# Bad buy or good buy?



## spacemule (Jan 13, 2009)

I just won this and am wondering how I did. Air conditioning doesn't bother me--I can fix anything that's wrong with that myself, and I figure that's good for $800 right there if i want to resale. 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320330431505&ssPageName=ADME:B:BCA:MOTORS:1123


----------



## mantis (Jan 14, 2009)

You paid 1,125 and want to sell it for 800??


----------



## spacemule (Jan 14, 2009)

mantis said:


> You paid 1,125 and want to sell it for 800??


I meant I think it would bring $800 more with the air working.


----------



## epicklein22 (Jan 14, 2009)

I say that is an average deal, but who wants a 6 cylinder with an automatic? Nobody, but chicks and people that don't care about performance.


----------



## spacemule (Jan 14, 2009)

epicklein22 said:


> I say that is an average deal, but who wants a 6 cylinder with an automatic? Nobody, but chicks and people that don't care about performance.


Yeah, would have liked a v8, but that would have doubled the price.  Besides, v6 has acceptable performance in a small car like that and a heck of a lot better fuel mileage.


----------



## spankrz (Jan 14, 2009)

don't nock the v6's in thease cars. my friend has a 98 firebird with the same setup. he put about 3000 in the engine and put a new exhaust on it, and it will blow by a v8 firebird of the same year. 

and to answer your question, you didn't get ripped off. you didnt get a steal, but hey. fix the a.c., pull that dent, nice billet gas cap, and it would probably sell for quite a bit more, maybe close to 2500-3000. buff down the paint and a new clearcoat, even more. seatcovers couldn't hurt either.


----------



## spankrz (Jan 14, 2009)

by the way, my friend is looking for a camaro. i think he is looking for the 98 type body style, but he might be interested one like this, it isn't much different. if you decide to sell it, pm me and i will let him know.


----------



## spacemule (Jan 14, 2009)

spankrz said:


> by the way, my friend is looking for a camaro. i think he is looking for the 98 type body style, but he might be interested one like this, it isn't much different. if you decide to sell it, pm me and i will let him know.



Will do. Actually, I've never owned or even driven a sports car before, so this will my my first experience with this segment. Don't know if I'll like it or not.


----------



## mantis (Jan 15, 2009)

Well KBB shows a high of 2,675 and a low of 1,900.
http://www.kbb.com/KBB/UsedCars/Pri...789|13642|0|0|&Condition=Good&QuizConditions=

The V6 is not a bad motor. If it is still good you have another 50,000 miles on it if taken care of.But their is not way it will pass by a V8 of the same year unless the guy in the V8 lets him


----------



## 056 kid (Jan 15, 2009)

epicklein22 said:


> I say that is an average deal, but who wants a 6 cylinder with an automatic? Nobody, but chicks and people that don't care about performance.





i know a girl with a KB cobra that will put a hurtin on your neck of you arent ready!!


----------



## spankrz (Jan 15, 2009)

mantis said:


> Well KBB shows a high of 2,675 and a low of 1,900.
> http://www.kbb.com/KBB/UsedCars/Pri...789|13642|0|0|&Condition=Good&QuizConditions=
> 
> The V6 is not a bad motor. If it is still good you have another 50,000 miles on it if taken care of.But their is not way it will pass by a V8 of the same year unless the guy in the V8 lets him



i was in the car with the v8, it was on the floor. keep in mind it was stock and the v6 was a built motor


----------



## outdoorlivin247 (Jan 15, 2009)

spacemule said:


> Will do. Actually, I've never owned or even driven a sports car before, so this will my my first experience with this segment. Don't know if I'll like it or not.



Hope you like rolling in and out of them...They sit to low to the ground for me...Good luck w/ which ever way you go...


----------



## spacemule (Jan 15, 2009)

outdoorlivin247 said:


> Hope you like rolling in and out of them...They sit to low to the ground for me...Good luck w/ which ever way you go...



Yeah, but I'm 5' 7", so being low to the ground ain't a big deal.


----------



## mantis (Jan 16, 2009)

spankrz said:


> i was in the car with the v8, it was on the floor. keep in mind it was stock and the v6 was a built motor



Well that's something different.The 3.4 is a powerhouse and stronger the the V8's of the 80's. MSN auto shows it at 160HP but I thenk that is rated to low.I had a 3.4 in my '95 Olds cutlass supreme.Not sure that ists the same motor but mine put out over 200Hp
The V8 has about 275Hp


----------



## spacemule (Jan 17, 2009)

Drove it home today. I think I did ok, but it does have a few quirks. Got 27 miles per gallon doing 75 on the interstate. Power was acceptable, but not spectacular--exactly what I was expecting. The car looked better in person than it did in the pictures. Motor is very clean and nothing is out of place. 

