Originally Posted by Norm Peterson (Post 6640329)

The 1st and early 2nd gen F-bodies played in an era of much tougher competition than did the 3rd and 4th gen cars.

All the 3rds and 4ths faced were warmed-over Ford Fairmonts with rear suspensions that look a lot like GM's intermediates from the 1960's through the mid 1980's. When the other guy runs his entry-level sedan chassis with about 50 cubic inches less engine than yours and calls it the performance model of his ponycar, how hard do you really have to try?

The 5th gen is up against a far better Mustang - GRM considers the S197 a game-changer (current issue on the stands). The 5th gen's standard bearers are that much better as a result. Have to be.


Norm

Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro (Post 6654836)

^...move into the 21st Century...trade in something...get some skin in on the game, get on board with the Gen 5 Camaro, or even plan on the the Gen 6 without so much commentary. Really.....prolific without first hand knowledge on so much...

Originally Posted by ssrs396 (Post 6618407)

T-tops in the 80s were the bomb, loved them! 2 79 Anniversary Trans Ams and an 85 firebird! I think on a Z/28 is a bit much but ok on the rest of the line.

Originally Posted by Bhobbs (Post 6663499)

For the money I have put in my Chevelle when it is all said and done, I could have paid cash for a new Camaro. I won't be buying a new car for a while until after it is done either. Not to mention, I wasn't too interested in buying a new Camaro until the 1LE came out.

I don't get how me not owning a new Camaro means I can't discuss it. Besides, this conversation is about GM building future Z28s like the one I am driving. How do I not have skin in this game?

Originally Posted by lt4camaro (Post 6663136)

Nothing better than a tight strong fixed roof IMO, T-Tops, sun roofs, Targa cars are weak. 3RD gen and 4th gen camaro 1le, b4c, and a lot of the GMMG cars were solid roof cars. Also all 100 of the LT4 SS 97 camaros were manual trans and solid roof cars, no t-tops and no verts

Originally Posted by demonspeed (Post 6665089)

4th gens were engineered with t-tops. This is why it's so easy to do a hardtop to t-top conversion. Fbodfather has even commented that cars with t-tops were no less structurally sound.

http://www.dw-zone.com/t-tops/drv_roof_gone2.jpg

Originally Posted by Michael2000 (Post 6670440)

No less structurally sound than what?

Michael

Originally Posted by demonspeed (Post 6670499)

Their t-top counterpart:

http://ls1tech.com/forums/appearance...s-hardtop.html

Originally Posted by Michael2000 (Post 6673731)

It's funny, that thread was from 2004, and continued to 2013.

I don't know about converting to a T-top vs. buying a T-top car, but the non-T-top car should have more rigidity. The 4th gens with T-tops were pretty loose.

Michael

Originally Posted by demonspeed (Post 6676758)

Logic would deduce that to be true, but according to "the man in the know," they weren't. Personally, I don't find my t-top 4th gen to be any different than my buddy's hardtop (nor did I find my previous ones to be "loose").

I also had a t-top 3rd gen and a hardtop 3rd gen. While I didn't have them at the same time, I don't recall feeling any significant difference.

Originally Posted by Michael2000 (Post 6677894)

On the thread, FbodFather said, "And you are correct...all non-t-top cars have the cutouts for T-top...simply has a composite roof panel attached........".

Something is not making sense here. The roof was steel, not composite. Someone else mentioned that there were reinforcing bars on the non-T-top cars, which I would expect. They aren't just going to have a roof panel hanging in thin air. They have to attach the roof panel to something.

Michael

Originally Posted by lbls1 (Post 6679235)

^Keep in mind, in terms of the 4th gens, the z28 and ss were much closer together in terms of power and performance than the 5th gen ss and z/28. The 4th gen z28 and ss shared the same engine (just styling options and a mildly tweaked suspension tuning with the ss), but the 5th gen z/28 is IMO radically differnt than the ss.

I am glad that the 5th gens do not feature the t-top roof. To me it looks like an abomination. I liked it on the 3rd and 4th gens but some of the 5th gen aftermarket attempts looked horrible.

Originally Posted by demonspeed (Post 6679659)

There was a composite roof skin. That picture I posted is the steel roof frame -- that's it -- holes and all. The side pieces would be removed if t-tops were specified, but they're thin, hollow sheet metal.

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson (Post 6683910)

Don't underestimate the structural contribution to chassis stiffness of what are essentially thinwall tubes - as long as they are loaded in their stiff/strong directions. These pieces of roof side structure are basically the entire difference in roof structure between a convertible and a coupe.


Norm

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson (Post 6683910)

Don't underestimate the structural contribution to chassis stiffness of what are essentially thinwall tubes - as long as they are loaded in their stiff/strong directions. These pieces of roof side structure are basically the entire difference in roof structure between a convertible and a coupe.


Norm