Kainsel

This was EXACTLY the case for my friend John who special ordered his 92 Formula LB9. He had every option carefully selected before walking into the dealership & was surprised when the salesman didn't know anything about the 1LE option.

okfoz

1) The only reason I would think that GM would carry multiple V8 Engines would be this.
a) You could get the cost down on the base LO3 or LG4, '
b) The LB9/A4 with the same cam as the L98/A4 would put performance differences very minimal, why step up to the L98 when you got comparable performance with a 305.
c) The performance of the LB9/M5 and the L98 were comparable, given to the right drivers the LB9/M5 could easily compete performance wise with an L98... The L98 is easier to drive for the simple fact that it is an automatic. In third Gen terms, it always went this way, with the exception of 1984, the top engine got the Auto, and the second engine got the Manual option. I am not entirely sure why this is... I am sure they could have beefed up the M5 to handle the L98, but it may have been a profit issue, Why lose money with one car and make it with another?

2) According to the GTA source page there was 809 GTA's with the MM5 in 1988... This would have been US sales... Your number of 378 would be consistent with Trans Am only production.

3) The most logical explanation to the 10# lighter would be that they were looking at everything to make the car as light as possible... There is a rule of thumb, for every 10% increase in weight, there is an 8% decrease in MPG. If you shave off pounds here and there eventually you get to the point of a good return on investment. Looking at the 4th gen, why else would the front fenders, doors, mirrors be plastic? It was a trade off of weight savings in the panels vs trying to make the car more efficient and or reducing horse power.

4) The 3.42 was given to V6 cars, that is true, however from 1990-1992 the Borg & Warner 3.45 was dropped for one reason, probably cost outweighed the added benefits, so all cars went to the Saginaw axle.

Keep in mind that GM was not only juggling the balances of the EPA, CAFE standards, Horse power, weight, they were also competing with Ford, and Nissan and other companies to get as much from the cars as possible and stay within the guidelines of what the Government mandated through crushing regulations and make them as marketable as possible.

KMK454

This thread is a perfect example of how complicated it could be for consumers and dealers to maximize the performance of a thirdgen. It also gives an answer as to why so many people call these cars slow. Forget one or two cryptic options and you're 305 has a small cam or you're struggling at the stoplight with a conservatively geared open differential.

Careful... you're going to stir up the L98 hornet's nest...

chazman

iTrader: (4)

Just imagine the salesperson's face when you order all of that unheard of stuff, AND the DX3, decal delete.

BTW, DX3 also came with a ~$65 credit. After I convinced one sales person that this option actually existed, he thought my motives were to save money now and add the decals later.

okfoz

I own a L98... the best kind, in a convertible that is really 1 of 42

TTOP350

iTrader: (8)

Me toooo!

Slater126

iTrader: (1)

GM probably wanted a 5-speed manual F-body that could compete with the LX/GT 5.0 manual and the T5 couldn't handle the L98's torque. So they made a hot LB9 for that purpose which included 3.42/3.45 gears and the cam they already designed for the 1985 LB9 (and which they were using in the L98).

As I said, mine has a lope at idle and is pretty noisy at highway speeds because the gears keep the revs up. Non-enthusiast consumers who wanted show over go wouldn't be happy with that. So Chevy also kept the 1986-spec LB9 engine for those buyers, which had a smoother idle and was more relaxed at highway speeds with the 2.73 or 3.08 gears they included with it.

I think that's evident by the fact that the peanut LB9 was the only choice for T-Top and convertible cars in 1990-92 (except the diamond spoke Formulas, LOL!). And Z28 coupes in 1991-92 with the weaker LB9 had skinnier P235/55-16 tires with taller sidewalls, likely for better comfort.

zimmstoy

iTrader: (3)

I talked to the folks at the GM Archive. They are going to see what they can find as far as production figures go. They don't believe they have much on the Pontiac side but said they would try. I'll keep you all posted.

A1cRandy

Sweet man

Zepher

iTrader: (1)

My 88 formula had some neat options,
Aluminum driveshaft
Aluminum multispoke inflatable spare
3.27 9 bolt with drums
Grey dash with grey covered map pocket insert

I did convert it to a manual myself, swapped the a4 with the t5 from a friends 88 GTA

Car put down 195/273 with only exhaust, which I think is pretty decent for a car rated at 195 flywheel HP.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=rza_uG-ClX0

balloonfoot

I'm new here and a Corvette guy....so please be kind. I just bought an '89 IROC convertible....black/brown leather/LB9/5 speed/ G80/J65/N10....is this possible? I know these RPO stickers can be faked......but this is just an old original looking car. What say you?

