's and such and they were competing with the vette!

You either liked the 3rd gen styling or not!
The corporate engine program took some pontiac loyalists away, because a pontiac drivetrain was no longer offered.
Yes the 4th gen is lighter, but 3rd gens actually have metal fenders and heavier than they should be doors.
It seems that 3rd gen parts are just now starting to emerge more than in the past.
I do not see many 3rd gens on the road as before, but when I do they are in very good condition.
I think that the resale of a 3rd gen has bottomed out and will continue to rise in the furture. the 4th gen is still going down in value, with the exception of rare numbered/optioned low mileage garage queens.

I can not say one is better than the other, for your article.
It is all on personal preference and taste.
Both are impressive cars in many ways.
There hasn't been a v-8 powered f-body I haven't liked yet!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPojA-e21MY

 

this is 100% false. there were no magazine tests, EVER, that have supported this myth. The C4 Z51 suspention package always posted higher skidpad numbers than any IROC, WS6, or 1LE equipped thirdgen

ive owned 8 thirdgens and 3 C4 Vettes. The Vettes handled better, hands down

 

what was this "definition" and why does the now defunct GTO qualify while the 80s B-bodies did not?

from what i always believed to be a "muscle car", the vehicle had to be intermidiate/large in size, 2 doors, and have good straight-line performance

 

Strict Definition of a Muscle Car:

A muscle car, by the strictest definition, is an intermediate sized, performance oriented model,
powered by a large V8 engine, at an affordable price.
Most of these models were based on "regular" production vehicles.
These vehicles are generally not considered muscle cars, even when equipped with large V8s.
If there was a high performance version available, it gets the credit,
and not the vehicle that it was based on.

Examples: Buick GS, Chevrolete Chevelle SS, Dodge Charger R/T,
Ford Torino/Cobra, Plymouth GTX, Plymouth Road Runner,
Oldsmobile 442, Pontiac GTO

Fullsize Muscle Car:

The strict definition only includes intermediate size vehicles.
In reality, performance oriented intermediate size vehicles didn't appear until 1964.
Before then, manufacturers took existing fullsize vehicles and added extra performance to them.
Because of this, the early fullsize performance vehicles are generally considered muscle cars.

Examples: Chevrolet Impala (SS only), Ford Galaxie (with 390 + cid engines only), Dodge Coronet (R/Ts only), etc.

Pony Cars and Compact Cars:

In addition to fullsize and intermediate muscle cars, a number of smaller vehicles
started appearing on the automotive performance scene.
These new "pony cars" and compact cars are generally considered muscle cars only
if they have the top of the line performance engines and options.

Examples: Chevrolet Camaro (SS and Z28 models only), Ford Mustang (GTs and Boss only),
Plymouth 'Cudas (no Barracudas), AMC Javelin, etc.

Personal Luxury Cars and Luxury Cars:

Although there were several personal luxury vehicles with performance engines and options,
their heavy weight and high sticker prices went against the low cost performance definition of muscle cars.
Therefore, they are not considered muscle cars.

Examples: Buick Riviera, Chrysler 300 Letter Cars, Pontiac Grand Prix, etc.

Two Seat Sports Cars:

Two seat sports cars such as the Chevrolet Corvette and the Ford Thunderbird are not considered muscle cars
due to their high price and specialty nature.
The only exception is the AMC AMX as it was relatively cheap, and was based on the AMC Javalin pony car.

Examples: AMC AMX, etc.

 

Strict Definition of a Muscle Car:

A muscle car, by the strictest definition, is an intermediate sized, performance oriented model,
powered by a large V8 engine, at an affordable price.
Most of these models were based on "regular" production vehicles.
These vehicles are generally not considered muscle cars, even when equipped with large V8s.
If there was a high performance version available, it gets the credit,
and not the vehicle that it was based on.

Examples: Buick GS, Chevrolete Chevelle SS, Dodge Charger R/T,
Ford Torino/Cobra, Plymouth GTX, Plymouth Road Runner,
Oldsmobile 442, Pontiac GTO

Fullsize Muscle Car:

The strict definition only includes intermediate size vehicles.
In reality, performance oriented intermediate size vehicles didn't appear until 1964.
Before then, manufacturers took existing fullsize vehicles and added extra performance to them.
Because of this, the early fullsize performance vehicles are generally considered muscle cars.

Examples: Chevrolet Impala (SS only), Ford Galaxie (with 390 + cid engines only), Dodge Coronet (R/Ts only), etc.

Pony Cars and Compact Cars:

In addition to fullsize and intermediate muscle cars, a number of smaller vehicles
started appearing on the automotive performance scene.
These new "pony cars" and compact cars are generally considered muscle cars only
if they have the top of the line performance engines and options.

