3rd Gen vs. 4th Gen, Pros and Cons of each generation. Options

[T.O.Dillinder]

This should be fun.
Your opinions on the pros and cons between the 3rd and 4th gen F-bodies.
These are my opinions, and I could be way off with a couple of items.

Engines:
4th gen wins this one. Racing groups keep forgetting that the LT1 350's were a option in the later 3rd gen years, but keep forcing the 305s of being the only option for racing.
The 4th gens have the 350s as the only V-8 option.

Transmissions:
5-speeds; Tremec and the World class T-5's help make it a 3rd gen pro.
Dependable enough, weighs less, and since when do you need 6 speeds for road racing.
The only time I have actually shifted into fifth is at Road America running a 3.73 gear ratio.

6-speeds; weigh more, more dependable than regular BW 5 spd.


Front Suspension:
4th gen hands down.

Rear Suspension:
Tie, they are the same for both generations.
I do use the 4th gen Koni Yellow rear on my 83 Z-28 because I do not have to remove the rear shock to adjust it.

Overall Weight:
In stock trim I know for sure the 3rd gen has the advantage. I have not seen actual weights for stripped down 4th gens so it may be close.

Brakes:
Out of the box I would give the 4th gens the advantage.

Parts Availability:
4th gen. They are everywhere.
Aftermarket parts were really not available for the 3rd gens compared to 1st and 2nd gen cars. It just seems the Aftermarket Companies really never worked hard for the 3rd gens.
The 3rd gens are still competing in large numbers and you have to look hard for performance parts. If I had the money......

Ease of maintenance:
I give the pro to the 3rd gens.
The 4th gen engine compartment is a pain, and the dash is as big as a pain.

Overall Looks:
The 3rd gen looks sleek and fast.
The 4th gen looks like a beast and would grab the competiition and beat or eat it.
My favorite 4th gen commercial was the Pontiac Ram Air Trans-Am.
Pulls up behind a Ferrari, revs and swallows the Ferrari and sends it out through its tail pipes. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/lmao.gif)
I love the looks of the 2000- 2002 RA TA's. They are just plain mean lookin'.

Interior:
Pro to 4th gen. The interior just seemed more refined compared to the 3rd gen.

Your turn.

This post has been edited by T.O.Dillinder: Dec 6 2007, 05:40 PM

[KeithO]

This should be fun.
4th gen wins this one. Racing groups keep forgetting that the LT1 350's were a option in the later 3rd gen years, but keep forcing the 305s of being the only option for racing.
The 4th gens have the 350s as the only V-8 option.

Overall I agree with your statements. However, the L98 was available starting in 1987 and was an option through 1992. The LT1 was never offered in the 3rd gen and in fact wasn't available at all until the 1992 Vette.

[Mojave]

Engines:
4th gen wins this one. Racing groups keep forgetting that the LT1 350's were a option in the later 3rd gen years, but keep forcing the 305s of being the only option for racing.
The 4th gens have the 350s as the only V-8 option.

Transmissions:
5-speeds; Tremec and the World class T-5's help make it a 3rd gen pro.
Dependable enough, weighs less, and since when do you need 6 speeds for road racing.
The only time I have actually shifted into fifth is at Road America running a 3.73 gear ratio.

6-speeds; weigh more, more dependable than regular BW 5 spd.

This isn't quite right. The 3rd gens got a TPI 350, aka L98, which is not an LT1. LT1 makes more horsepower and just as much torque.

T-5's, even WC T-5's, can't handle the torque from an L98 or an LT1. While T-5's are nice and light, I would take a T-56 over a T-5 any day of the week. Cruising in 6th gear at 75 mph at 1900 rpms with 4.10's is something a T-5 will never match.

[StanIROCZ]

Engines:
4th gen wins this one. Racing groups keep forgetting that the LT1 350's were a option in the later 3rd gen years, but keep forcing the 305s of being the only option for racing.
The 4th gens have the 350s as the only V-8 option.

LS1 hands down kicks ass. I want one really bad.

I like a stock lt1 better than a stock L98, but if you're going to modify them I like the GenI sbc better because it doesn't have the optispark.

Lt1's never came in 3rd gens.

Interior:
Pro to 4th gen. The interior just seemed more refined compared to the 3rd gen.

yeah, I was looking the interior one day and finally said, "why am I keeping it".



One more to add, you can fit 17x11's on the front of a 4th gen.

[T.O.Dillinder]

My bad. I keep wanting to call the L98's, LT1's for some reason.
My point was though the 3rd gens did offer a 350 cui. engine. A fact that gets pushed to the side about updating and backdating in Race class rules.

I personally have not had problems with the T-5's. I just don't try to power shift them.
In CMC (NASA) and AGS (MWC) they have done well.

[y5e06]

My point was though the 3rd gens did offer a 350 cui. engine. A fact that gets pushed to the side about updating and backdating in Race class rules.

thats because the 350 L98 cars never had T-5's, only automatics. Those classes you mention are those along the lines of keeping stock driveline components and swapping in a manual wasn't within the factory specs.