The air conditioning not working seems to possibly be a problem with the vacuum control. It blows cold air, but will only blow through the defroster. I'm guessing I've got a vacuum line loose somewhere in the dash. Short 2" connecting piece of heater hose is leaking on the side of the water pump--a 10 minute job to fix. Driver's side low beam head light is out. 

Overall, I don't think it was a bad deal for $1,125.


----------



## Rookie1 (Jan 17, 2009)

No it doesnt sound bad at all space. I was curious if it was as good as it looked. Good for you.


----------



## treemandan (Jan 18, 2009)

spacemule said:


> Will do. Actually, I've never owned or even driven a sports car before, so this will my my first experience with this segment. Don't know if I'll like it or not.



That thing will handle like its on rails. Looks like a good resale candidiate, the v6 is sure to please somebody.


----------



## JONSEREDFAN6069 (Jan 18, 2009)

treemandan said:


> the v6 is sure to please somebody.



that v6 couldn't please itself even with a tube of ky and a box of tissues.


----------



## chevytaHOE5674 (Jan 18, 2009)

I used to have a 1995 Trans am with an LT1 and got 26-28 mpg on the highway. I always got the same mileage as my buddies 3.4L camaro but with 2-3x the power. 

They are good cars, but aren't fun to work on.


----------



## spacemule (Jan 18, 2009)

JONSEREDFAN6069 said:


> that v6 couldn't please itself even with a tube of ky and a box of tissues.



Oh give me a break. Car has plenty of power. I was doing 90 at one point coming home before I even realized it and without trying. That kind of car is more about handling than straight line acceleration anyway in my opinion.


----------



## spacemule (Jan 18, 2009)

chevytaHOE5674 said:


> I used to have a 1995 Trans am with an LT1 and got 26-28 mpg on the highway. I always got the same mileage as my buddies 3.4L camaro but with 2-3x the power.
> 
> They are good cars, but aren't fun to work on.



2-3 times, uh, no. Not if you're talking stock motors. The 350 in that year model is rated around 50 more hp, or around 30%. If you were getting 26 to 28 mpg, you weren't using the extra power from the v-8 anyway.


----------



## chevytaHOE5674 (Jan 18, 2009)

IIRC a 95 firebird with a 3.4L had 160hp (routinely put down 145-150 on the dyno), and the pre 96 single cat LT1's had 275. Mine stock put 301 down at the rear wheels on the dyno. They had to underrate the Fbody LT1's to keep the vette guys happy. A little more than 50 more hp. 

You can cruise at get good mileage, with an LT1, and still have double the power. When you wanna go fast the LT1 will walk a 3.4L. 

Built up 4 LT1, and 2 LS1 f-body's.


----------



## spacemule (Jan 18, 2009)

chevytaHOE5674 said:


> IIRC a 95 firebird with a 3.4L had 160hp (routinely put down 145-150 on the dyno), and the pre 96 single cat LT1's had 275. Mine stock put 301 down at the rear wheels on the dyno. They had to underrate the Fbody LT1's to keep the vette guys happy. A little more than 50 more hp.
> 
> You can cruise at get good mileage, with an LT1, and still have double the power. When you wanna go fast the LT1 will walk a 3.4L.
> 
> Built up 4 LT1, and 2 LS1 f-body's.


You're right. I was reading the wrong specs. 

Don't get me wrong--I'd love to have a v-8, but I'm just not willing to spend the money for one at this point. As it is, I'm rarely out of town where you drive faster than 40 anyway at this point.


----------



## chevytaHOE5674 (Jan 18, 2009)

The last 383 car i built started life with the 3.4L. picked it up super cheap and bolted the LT1 in it, then later with to a 355 and then a 383. 

The 6cyl cars are basically the same so they are the perfect platform for a build up.... haha :greenchainsaw:


----------



## spacemule (Jan 18, 2009)

chevytaHOE5674 said:


> The last 383 car i built started life with the 3.4L. picked it up super cheap and bolted the LT1 in it, then later with to a 355 and then a 383.
> 
> The 6cyl cars are basically the same so they are the perfect platform for a build up.... haha :greenchainsaw:


I've had my fill of engine swaps. If I were to get into performance mods, I think it would be awfully neat to build a stock appearing v6 that put out 350 hp. Would cost a bundle I'm sure.


----------



## spankrz (Jan 19, 2009)

spacemule said:


> I've had my fill of engine swaps. If I were to get into performance mods, I think it would be awfully neat to build a stock appearing v6 that put out 350 hp. Would cost a bundle I'm sure.



my friend's firebird i mentioned earlier put out around 320 on a dyno, he spent 3000 on engine and around 500 on exhaust, that is having the work done with labor.


----------



## chevytaHOE5674 (Jan 19, 2009)

spankrz said:


> my friend's firebird i mentioned earlier put out around 320 on a dyno, he spent 3000 on engine and around 500 on exhaust, that is having the work done with labor.



For 3k I had built a nice forged 355 stroker, and was pushing 450-500hp. With the addition of a 12 bolt rear and some suspension work it was into the 10's on the strip. 