Examples: Chevrolet Camaro (SS and Z28 models only), Ford Mustang (GTs and Boss only),
Plymouth 'Cudas (no Barracudas), AMC Javelin, etc.

Personal Luxury Cars and Luxury Cars:

Although there were several personal luxury vehicles with performance engines and options,
their heavy weight and high sticker prices went against the low cost performance definition of muscle cars.
Therefore, they are not considered muscle cars.

Examples: Buick Riviera, Chrysler 300 Letter Cars, Pontiac Grand Prix, etc.

Two Seat Sports Cars:

Two seat sports cars such as the Chevrolet Corvette and the Ford Thunderbird are not considered muscle cars
due to their high price and specialty nature.
The only exception is the AMC AMX as it was relatively cheap, and was based on the AMC Javalin pony car.

Examples: AMC AMX, etc.

 

You don't consider the 1973/74 455 Super Duty Trans Am's Muscle Cars lol? The last true muscle car goes to the very division that started the muscle car era in the first place, Pontiac, with it's 1976 455 Hurst Trans Am. As for 3rd gen muscle though, I'd have to go with the '92 SLP Firehawk, as that is a true muscle car in every sense of the word. Consider their "competition options" before anyone disagree's, which included optional roll cage (full), an all aluminum 366 racing block, ZF 6-speed w/carbon fiber clutch, and Dana 44 rear....

 

so by the above definition, the Monte SS and 442 Olds of the 80s WOULD be considered muscle cars. both were intermidiates, and were high performance, V8 versions of their mundane base models

since the GNs didnt have V8s, i guess most wouldnt consider them true muscle cars, although they fit all the other requirements of the class. considering their force-fed V6s were quicker than other muscle cars of their era tho, id say they qualify

 

Emphasis on the LARGE v8. That's why muscle cars died in the '70s: no more big blocks. No big block = no muscle car, regardless of hp output.
A 455 SD TA is a sweet ride with a big ol' engine, but it is not a large or intermediate, so its not a muscle car.

No F-body is/was a muscle car. No '80s, '90s or '00s car is/was a muscle car. /end.

 

From that statement, that disqualifies the Impala.

Yes, the G-Body's had performance. But the question comes from not having a V8 but having the bigger V8. They were just 5.0 liter V8's when a 5.7 liter V8 was available but not used. Intermediates with big V8's is the definition. If it were me, I'd consider the GN as a muscle car. I had one and it would pull a big block Chevelle quite well

Then again, a Malibu SS could be had with a 6 cylinder... I thought of the G-Body as a Muscle Car back in the 80's because performance was back and this is what the term was based on. But in the strictest/purist sense, its not a muscle car. Gets real sketchy when you get into definitions and such.

For me, its a intermediate that has the performance. That would include A-Body, G-Body, and the newer GTO. Full size B-Body's aren't to me but I guess could be since they really started it all with a 409.

Sorry for going off topic...

 

So your definition only includes big block cars? So a Chevelle SS wasn't a muscle car until 66(late 65 with a few Z16) because a big block wasn't offered?

 

Back on topic. 4th gens were the better car and should have been. They were an improved 3rd gen.

More safety, comfort, mpg, performance, etc. They are both fun but when it comes down to it, 4th gens are better.

 

They are better, but if you want a cheaper car, the third gen F-body is going to be cheaper 99% of the time. 1984 was the highest number of camaros produced.
I love the Grand Nationals, if anyone doesn't like them, they should probably go cry some more because their life must really suck. To me a muscle car is defined by the body/frame, I do definitely consider the f-body a sports car and a muscle car. Its not as sporty as a corvette, but its designed for overall driving pleasure. I consider it a muscle car because its an american made and built for speed with a high(ish) displacement engine.
btw, nice kicking tonight tay.

 

Thanks, lol. i pulled my hip flexor though and it kills, gonna work on the T/A tomorrow.
gotta get a lot done

 

OT. One of the greatest muscle cars in my opinion is the 67 GTO convertable with a 400 and 4 speed

 

yea, in black

 

Interesting, so by your understanding, there weren't any Pontiac muscle cars because there was no such thing as a Pontiac big block. The Pontiac 400, 428 and 455 were not "big blocks", so now you are implying that the early GTO's weren't muscle cars, either, because they didn't have a big block to begin with....

You do realize that the Plymouth Barracuda was considered a "pony" car, as was the Dodge Challenger. Are you now implying that these two, being in the same class as the Camaro and Firebird, are also not considered "muscle cars"? I guess the early Ford GT-500 was also not considered a "muscle car" either, ehh....?

Ignorance is bliss....