GTA50

"2) According to the GTA source page there was 809 GTA's with the MM5 in 1988... This would have been US sales... Your number of 378 would be consistent with Trans Am only production."

I probably should have mentioned that this was for Canadian production. If I play the percentage game, it comes out at about 160 or so GTA LB9/5 speeds for 1988.

QUICKCHICKEN

iTrader: (12)

when "exactly" in 89 was the N10 released? my LB9/MM5/3.45 Formula didnt have that option and its build date was 12/88.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

Late in '89. I tried ordering in the fall of '88 and the N10 was still on hold so I waited afew months before placing my order. My IROC was built in May of '89, and my car was placed in the Van Nuys holding lot for several weeks, until it's N10 exhaust got final EPA certification.

QUICKCHICKEN

iTrader: (12)

thanx Chaz, explains plenty.

1983LU5TA

My 91 Formula is a factory LB9/5-speed/3.42 posi, oil cooler, J65, G92/N10/CC1 with FACTORY t-tops

AmorgetRS

iTrader: (6)

Interesting that you actually have the G92 RPO code. Post a picture of your SPID and black out the VIN if you don't want it shown.

1983LU5TA

By listing G92, I meant I have every option available in the G92 package. The hotter LB9, 5-speed, 3.42 posi, oil cooler, dual cat exhaust, 4 wheel disc brakes, aluminum spare, and factory t-tops.

AmorgetRS

iTrader: (6)

Your Formula is almost identical to mine except I don't have J65. You should have the RPO code R6P, which is almost the same as G92 for the Firebirds.

TTOP350

iTrader: (8)

Yeah, its odd that GM did it (R6P/G92) different for the birds but they did.

timfitz63

Well, I'd certainly like to know the answer to this production number question as well... And for obvious reasons: I own one of these cars. I'm also probably the indirect source of the 42 number being questioned here.

I'll be the first to admit that the number (42) is unsubstantiated. The only things I have to back it are an exchange on another forum (link already referenced earlier in this thread) from someone who claims to have these numbers squirreled away in old, work-related documents from GM; and a copy of the Car & Driver article from March 1990 (unfortunately, the scanned .pdf copy I made of the original article is too large to attach to this thread, and I don't have the original article handy with which to make an 'uploadable' copy; but I'll provide the .pdf I have to anyone who wants it -- PM me with an e-mail address).

I understand the skepticism expressed earlier in this thread about informational sources; and to an extent, I share it. But Car & Driver, I would think, is a reliable source. The printed article pre-dates the 'explosion' of information (and misinformation) readily available through the internet, and I'm presuming Car & Driver verified the information with Pontiac before publishing a number sure to raise some eyebrows. To date, neither I or anyone else I've encountered so far have produced any concrete information with which to dispute the "only about 50" number issued so many years ago by Car & Driver, so I at least treat it as factual, but unverified. I will admit, however, that I've always found that particular passage in the article to be somewhat poorly-written and unclear.

For whatever it's worth: over the intervening years, I've kept something of an informal survey of the number of times I've personally encountered an LB9/MM5/G80/N10/GM3 combination in a '89-'92 Firebird Formula; In 20+ years, I've maybe encountered one other -- from Pennsylvania to Maryland to Kansas to Texas (where my car has resided during those years). And over the past 3-4 years I've seen possibly 5-10 come up for sale on sites like AutoTrader. Again, hardly a scientific sampling. But they definitely don't turn up often... Even Trans Ams from this era, equipped with this powertrain combination, don't pop up very often. And I do know that engine wiring harnesses for this particular combination of options (LB9/MM5 in an '89 F-Body Pontiac) are absolutely impossible to find in salvage -- which again implies small productions numbers...

Taking just the 1989 model year, I suspect that more Trans Ams than Formulas with the LB9/MM5 combination were produced; the Trans Am was just the more popular model, so it makes sense more of them were produced, in general. A lot of the LB9 Formulas that were produced were equipped with automatics, so they were ineligible for the N10 (dual catalytic converter) option. And as someone already noted, the N10 option wasn't even available until late in the '89 production run; I got lucky and ordered mine just before they stopped accepting orders for the '89 production run, so I got the N10 exhaust. So it's conceivable that very few LB9/MM5/N10 Formulas were made -- in '89, at least.

okfoz

I actually suspect that given the information I have looked at over the years, chances are that the 1 of 50 may be in reference to a particular color... Trend wise that would be Consistent for what I have seen for 90-92.