[Mojave]

My bad. I keep wanting to call the L98's, LT1's for some reason.
My point was though the 3rd gens did offer a 350 cui. engine. A fact that gets pushed to the side about updating and backdating in Race class rules.

I personally have not had problems with the T-5's. I just don't try to power shift them.
In CMC (NASA) and AGS (MWC) they have done well.

T5's are great for lower power applications, as the 75 lbs weight savings over the T56 is significant. But an LTx or an LSx will blow one up in short order.

All the CMC 3rd gen cars running T5's are 305's, as Morgan pointed out.

This post has been edited by Mojave: Dec 6 2007, 07:20 PM

[Shortcutsleeping]

Front Suspension:
4th gen hands down.

Say what?

Wins how? What are the parameters for claiming victory?



Costas
cars and such...

[CrashTestDummy]

Front Suspension:
4th gen hands down.

Say what?

Wins how? What are the parameters for claiming victory?



Costas
cars and such...

+1. Give me a 3rd Gen front-end any day.

[trackbird]

The 3rd gen has a strut setup that can be very effective. It's not as sophisticated as the 4th gen front suspension, but it's not exactly bad.

3rd gens have no ABS and are narrower and lighter as well. However, the narrower width limits tire sizes to about 275's to keep them in the fenders (17x9.5" wheels with 5.5" of backspacing will fit 275/40-17's perfectly on a 3rd gen).

I sold my 2002 Z28 and bought my 1992 Z28. I like both cars, the 4th gen felt heavier to me. I understand that it has more curb weight, but it just felt a bit more lethargic than a 3rd gen chassis. I'm sure it's my personal feelings, but I've always felt that the 3rd gen had better "reflexes".

Also, 3rd gens are cheap enough to be "disposable". Put it in the wall? Just buy another shell for a few hundred bucks and start over. That may be the main reason I switched. My 2002 was too nice (and expensive) to wreck on track.

[T.O.Dillinder]

Front Suspension:
4th gen hands down.

Say what?

Wins how? What are the parameters for claiming victory?

I just feel the upper and lower control arm design is better than a MacPherson Strut front end.
Easier to make suspension adjustments.
Plus being The later model years, the 4th Gen has a load of aftermarket parts.

I have wondered at times if the MacPherson Strut design and also the beginning of the electronic fuel injection systems kept Aftermarket Manufacturers at a distance from the 3rd Gens when they were new.

The original post is intended to get your personal opinions about the two generations. I am not trying to start any sort of arguement. It is more about finding nuances between the two.
I have test drove the 4th gens, but I have not had the oppurtunity to work extensively on one. I know from watching a couple of aquaintcences with theirs', the Windshield coming over the engine compartment makes working on one a pain when working in that area.

[firehawkclone]

Motor's are a wash, you can go around each one's weakness.

There are pleanty of parts for the 3rd and 4th gens, as long as there Camaro's!

3rd gen win's on wheel bearing's! For now anyway.

3rd gen's front suspension has more parts to wear out/ bend, but they are cheap!

[dailydriver]

The 3rd gen has a strut setup that can be very effective. It's not as sophisticated as the 4th gen front suspension, but it's not exactly bad.

Is part of the appeal also that just by adding camber plates to the 3rd gens one can much more easily get max caster/camber out of them (with just a lift of the hood and a bolt adjustment)??

[roadracetransam]

Motor's are a wash, you can go around each one's weakness.

There are pleanty of parts for the 3rd and 4th gens, as long as there Camaro's!

3rd gen win's on wheel bearing's! For now anyway.

3rd gen's front suspension has more parts to wear out/ bend, but they are cheap!

Wheel bearing yes, except they are they are part of the brake rotor, so big negative re: changing worn rotors.

[trackbird]

3rd gen win's on wheel bearing's! For now anyway.

3rd gen's front suspension has more parts to wear out/ bend, but they are cheap!

I do like having real bearings.

How do you figure the 3rd gen has more parts? They're down at least an upper control arm and two bushings to start. They use an idler arm steering setup with a center link instead of a rack with inner and outer tie rods, but that's not a huge deal either (in my opinion at least). I think they are more different than better or worse.

The 3rd gen has a strut setup that can be very effective. It's not as sophisticated as the 4th gen front suspension, but it's not exactly bad.

Is part of the appeal also that just by adding camber plates to the 3rd gens one can much more easily get max caster/camber out of them (with just a lift of the hood and a bolt adjustment)??

Well, the front of a 3rd gen is simple and easy and works well enough. It's far easier to tear down and rebuild. No spring compressors needed. It's a fairly simple design that has decent camber control with enough spring and sway bar (just like a 4th gen). I suspect the 3rd gen has a sightly worse camber curve, but I can't remember if I've seen numbers on it.

The highest placing CMC F-body at the nationals for the last two years has been Jeff's 3rd gen. CMC removes the benefit of wider tires on the 4th gen though, so they are equalized in that regard.

I think both cars can be made to work well. I like that the 3rd gens have no ABS, they are easier to work on, parts are cheap for SBC engines and they are lighter/narrower. I like that 4th gens have better brakes (later ones do and it's a cheap and easy swap to the earlier cars), make more power and are a bit more civilized with better interiors (only an issue if you keep the interior).

