chazman

iTrader: (4)

Just for the record and not to derail this thread, I took the spare tire cover off my '89 'vert, (pretty sure I'm the first one to ever do that), and it is the standard N65 steel wheel, confirmed with a magnet. It is not listed at all on the SPID, nor have I been able to decode anything else on the SPID to denote a spare tire.

PurelyPMD

iTrader: (3)

So to sumarize the spare tire section - the early use of the N64 RPO code did not indicate the use of the 1LE spare in early years and it would seem from Mark's statements that the correct 1LE spare that fit the PBR aluminum brakes was introduced sometime in 1988. Although randomly used afterwards in cars for weight reduction & to help with CAFE requirements, it was most commonly found in cars with the PBR Rear Disc brakes after their transition into regular production in 1989.

Is that about right?

B4C5.7

iTrader: (2)

I agree Chris that this is right. If a regular spare tire is bolted onto a PBR rear car it will fit the bolt pattern and bolt up, BUT will bind on the cooling ribs of the caliper and will then grind a 'nifty' line perpendicular to the cooling ribs as the inside of the spare rubs the caliper. If you have PBR brakes you must have the N64 15 aluminum spare to prevent damage.

On rear springs....My T-top 1LE has 8NL and 9NL rear springs as does Chris' '91 Formula t-top 1LE.

Question 1: Is the 8NL 9NL spring used on '91 hardtop 1LE Camaros?
Question 2: is the 8NL 9NL spring used on '91 Pontiac hardtop 1LE cars?

I know these springs are not 1LE specific....just trying to sort the 1LE usage.

Time2Fly

My '91 1LE Camaro has RPOs 8NL 9NL.

Mark_ZZ3

Players cars ... (selected for ride height)

Camaros had NNN
Trans Ams had NNL

Fronts were CDB on both.

Mark.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

I've seen a later 1LE with 6D8 and 7D8 fronts and 8NN and 9NN rears.

Any comment on that, Mark?

PurelyPMD

iTrader: (3)

I don't believe the springs were 1LE specific at all - seem to be standard production items common to the lines. No more specific than a door handle.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

I think they might have been merely coded for the "shorties".

Time2Fly

That's my exact spring package.

LiquidBlue

Do a poll and see what people have around the forum. My hunch GM was simply saving money while at the same time transitioning all of their products over to rear disks, drums were simply going the way of the dinosaur. Its likely GM's long range plans for all cars to receive rear disks were already starting to go into motion by 1988.

My non-1LE Formula has NNL in rear, BZW up front. The spring rates were year dependent from what I've studied (other things like sway bar sizes come into play), and since computer selected, I'm assuming based on weight of car when all other things equal in the drive-train/suspension setup. A Formula spoiler is quite heavy compared to the Camaro Z28.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

Same on my non-1LE '89 G92.

Mark_ZZ3

Players cars were special in that they were ordered with specific springs to obtain ride height. I believe this was part of the R7U or one of the other R7? codes. Most players cars had the other R7 codes.

A non-R7U car will follow whatever GM used for spring calculations. Heavier cars got stiffer springs in order to keep ride height appropriate. Hence if your 1LE had more or less options, or Trans AM to Camaro, the springs will change.

If we were to list all 1LE's known (excluding Players), we could see how the weight was most likely the driver to what springs were chosen.

Mark.

Time2Fly

When I purchased the car in '02, I took it directly to a truck stop Cat brand "certified" scale and it registered 3280 pounds. I have no idea of the accuracy of those scales though. The car has no options.

jmd

iTrader: (4)

He's wrong.
The new-for-1982 non-1LE rotors were spec'd with a different bearing set and got metric studs compared to prior years. All SS and all GN had the same rotors.

Wow, you found it after all these years! I had wondered where that came from. Whoever did the math or the typo could have been a tooth off on first gear count, or had the 3.75 first gear T5 in mind. We'll never know.

They also specified 5W30 for the T5 on the same page (79,) which is another mis-print; should be Dexron II.

PurelyPMD

iTrader: (3)

Sorry all, been very busy with work & family commitments lately - back on subject!

For the JG1 Aluminum Driveshaft - does anyone have any SPIDs of non 1LE cars in 1988 or even 1989 they can show where the driveshaft was installed from the factory? Can we assume the driveshaft was developed for the program and then was utilized more broadly than the 1LE & R7U program cars as an advantage in meeting CAFE standards?

Time2Fly

I was incorrect here, according to my SPID my spring package is 6DB 7DB 8NL 9NL.

okfoz

There were certain things that triggered the JG1, like 1LE, but beyond the 1LE there does not appear to be any other single option that mandated the JG1, there may have been a few, so tracking it backwards by the numbers seems to be difficult. Also R7U I do not believe mandated it either as there are many Formulas out there with the R7U but no JG1 AFAIK.

John

chazman

iTrader: (4)

I have found that JG1 was triggered by 1LE or heavily optioned units with auto/t-top/etc. Basically the heaviest cars.

yaj15

iTrader: (3)

Yes thats true. My 1988 IROC is a non-1LE but I have the L98/t-tops/option level 3. I have the aluminum spare and the JG1 aluminium drive shaft.