 

True, this is the one issue of contention. The first GTO was an option and available with a big block sized engine, but technically was not a big block. It causes all kinds of arguments on muscle car boards, but no one yet has a clear cut solution for this issue. However, fbody as a muscle car is beyond dead. Might as well call it a sports car or sports sedan or some other ridiculous category where it doesn't belong. Hey, 1st gens were originally called compacts, so why not call them sport compacts now?

Now you're getting there. Mustang, Challenger and 'Cuda, all versions, were pony cars.

True. Please do more reading. You won't be as happy, but you'll get where I'm coming from.

 

Wow some poor guy gets on here wanting some info, and now we are on a stupid arguement over what is a true musclecar? WTF, man that's why I barely post anymore, If you can not contribute to the thread, go post your own... JMHO, but this is pretty stupid...

 

I've had my thirdgen Irocz for 6 years and just got a 99 Trans Am LS1 car. I love both

Stock for stock and mod for mod, LS1 is superior. 4th gen is more fun to drive even tho the L98 was more torquey off the line. Maybe its the 275 tires compared to the 245's on the stock Irocz, but the LS1 TA cant spin the tires from a dig (auto/2.73 gear). Irocz was auto/2.77 gear and spun easily at times. LS1 is faster tho

I dont even have a WS6 and it still handles like a dream. Doesnt feel as stable as the Irocz but the car gets down in the turn and hugs the road. Irocz was fun in turns tho when it was stock but really picked up with suspension mods. I expect the TA to be the same way.

LS1 interior is more comfortable but I dont like how stiff the steering feel is compared to thirdgens. LS1 4th gen seats are more comfortable, thats why alot of guys swap in 4th gen interior stuff. I like thirdgen dash setup more than LS1 4th gen cars but stock seats and interior vs stock seats/interior for both generations, I like the 4th gen. IT has cup holders too and thirdgen did not

Electronic shift tranny in the 4th gen is nicer than the 700r4 in the thirdgen.

Engine bay in the thirdgen looks better than the 4th gen...definately not as cramped but you can do anything with both cars just about. supercharged/twin turbo/etc, its been done with both cars/enginebays so not a problem.

I havent done any work to the TA and dont plan to do anything myself at this point except exhaust/suspension maybe but seems like dropping the engine out the bottom of the car with the cradle would be more difficult than out the top like any sbc car. Some people dont mind tho.

I like the 4th gen Trans Am styling better than thirdgens, especially WS6 style LS1 cars. The camaros in the thirdgen years were much better looking however.

 

Your missing the point. If someone came on here and stated that our ECM's can't see boost, w/out knowing why, it needs to be corrected, whether relevant to the conversation or not. Nobody is arguing because there is honestly no argument. Pony cars are apart of the "muscle car" era; The 427 all aluminum COPO Camaro, the 455 SD Trans Am, the 426 Hemi Cuda, etc, all of them have their place, as well as image, and served the muscle car community well. There was even a legitimate 1981 "Bandit" edition (455 w/5-speed) that was optional here in New Jersey, and I know someone who has one, and yes, it's nothing but pure muscle....

As for the original question, Justin above is spot on. I have three third gens, and one fourth gen LS1, and they are night and day. If someone was to do a paper on why 3rd gens are better than 4th gens, IMO, they might want to delve into the rarity factor, as 3rd gens have that over 4th gens in every sense of the word. Between the Black and Red TTA prototype's created by PAS, the two TTA convertibles, the TTA hardtops w/out leather interior, the early 3rd Gen SLP Firehawks, and that is just to name a few. 4th gens had some decent versions, but nothing like the 3rd gens, as that was when GM was exploring various concepts. In the end, it is simply personal preference of course....

By the way, here's the '81 455 Bandit. Not muscle, ehh? Tell that to the Pontiac guys lol.

 

...Im not a 2nd gen fan per say but the bandit on the other hand...mmmm to me thats just pure muscle

...eehhh damnit that bandit did it again...i gotta go change my pants

 

The phrase "Muscle Car" was originally coined to describe Americas first real automotive performance era. An era that started with the 63 Dodge 413 Polara(sorry GTO fans) and in general is excepted to have ended with the 74 super duty T/A, when because of gas shortages and high insurance rates the big 3 stopped making any real attempts at mass producing hi HP performance cars. There has been a new "Modern Muscle car" era that has been going on since the late 80's when Detroit started to produce more performace cars again.Arguing over what a "true Muscle Car" is,is pointless."Muscle" is the word we now use to describe Amercan performance in general.Just like we use "exotic" to describe hi dollar European performance and "Tuner" to describe most other import performance.Are there exceptions? Depends on personal opinion,but who really cares.

 

this isnt about what is and isnt a muscle car

 

Your right. The argument is just a pet peeve and the bickering in this thread about it just got to me .As far as what positives a 3rd gen has over a 4th. I think it would all boil down to personal preference.