John

timfitz63

That's a possibility. As I recall, for the '89 model year, there were only four colors offered on the Formula: black, white, red, and silver blue (sometimes called "Maui blue") metallic. At least those were the only choices indicated in the Pontiac model-line brochures I remember perusing during that time...

okfoz

You are correct, as per the Dealer order worksheet there was 4 solid colors (WX1)
Silver Blue (Maui Blue)
White
Black
Bright Red
& Two tone combinations:
Silver Blue (Maui) over Silver
Black over Silver
Bright Red over Silver
White over Med Gray

There may have been more options later in the year, but as per the beginning of the year that was it.

John

TA

iTrader: (1)

I see where T-tops were not available with the T5/N10 in 1990, but I have a Formula with exactly those features.

TA

chazman

iTrader: (4)

Pontiac seems to have done their own thing with "G92". I've seen several Firebirds with all of the G92 stuff, but no G92 code on the SPID. And apparently, you could combine all of that with T-tops as well.

xcalibur

Yep, both you and timfitz63 are right. When I ordered my '89 Formy 350 in Flame Red metallic, w/2-tone delete, the factory initially rejected my order, since at that time, Flame Red metallic was a "Trans AM only" color. The dealer stepped up to the plate, and said "Build it". Mine was also built w/o N10 which was added later at the dealers.

white1991rs

I was told my Formula might be one of the one in 42, is this true?

Heres my codes

TA

iTrader: (1)

This makes sense to me, I do not have code G92 on my car, but apparently that was only a valid code for Chevys? Mine has all of the options associated with that code, but mine has code R6A. Is there a listing of what all of these codes mean on this or another site somewhere?

Also, my car arrived with a mixture of 16" Formula wheels and 16" GTA crosslaced wheels on it. Which code tells me what the correct wheels are that it was delivered with?

I did a vin search on CompNine a few years ago, and it showed just under 400 LB9/MM5 Formulas built in '90, which is quite a low number. But remember '90 was a shortened production year, so I am highly skeptical that there were only 50 produced of these cars in any production year they were available.

TA

AmorgetRS

iTrader: (6)

If you have the RPO PW7 then you had the "GTA style" crosslace rims.

R6A was a value package, nothing to do with performance options.

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/hist...-code-r6a.html

TEDSgrad

iTrader: (4)

As an original owner, I have some docs - who knows which boxes they're in. I'll post up a few. This is a spec sheet I was going over with a salesman. Option sheet has '88 printing for '89 cars. I'm not sure about late year twin cat option, but it's listed here in '88 sheet.

TEDSgrad

iTrader: (4)

Here's a few from the Pontiac Handbook. Upload keeps failing. I'll try again, later.

In one of the Pontiac publications, I remember the Formula caption, "Make Vroom for Daddy."

TEDSgrad

iTrader: (4)

And some options

AmorgetRS

iTrader: (6)

Can you explain what you mean by the" Option sheet has '88 printing for '89 cars" and "it's listed here in the '88 sheet"?

TEDSgrad

iTrader: (4)

Document was printed in '88 for cars of '89 vintage as they debut in Sept. My salesman friend told me to buy in Aug. The dealer is looking to blow out inventory for next year models coming in, AND insurance rates go down as it is a year old. I almost waited too long - I had to buy a demo with 3500 miles on the odometer.

From that same handbook, a Vegas shot of a notchback.

TEDSgrad

iTrader: (4)

It could be that Pontiac published everything, then was held up by CARB. I don't ever recall hearing that, though. I attempted to purchase an '88, then held off a year and got the '89 in Aug of '89.
Immediately took a road trip to a CART race @ Road America. Then in December, drove from Mpls to Santa Barbara; drove up and down entire length of PCH; drove back to Mpls and stored it with 33,500 miles on odometer!

AmorgetRS

iTrader: (6)

Thanks, that makes sense and what I thought you meant. I just wanted to make sure that there was no confusion going forward that you were saying that the N10 was listed as available for the 88 MY.

TEDSgrad

iTrader: (4)

No, option started for MY '89, but was published in documents listing the option in Aug '88.
Previous poster stated his order delayed in order to get that option. Don't doubt his experience, just his conclusion that it was late year option. Delays occur for variety of reasons. Powerful dealerships could steal his place and be given a different excuse. I'm just showing that the options were published as early as Aug '88 for MY '89. Docs show dual cats required. Don't think they would enter production runs without CARB approval. But there is a separate option charge listed specifically for CA emissions - $100

TA

iTrader: (1)

Thanks TEDS, it was awesome to be able to see the original sales brochure, and I now know someone put in a GTA radio as well as learning that it should have the "deep dish" (Std Formula) wheels.