Sure you can build a sixxer, for for equal money the v8 will always always be faster. 

No replacement for displacement.


----------



## spacemule (Jan 19, 2009)

chevytaHOE5674 said:


> For 3k I had built a nice forged 355 stroker, and was pushing 450-500hp. With the addition of a 12 bolt rear and some suspension work it was into the 10's on the strip.
> 
> Sure you can build a sixxer, for for equal money the v8 will always always be faster.
> 
> No replacement for displacement.



That's true, but everyone and his brother builds a v8. No one is surprised if you're beaten by a v8. The same can't be said if you're beat by a 6.


----------



## chevytaHOE5674 (Jan 19, 2009)

But it will take 3k to get that V6 to stick with a V8 that has an exhaust and intake...... Which most people do to these cars...

If I had got beaten by a V6 and the guy said he had 3K in the motor I would still laugh in his face and not be surprised at all. Going fast takes cash, just the V8 is 2x the platform to start with.


----------



## spacemule (Jan 20, 2009)

Put 400 miles on it today. Still like it pretty well. I was driving fairly aggressively and still got 26.7 mpg. 

This is the first vehicle I've owned that seems to be able to take curves better than I can. I took a few fast enough to get that dizzy feeling from the sideways g force and I still didn't squeal a tire. I can see where this might get addicting. :hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## spacemule (Jan 22, 2009)

Well guys, I'm not disputing that the v8 is more motor, but anyone who says the v6 is weak has their heads up their butts. I took the car out on the interstate today, and floored it. Went from 70 to 80 to 90, still going, pass 100, get to 110, still accelerating, but I let off for fear of getting a ticket. I'm confident this car will do 120. Pulled up to a stop sign the other night, and once again floored it to see if it would peel out. It smoked the right rear tire, shifted to second, and kept spinning. This is not a weak car. Plenty of performance for me, but I do miss the deep roar of a v8.

Incidentally, I saw that the base sport coupe is supposed to come with 215 60 r16 tires. This car has speced on the door tag 235 55 r16 tires. Were these an option?


----------



## chevytaHOE5674 (Jan 22, 2009)

spacemule said:


> I'm confident this car will do 120. Pulled up to a stop sign the other night, and once again floored it to see if it would peel out. It smoked the right rear tire, shifted to second, and kept spinning. This is not a weak car. Plenty of performance for me, but I do miss the deep roar of a v8.



I had my trans am to 145-150 many times, the v6 cars will pull around 120. As for peeling out the V8 usually would have a limited slip rear and spin both rear tires through 3rd easily.... Depending on the tires you can keep they roasting to 85+mph........


----------



## spacemule (Jan 22, 2009)

chevytaHOE5674 said:


> I had my trans am to 145-150 many times, the v6 cars will pull around 120. As for peeling out the V8 usually would have a limited slip rear and spin both rear tires through 3rd easily.... Depending on the tires you can keep they roasting to 85+mph........


I don't see myself ever driving faster than 120. . .

Incidentally, I fixed the air conditioner today. It was simply a vacuum line unhooked from the very back of the engine. Too bad I pulled the dash apart before I started tracing vacuum lines under the hood.


----------



## spacemule (Jan 22, 2009)

Has anyone noticed that the base hp on the 2010 Camaro is 300? Wowie! 

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2010-chevrolet-camaro3.htm


----------



## beerman6 (Jan 26, 2009)

A racing lawn mower will do 60,to me it's not about top speed,but how long it takes to get there...


----------



## epicklein22 (Jan 26, 2009)

beerman6 said:


> A racing lawn mower will do 60,to me it's not about top speed,but how long it takes to get there...



Yup, while the v6 might be a respectable engine and have decent power, it is still in a camaro. The bar for performance is raised since the car is a camaro. The lineage of the camaro is a big, fast, mean muscle car. The v6 does not live up to the legacy. Still not as bad as a 4-cylinder mustang though. 

Overall, for what space is using the car for, the v6 is a fine choice and the most practical.


----------



## spacemule (Jan 26, 2009)

epicklein22 said:


> Yup, while the v6 might be a respectable engine and have decent power, it is still in a camaro. The bar for performance is raised since the car is a camaro. The lineage of the camaro is a big, fast, mean muscle car. The v6 does not live up to the legacy. Still not as bad as a 4-cylinder mustang though.
> 
> Overall, for what space is using the car for, the v6 is a fine choice and the most practical.



He he, look at it this way. As long as I don't race it and I don't drive one with a v8, I'll be happy. 

And I disagree with the lineage of camaros being a big, fast, mean muscle car. That's more the Corvette heritage. The Camaro is and always was an economical sports car. Economy, style, and handling being its biggest features. That car sold brand new for $13,000. Sure, there are performance versions. There are also performance versions of a Mercury Grand Marquis. ;-)


----------