 

Thank you, finally some common sense!

 

Only safety. I can put comfortable seats in a thirdgen and looking out of a thirdgen windshield makes me way more comfortable. I can do an engine swap and get the same performance. I can get better mpg with an engine swap because thirdgens are lighter.

I could make it even about as safe. LS1/C5 brake upgrade. Could even do a dash swap and swap in both airbags with the airbags harness.

I agree if you keep the cars stock then 4th gen would probably win in almost every way but I don't play that game.

If you want to customize a car, you have a lot more options with a thirdgen.

 

Yeah but then you end up spending more and doing more work to the thirdgen to get anywhere near the 4th gen when it comes to mod for mod. That right there puts 4th gen ahead of the game.

As far as customization, both generations have infinite possibilities it seems.

 

Then the comparison is moot. If you want to modify, then its up to how much money you want to spend. Still the 4th gen is better starting point.

There is just as much if not more you can modify on a 4th gen. As far as wieght, my TTA was only 100 lbs lighter than my WS6.

 

I have owned two third gens, and now I own a fourth gen. As far as looks go I like the 4th gen ram air firebirds the best, always have but its just my opinion. Performance wise the 4th gens own. Alot of people say the third gens outhandle the newer models but my ws6 easily out handles my 86 iroc, and 89 iroc z. It also stops much quicker. I dont think one is "better" than the other though. Its what ever you enjoy driving.

 

thats what im trying to see from this.. its an opinionated paper that is supposed to be supported by facts, so im probably going to see how the cost of a third gen and upgrades will compare with a fourth gen. and see if it outperforms for less money..

 

[QUOTE=Orr89RocZ;4294835]I've had my thirdgen Irocz for 6 years and just got a 99 Trans Am LS1 car. I love both

Stock for stock and mod for mod, LS1 is superior. 4th gen is more fun to drive even tho the L98 was more torquey off the line. Maybe its the 275 tires compared to the 245's on the stock Irocz, but the LS1 TA cant spin the tires from a dig (auto/2.73 gear). Irocz was auto/2.77 gear and spun easily at times. LS1 is faster thoQUOTE]

Orr, I agree with your point. However even a 2.73 geared ls1 has the ability to destroy the tires. Stock for stock I would still take the ls1 off the line over the l98. The ls1 makes more torque over the entire powerband than the l98. The l98 may feel faster right off the line because of the tpi, but in reality I dont think it is.
ps I want pics of your ls1. thx

 

I have not read the entire thread so some of my opinions may have been already covered already, but this question is vague in nature. The debate between the two generations is completely subjective. What are you comparing for your analysis? Stock performance, mod-ability, market value? GM sure thinks that every aspect of the 4th gen is better than the 3rd gen. If not they would have needed government motors years prior. Your research will be easy if you want to figure horsepower per dollar spent. The 3rd gen will win. However, that doesn't mean that the design of the pony car we cherish digressed when the 93 model year was introduced. Any brand new product makes the product it supersedes cheaper. This is economics, the evolution of technology, and has nothing to do with design intent. The 4th gen was designed using a completely different set of market conditions and technology parameters. If you took a 3rd gen into a time machine and dropped it into 1993 it would have flopped. Same goes for a 4th gen dropped into 1982. They would have not been designed properly to optimize sales. You really cannot compare the two. There is far more involved with the release of a vehicle than a performance increase over its predecessor. For this debate you might as well compare the Mustang to our beloved Camaro.

 

Who cares if people call it a muscle car or not, so long as it's American and drives fast. As for the topic that started the thread. Stock for stock, the 4th gen is the better car. 80's didn't get to see much performance at all when they came out. Not talking stock, you probably see a lot more performance out of 3rd gens, they're finally getting their spotlight now that they're considered classic cars. You're getting mismatched answers from people who've driven both, but you have to wonder if they upgraded their third gens, you're taking a car that's parts are over 20 years old and putting them against something not even 10 years old, of course the car is going to be worn out. Numbers for numbers, the fourth gen comes stock with more power and better fuel mileage. I love my third gen and I tell you, the more you have to work to make a car worth something the more you respect the vehicle, that's why only me and my dad are allowed to drive my car, I would never get rid of it because I've put a lot of effort into getting it, getting it running, and keeping it nice. I respect a man driving a third gen more than I would respect a man driving a fourth gen. It takes a man to know what's under his hood because he put it there rather than to know what's under because the factory sheet says so.

 

1. Louder, so it sounds like a muscle car.
2. Have more style, just look at the terrible look of the 90s Camaro.
3. Some were carborated, so more old school.
4. They're easier to work on, less computerized.

That's really about it... Oh and the tail lights looked wayyy cooler.