JT

iTrader: (1)

More than half of 1988 GTAs got the JG1. My '88 T/A 305TPI/Auto with CC1 also has the JG1 with rear drums.

okfoz

The Weight issue would make sense since they were always struggling to keep the weight down on these cars for the mighty EPA. My 89 Formula 350 Convert does not have the JG1, and it is pretty loaded. It was a CC1, L98, with power everything except the rear defog (obviously because it did not need it being it was ordered to be a convertible)

xcalibur

Sounds like the scale was right on the money. The shipping tag for my '89 350 Formula (lightly optioned w/only A/C & CC), was 3262.

Mark_ZZ3

I uploaded an article that compares a stock 1989 Iroc to a R7U ... a great picture on the third page that shows the ride height difference. Hence the spring changes selected for the racing cars for lower height.

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/hist...ml#post6061952

Mark.

Maplehawk

Adding to the data here:

My 1991 VIN Firehawk has:

Rear Shocks Part # 22089138

Rear springs no GM tag

Front Sway Bar 4094344, Tag "DDJ"

Front Spring Tag

Rear Lower Control Arms have "LE" stamped on one side. Stamped # "01 1091P". Might be a date?

okfoz

Best guess 01 1091P would be (Shift 1, 10th week of 1991)

Maplehawk

That would fit. The car was build in the second week of July 1991. Tracking as many part #s and date codes as I can while I work on the car. I don't use photobucket so posting images a bit of a hassle.

okfoz

Keeping in mind that production started the end of February, that would mean that part would have been either made in early March, (if they used the Julian Date) or the end of April early June, if they started week 1 the end of February.

Maplehawk

Are you confusing 1990 and 1991? I know the MY 1991 assembly started in 1990 earlier than normal with the various body and mechanical updates. This car was made July 1991 over a year into the assembly of 1991s. It's one of the early Firehawks with a 91 VIN. Most parts I'm able to date code are Q1, Q2 1991. Oldest was 1987!

okfoz

I was not going to post that, after I realized you stated your car was made in July of 1991. I do not know why it posted... I exited out without posting. hmm..

I suspect the part would have been made around early/middle of March 1991 based on what I suspect the code represents.

John

Mark_ZZ3

An update on 1989 1LE Trans Ams.

In Canada, there were 20 exported. All have been accounted for.

The first two cars were ordered by GM Engineering of Canada and both cars were registered to GM of Canada for street use. These were test mules, and marketing cars. One of these cars was recently discovered and may be on it's way to restoration.
The next 17 cars were all R7U players challenge cars. A number of them are still on the road.
The last car, was ordered after the R7U batch, was used in Firehawk racing from the get go. It recently just surfaced in Canada for sale.

So all 20 Canadian cars have been found or identified. All VIN's accounted for.

And for 1989 1LE Camaros ... 76 Came to Canada, the first two went to GM Engineering same as the first two Trans Ams. Car 1 was wrecked in 1998. Car 2 is in my garage. The other 74 were R7U Players Challenge cars. Many still exist, and some even on the road courses.

Mark.

okfoz

Thank you Mark

asquinton

My 91 350 1LE Formula has a black stamped spare. I'm not sure if it's aluminum or steel. I had an 88 standard Formula 350 and it had a multi-spoke cast aluminum spare.

As far as options go, I ordered my 1LE new in March of 1990. I ordered the car with the 1LE option, premium sound system, rear window defogger and the rear hatch cover. I selected the options to make it drivable when hitting the streets.

asquinton

Yep, I had a 88 Formula 350 with an aluminum driveshaft.

okfoz

There were 2 Aluminum spares I know of, The Aluminum spoke one in the earlier cars, and the later stamped Black Spare. My 89 Formula 350 has the Aluminum Black Stamped Spare BTW.

N64 was used for both, it depended on the year. I think the 1LE cars 88+ got the larger black aluminum and all 4 wheel disc brake cars for 89+ got the large black one.
Not sure, the RPO s do not differentiate.

Mark_ZZ3

Have a look in this post .... https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/hist...res-query.html

I did some number crunching on where N64 came out and with what options. The spoked one was a pre-89 item. The 89-up was typically assigned to heavy cars (T-top, Trans Ams). And of course ... had to have G80 posi with rear disc brakes.

Mark.

sergio1025

I'm looking into buying a 1991 ....1LE
its red with light tan/ light brown interior ...It has body side moldings. Did they delete for a 1LE.
Where can I find the numbers to see how many built for 91 and the colors
My Camaro white book says 478 1LE built that year. Than I heard 585 made.

Big&BadGTA

iTrader: (1)

My understanding was, the black aluminum spare was used to clear the brakes on 89+ cars. 88 silver alumn. ones would not.