TA

timfitz63

Well, that's essentially the $64,000 question, as it were... Based on the best information I've been given -- which, admittedly, is word-of-mouth and largely unverifiable at this time -- only 42 Formulas were built during the '89 model year with this combination of options (LB9/N10/MM5/G80/GM3). That may, in part, be due to the late introduction of the N10 exhaust onto the vehicles. Your option code sticker shows your vehicle to be one of those in question, but no one (including myself) can seem to produce any hard production numbers for '89 Firebirds...

But a Car & Driver article from about a year later (March 1990 issue, as I recall -- don't have it in front of me at this moment) made a vague statement about the number of Formula models being produced with this option combination, essentially reporting that fewer than 50 were being made each year (at least up to that point). The inference I took from the article was that the overwhelming majority of Formulas built with the LB9 engine were equipped with an automatic transmission, making them ineligible to receive the N10 exhaust upgrade. In the same article, Car & Driver also reported that Pontiac claimed the 'sleeper' LB9/N10/MM5/G80/GM3 Formula was the top performer in the Firebird line -- even out-performing the heavier 5.7L TPI/automatic cars, in particular, the Trans Am GTA, which was apparently about 300 pounds heavier than the LB9/N10/MM5/G80/GM3 Formula...

JT

iTrader: (1)

I have the 1989 Pontiac order book with a print date of 4/88 and it mentions the dual-cat system, not by RPO code, at that point.

eseibel67

Formula in that configuration is one sweet hot rod. No doubt it would outperform GTA with same drivetrain due to weight. Certainly GTA is heavier that Formula, but I doubt the power seats and body cladding add 300 pounds. A completely stripped Formula (no PW, no A/C, etc.) might have greater weight savings.

90 GTA Black

Car companies did that back then plus you could order options individually. Then a bean counter figured out that they could make more money by limiting choices and ended the idea of a personalized car.

TEDSgrad

iTrader: (4)

They actually had a name for it: Quality Function Development

white1991rs

Man, I really appreciate all this information on the car. If you (or anyone) ever find a way verify the number of LB9/N10/MM5/G80/GM3's produced please contact me.

timfitz63

Yeah, I've kind of questioned that for years... But now that you bring it up here, and I review the article more closely, what it actually says is:So I've been mis-interpreting this passage for years now, thinking they were saying the Formula and Trans Am GTA differ by 300 pounds; in reality, they're saying the base Firebird is 300 pounds lighter than the Trans Am GTA... My bad...

No worries! Glad to help!

eseibel67

Hope not to take this thread off track, but now that we're talking about weight, a 300 pound diff between a basic 5 speed stripper and a full boat GTA is much more believable. Auto, A/C, Aero spoiler and cast iron calipers add up.

okfoz

The truth is the Formula is much lighter than a GTA or Trans Am. There is more missing than just the Ground effects.

Here is the Vehicle Mass as per Pontiac...

Formula - LB9 - 3334#
GTA - L98 - 3519#

Here are some options and their total weight:
A31 - Pow Windows + 2.2#
B29 - Lux Interior + 1.8#
CC1 - T-tops + 15.4
C60 - A/C +19.4 LB9, +19.0 LB8, +18.6 LO3, +18.8 L98
C67 - A/C Electronic +19.6
D81 - Spoiler +7.2
J65 - Disc Brakes +3.6
K34 - Cruise Control + 2.2
(Engines are too complicated right now)
MD8 - Automatic Trans
+ 17.2 with LB8 Engine
+ 41.4 with L03, LB9 & L98
N33 - Tilt Steering +1

It all adds up

TA

iTrader: (1)

I have G80 but not GM3 on my '90 Formula LB9/N10/MM5 car. Can you guys clue me in as to what those options are?

timfitz63

Here are a couple sites that help to decode the RPO's:

http://www.c2e.info/rpocodes/
http://www.lesabret-type.com/GMRPOCodes.html

G80 = AXLE, POSITRACTION, LIMITED SLIP
GM3 = AXLE REAR, 3.45 RATIO

If you don't have the 3.45 differential ratio, you've probably got something close to that (like 3.42 = GU6, for example). I don't know if other ratios were available on the '90 Formulas; I thought all the Third-Gen LB9/N10/MM5 cars got a 3.45 ratio...?