Wheel bearing yes, except they are they are part of the brake rotor, so big negative re: changing worn rotors.

Many of the aftermarket brake kits fix that. My car has hubs with good bearings in them (like the stock setup) and uses a slip on rotor. When you fix the 3rd gen brakes, you can usually fix that "problem" at the same time. So, it's not as much of a negative it might seem.

[Shortcutsleeping]

I just feel the upper and lower control arm design is better than a MacPherson Strut front end.

What car won the CMC title again?

From a purely theoretical point of view, an SLA is better if it is designed that way in the first place. You are trying to compare an already built SLA that has some shortcoming to a strut that also has shortcomings. While I'll never argue an LS1 wins vs my 305tpi, I feel you've got the front suspension one wrong.

Easier to make suspension adjustments.

Tell you what, you change camber on a 4th gen and I'll change camber on a 3rd gen and let's see who has time to go get a track burger. I won't even need to reset the toe when I'm done.

Plus being The later model years, the 4th Gen has a load of aftermarket parts.

Because it NEEDS a load of parts to get decent settings (good neg camber). Thirds can typically get -2.0 stock and with camber plates you can get anything you need. And its all up top and easy to get to and adjust. On the '89 ASedan I built and crewed I (1993 here...) had scribed lines on the towers for various camber settings. It took me, at best, 4 minutes to change camber on both sides of that car. No time re-setting toe either.

The original post is intended to get your personal opinions about the two generations. I am not trying to start any sort of arguement. It is more about finding nuances between the two.

Well, nuances are typically, at least in part, based on fact. You are saying that the 4th is easier to make suspension adjustments on, but unless you have done it on both (I have...too many times to count, as I'm sure many on this board have also) then you are just guessing. Why not just put that you are guessing on that topic and ask for feedback?

The motor stuff is simple (ls1), the trans stuff is simple (big power? t56. Lower power and need light weight? t5). I've put a DA system on several fast 4th gens and have never seen initial turn in rates (in deg/sec) that will match a 3rd gen. <shrug>

As far as bearings/rotors, the 4th wins when it is time to swap rotors, but for bearings I've yet to have to replace mine in a 3rd. Good bearings, packed well and adjusted correctly will give a LOT of use (track and hard street is what mine sees).

I'm with Kevin. 4ths always feel heavy (except Scratcher...and that doesn't count) to me and much less nimble. Back to back at similar levels of prep at an AX I've always done better in a 3rd. Road course is pure 4th just for the power aspect. Unless it is equalized then see 'CMC'.

Now looks IS a subjective thing. Late 3rd gens win that one easily. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)


Costas
cars and such...

[trackbird]

Oh, and I hate the goofy castor bushing in the 4th gen front end. 3rd gens can use ny-liner bushings or bearings, 4th gens are more difficult since it's not a straight "hinge" arrangement on the lower control arm. This should allow a 3rd gen to have less front end deflection and unwanted suspension motion than the 4th gen setup. I think that's my biggest complaint on the 4th gen front end. Again, both cars can be made to work well, but we're talking about the nuances here. I enjoyed my time with my 4th gen (5 years). I enjoyed my time with my first 3rd gen (7 years) and my current 3rd gen (6 months or so). Given my choice (and unlimited budget), I'd buy a couple of each. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[marka]

Howdy,

Tell you what, you change camber on a 4th gen and I'll change camber on a 3rd gen and let's see who has time to go get a track burger. I won't even need to reset the toe when I'm done.

Thirds can typically get -2.0 stock and with camber plates you can get anything you need. And its all up top and easy to get to and adjust. On the '89 ASedan I built and crewed I (1993 here...) had scribed lines on the towers for various camber settings. It took me, at best, 4 minutes to change camber on both sides of that car. No time re-setting toe either.

Huh? I've not done this on a 3rd gen, but on every single other strut car I've ever worked on changing camber via cc plates certainly affected the toe...

I used to use that in fact on our old E36 bmw (front steer) so that when I knocked the camber in at an event I'd get some toe out for free.

Certainly a strut car w/cc plates is easier to adjust static camber/caster than most anything else. I don't know that I'd call that superior though...

Mark

[StanIROCZ]

I don't like the parallel steering linkage in the 3rd gen. There's more joints and therefore more slop. This just isn't theoretical. I've replaced every part of the linkage at one point in time. I have a ~2 year old ~5000 mile idler arm that is loose.

Toe adjustment isn't repeatable. If I drive forward, stop, then check toe, I get a 1/4" different measurement than if I drive backwards, stop, then check toe. I think the rack would be better. Maybe all my problems will be solved with the new moog idler that I got. We'll see.

This post has been edited by StanIROCZ: Dec 6 2007, 10:52 PM

[StanIROCZ]

Huh? I've not done this on a 3rd gen, but on every single other strut car I've ever worked on changing camber via cc plates certainly affected the toe...

The tie rod is co-planar (horizontal and in-line) with the ball joint on a 3rd gen so the camber change does not effect the toe. If, for example, the tie rod was raised to be in line with the spindle snout you would gain toe out with a (-) camber increase.