92 Camaro RS
 

Hey. Don't discount my V8. With very few mods I'm pulling down 25 MPG on a 50 mile round trip commute with only 9 miles of highway. There is something to be said for torque and high gearing. Soon I'll be datalogging the OBD1 computer and then reprogramming chips. I feel I have a pretty good platform for a "larger" vehicle. I've learned a lot from thirdgen.org. It's a 3rd generation Camaro/Firebird website with VERY knowledgable people.

Welcome to the site! Don't forget to fill out a fuel log, I'm interested to see what kind of numbers you'll be posting.

I've been admiring your cars design ever since it came out.
I was shocked to see that the .Cd was so high on the car. ( .32 ! )
It seemed to have such a sleek design.
Not only does the car have a super low front end that is shaped by the wind, but it also has a backlight that is curved not only in the side, but also the plan view. The sides of the car end in a sleek boattailed design, the windshield is also not only angled back, but also curved as well in the plan view.

What a beautiful design. I see so much potential for it, and wonder what the .Cd would be if you cleaned it up a bit.

One thing that I noticed right away was the area below the spoiler. It is rounded and air would tend to leave a large wake here ( more drag )
Hot Rod magazine even suggested plugging the gap with a 'towel' ( their words ) to see an improvement in drag.
Also look below the bumper - see the parachute effect created by the bumper ?
That's a lot of drag right there.

If I had a new Camaro ( I once had a '69 BTW) I would drop it and put on an airdam.

Such a cool looking car.

Welcome! Glad to have you here. Truck and V-8 powered car owners are more than welcome here.

I miss my Camaro. It went hand in hand with the mullet ;)

Welcome to EM, 92s had the 5.0? or the 5.7?

what kind of gearing do you have in it?

was it one from the '80's?

92 you could get either. IIRC the only way you didn't have the 350 option was if you had the 5sp and T-Tops. I learned the hard way why they did that. The 5 speed coupled with the weakened frame allowed for a lot of body flex. I put a 350 in my iroc 5 speed with t-tops and popped one of the t-tops off when i floored it one day... 1k per t-top:eek:

Welcome to the forum, I'm a big fan of those cars, I've had 5 of them in my day.

Thanks for the welcome. My car is an RS. The Z28 had the 350. mine is a 305(5.0 liter). It has a 2.73 rear and a 4 speed OD automatic. I think the 4th gear is .57(?)..
The original design of the car was for emissions first and economy second. As as near stock car at 113,000 miles, it's getting 24mpg combined. My 2004 mazda 6 is getting that. That's disappointing.
I'm not the King of Maintenance but I'm becoming more diligent. I'm just getting started on the mechanical side while it's my DD ,so mods be slow for a while.The biggest problem with the car is wet traction and body flex after 16 years.
I've adjusted my driving habits and picked up 2MPG or so. I'm now disgusted by other drivers who feel it's necessary to do 80 or even 90 on the highway. I wish I had their money. Apparently they don't need it.

reformed, huh learn something new every day

icarus, I suppose being a unibody you can't brace the main rails?

Haha yea, thankfully most daily life lessons aren't so expensive.. and to answer your other question directed at the op, you can put sub-frame connectors in those cars. If you get the weld in ones, they basically take the body flex right out of the equation.