Mark_ZZ3

Talking with a tech inspector for the race series who worked closely with GM ... the story is about the front sway bars. In 89 the 1LE cars whether TA or Camaro came with many of the same parts. The front and rear sway bars were the same being 36mm front and 24mm rear (usually Camaro had 34mm) I had thought it was to make handling equal ... well that is only part of the story. The 36mm is actually lighter than the 34mm solid sway bar which was more the reasoning instead of handling. (I actually though the 36mm hollow might be stiffer than the 34mm solid).

89 1LE was also a one year specific where the Camaro front frame brace, aka the wonderbar came on both the Camaro and TA along with the same sway bars. This changed in later years and the front brace did not appear on either car. This may have been an R7U thing as it is referenced in the rules as being added by the teams in 1990, and then not needed in 1991.

R7U were different cars for sure, however they used 1LE. When you look at a buildsheet for a R7U car, the R7U codes appears in the option groups it is needed such as Engine and Power Steering. The front sway bar is listed as "DJ" for the camaro which is the 36mm hollow. No R7U code there. My believe is that the sway bar was another item in the 1LE selection of parts. The parts catalogs in 1990-up don't reference it specifically as a 1LE part which makes the story somewhat foggy. Would need to look at more build sheets. Looking at buildsheets from 88-older players cars, Camaros had the DD front sway bar and Trans Am had the DJ front sway bar. So 89 they both had DJ. Curious did all Camaros change to the 36mm? I didn't think so.

Of the 89 1LEs I've seen, they all have the 36mm/24mm. These are all early ones. Some of the BAT auction cars that went through had some decent photos underneath and I could see the DDJ front sway bar as well. So maybe more truth to that. There is still no definitive list with a GM stamp on it which lists these variances. Observation is our best tool.

Anyways some 1LE trivia.
Mark.

okfoz

A little update on the JG1 Aluminum driveshaft (and Firebirds)
JG1 was available on the following
1988 - Formula, Trans Am & GTA
1989-1990 - Trans Am & GTA Only
1991-1992 - Formula, Trans Am & GTA
Other than The 91-92 Formulas which it was tied to the 1LE/G92 RPO, JG1 There does not seem to be a consistency to what they came on. The numbers do not add up for L98's & LB9/MK5 cars or anything I can quickly figure out.

nothingssafe

My guess is any vehicle that received the aluminum drive shaft without the 1LE RPO most likely was too overweight for CAFE standards. A few pounds here and there of savings when built like this would allow options / RPO combos not normally allowed without recertification and gas guzzler taxes.

Mark_ZZ3

"gas guzzler taxes"

Somewhere I recall reading that ... maybe on TGO. Seems to make sense why they came up with the ligher weight spare and driveshaft (and hollow swaybar and lexan t-tops) to begin this. Then just borrow these for racing.

JT

iTrader: (1)

It's been noted before, but my 1988 Trans Am with the 305 TPI (LB9) and T-Tops has the JG1 and 2.73 gears on the RPO sticker along with the PW7 wheels.

TTOP350

iTrader: (8)

In the Pontiac parts book, it calls for the wonder/wander bar to be used in WS6 and 1LE cars. It's been a while since I've seen it but will try and get another picture of its listed uses.

LeonardS

If the line had cars coming and the proper driveshaft wasn’t available, they would use what they had. 406 cars had to be completed on each shift. They were not opposed to using what was available. This would make me believe that you might never know how the driveshafts were selected.

Mark_ZZ3

Ok cool. Trying to piece it all together. Curious what years it applied to as the racing cars stopped using them in 1990 or 1991.

JT

iTrader: (1)

At what point was the SPID sticker printed? I'd take it the master build sheet was already printed and used during assembly, so that would show what it should have, but what about the SPID sticker?

In my case, I have the JG1 Aluminum driveshaft and the RPO code on the SPID so it was correct for the car at the build time.

LeonardS

Good question. It had to be printed after the VIN was assigned, since the VIN is on the SPID. I don’t recall at what point in the process the SPID was installed, but I do know for a fact, that they used parts that were available, whether they were the right part or not.

Mark_ZZ3

This story also goes to the 1990 Iroc made early on .. .Sep ... which came with the BW 9 bolt 3.45 instead of the Saginaw 10 bolt 3.42. I've seen a few folks with the 9 bolts where they should have the 10 bolt ... RPO says 3.42 but the diff is 10 bolt. They could be a warranty replacement is the most likely story or the assembly line swap is the other one.

Mark.

okfoz

Do you mean to say the "RPO says 3.42 but the diff is 9 bolt"?

okfoz

The weight of the vehicle definitely played a part into what options a car could get. Way back with the S/E Firebird certain options were NA because it cause the car to weigh too much. Same thing with the 87 GTA with a US Spec, You could not get T-tops, the rear Shade or the subwoofer on an 87 GTA with the 350... If you use a Lightweight Aluminum driveshaft, that would easily offset the weight of the rear shade and the subwoofer components, but Probably not enough for the T-tops however. Granted almost every year there were improvements to efficiency of the engine just with using a serpentine belt starting in 1988, efficiency was increased. It was the little things, I think in some part to remove the black paint from the section between the windshield and the engine bay was probably an exercise in reducing weight, at least costs...