Talk:Chevrolet Camaro (fourth generation)

message: This article plays off the 1998+ Camaros to be more aerodynamic but this is the complete lie. Just the fact that someone thought the redesigned headlamps makes the 1998+ Camaro more aerodynamic makes me laugh at how little the common person knows about the world around them even though it is ruled by the obvious laws of science and physics.
~~RDS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.23.206 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horribly Inaccurate!!! 

message: Are there any good sources out there for actual beginning and end years, and possibly photographs, of all of the different wheel styles they used?  There were quite a few and some are similar 'enough' in verbal description that photos would probably help.  I'd try to contribute some but we don't have any fourthgens in the family anymore :)
Off-hand, I can think of:
*1993-? Base V6 steelies with the hideous hubcaps that were a few slices short of being a solid grey plastic disc
*1993-? Salad shooters.  I could've sworn they dropped those after 1995 but the article shows a "1996" with the shooters.
*1996-? ZR1-style.  I know there are plenty of 16" versions around but I don't know that GM ever put those on Camaros, I think the only factory ones were 17".
*200?-2002 'Split spoke' - usually on the V6 from what I've seen.  Five spokes at the hub, each of which splits to two spokes so it's 10 spokes at the rim of the wheel.
*200?-2002 10-spoke - V8 only, a proper 10-spoke with 10 straight spokes from the hub to the rim.
Ayocee 19:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheels? 

message: While metric conversions were properly performed by assuming that the engine displacements were exactly 5.7 liters, this was not the case.  The displacements were marketed as "350 cubic inch" small block Chevy engines.  With a bore of 4" and a stroke of 3.48", the displacement was really 349.85 cubic inches or 5.7330 liters. kevinthenerd 14:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point - is there an auto template that starts at cubic inches and works backwards?  Neither the LT1 or LS1 were exactly 5.7L - the LT1 is 350 cubes and the LS1 is 346. Ayocee 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Auto_CID Roguegeek (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Displacement units 

message: I think the power output stated for LS1 V8 engines is incomplete, and for the '01 and '02 model years, incorrect.  For one, I'm quite certain that the correct rating for an '01 or '02 Z28 is 310hp and 340 lb-ft of torque.  I can produce any of a dozen different magazines as sources to prove it; here's one:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/01q2/chevy_camaro_vs.chrysler_sebring_ford_mustang_mitsubishi_eclipse_toyota_camry_solara-comparison_tests
To be specific, the ratings are as follows:
'98-00 Z28: 305 hp, 335 lb-ft
'01-02 Z28: 310 hp, 340 lb-ft
'98-00 SS: 320 hp, 340 lb-ft 
'01-02 SS: 325 hp, 345 lb-ft
The change in 2001 was caused by the inclusion of the intake manifold from the LS6 (used in the Corvette Z06, which came out the same year) in combination with a milder camshaft profile.
All of the above are underrated, presumably to keep the Camaro from outshining its like-engined sibling (the Corvette) at half the price.  True power output is in the 345-350hp range, regardless of whether it's a Z28 or an SS.
SS models were available with some factory-installed performance upgrades by SLP.  With all of the option boxes checked, the horsepower rating jumped to 345 in 2002 (and presumably 340 in '98-00 models, although I've not seen that spec before).  Truthfully, those options brought horsepower levels closer to 365-370.
Jakerobb (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  LS1 power output 

message: The photograph of the white 2000 Camaro should be replaced. It displays the LT1 style tail lights which would not have been found on a car of that year from the factory. Not to mention, the photos are a ridiculously low resolution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.93.208 (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Photograph 

message: Need details on this engine used as referred to by the 1995 section stating that would be the last year for the 3.4L engine. From what I've gathered the v6 engine used in 1996 was a 3.8L V6 not sure of series or displacement, things I would presume others might like to know and would contribute to the entirety of the project.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.83.122 (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1996 V6 engine 

message: This is a proposal that the Chevrolet Camaro B4C "stub-class" article be merged into this Chevrolet Camaro (fourth generation) article. Per WP Automobile Project conventions, the separate article that covers only the fourth-generation Camaro police package option should be part of this specific "generation" article. CZmarlin (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The 1993 subsection says this:
:Production was moved from GM's Van Nuys, California assembly plant to Sainte-Thérèse, Quebec, Canada in 1993.
The 2002 subsection says this:
:The Boisbriand plant, the only GM plant in Canada outside of Ontario, then closed down.
The plant where 4th gen Camaros were built is this: Sainte-Thérèse_Assembly
I propose:
# a link to the assembly plant page in the 1993 section
# consistent naming of the plant in the 2002 section (Sainte-Thérèse, not Boisbriand)
Proper reference to the relevance of the name Boisbriand are on the plant's page under Current Re-development.
Jakerobb (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plant name and link 

message: The 4th gen's upper and lower A-arm with coil-over setup in the front is just flat out superior to the MacPherson strut fronts of the 3rd gen. The 4th gen's rack& pinion steering mechanism is much quicker to respond to driver's inputs than the 3rd gen's pitman arm/drag link setup.
--139.169.222.117 (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification for first paragraph