While I have not had the chance to drive a 3rd gen, I respectfully disagree.

 

The articles are from April 15th. That was before it was announced that Zeta was cneclled. I don't think much of that info is still true today.

 

I've owned both 3rds and 4ths, and there is no way the comment about 3rds being superior is correct. I also owned an '89 RS and an '89 Formula along with my Z28, which allowed me back-to-back comparisons. The Formula, with brand new springs, shocks and struts (springs were significantly firmer than OEM...something I wished instantly I hadn't done ) handled no better than my Z28 with approx. 50k miles on stock components. It just rode harder and squeaked more, both before and after the parts changes.

Because the 4th gens don't ride like a damned buckboard, people think they "lost the edge." They sure did...that hard *** edge on the ride. Look at period road tests...IROCs typically did the skidpad between .85 and .90g...Z28s averaged between .84g and .89g. I can't say that shows up on the road. What's funnier? I don't have the #s committed to memory, but the fastest 600 ft slalom number was posted by a 4th gen Z28, NOT an IROC.

I thought the same until I looked at the numbers, and owned both. The most fun one in corners was actually my 2.8 RS. With sticky Firestones, you could NOT get that car loose in turns, no matter what you did And it was so light over the front wheels, that car turned NOW.

 

It's interesting to hear that from first hand account.

I remember reading in one of the mags when the 4th gens first came out that to keep the handling and better the ride, what the engineers did was soften the springs while stiffing the shocks. Then in '98 I read that because everyone complained about the softer ride and perceived lack of performance, Chevy increased the spring rates.

I couldn't tell too much of a difference between my '94 and '98, but my friend thought the '98 was noticably harsher than the '94.

 

on the inside it is

 

Yeah, this is just my opinion. I think what throws that image off to me is the size/weight of a 4th gen. The thing looks like it would flip like an SUV taking a turn fast. I've road with a couple of my friends and they wouldn't do things in the turns that I'd regularly do in my 92Z.

3rd Gens - I think are great carvers granted the ride is alittle harsh and engines underpowered.

1st/2nd - Not much experience here... So can't tell you.

But I've owned 2-3 3rd gens so I can admit possibly, maybe, alittle bias. hehe

 

I've owned more than a few 3rd and fourth gens....the 3rd gens "felt" like they handled, but the harshness cancelled that out.

THe 4th gens handle just fine, thank you.....they consistantly hang with or out run the C5's at driving schools like Bragg-Smith (now called Mountain Spring Park)......I know, I did it in a 4th gen SS

 

Yeah, I love the 3rd gen looks; but my next purchase is going to probably be a 02' SS M6 Vert if I can find one just due to the fact taht it's Newer, Faster, and doesn't have the mullet stigma attached.

How do the Verts handle?

 

Yet another agreement about 3rd gen to 4th gen handling. The 3rd gens handled well, but I still think the 4th gen has the edge. Take an IROC Z versus a 4th gen Camaro SS, and my money is on the SS. I know the 1LE SSs were capable of running with c5 vettes around the road course.

The verts handle pretty well stock, although obviously not as well as the coupes. After I got rid of my stock rubber and threw a set of Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3s on there, the car handled like a beast. Yank the wheel, and the nose just bites in, no problem. They hook up well from a dig too, and are pretty decent in the rain (they absolutely suck in the snow though.)

 

There seems to be a 3rd gen bias. And it's not just here, I'm talking about either. I think for a generation they were very popular. They actually advertised them like crazy, where the 4th gens were not. The way I see it, this accounts for the ppl holding them on a pedestal. In short, advertising works! They don't spend millions on a 30 second spot for nothing. As for me, I've had Camaros, and a Firebird (3rd gen) from every generation, and to me there has always been progress. The 4th gens are a progression of the 3rd's. I like them all! I have my preferences, but do not look down on any one of em'. The 1st gens had a look that was pure badass. The second IMO, was pretty badass too, however we all no what was going on in that era, so performance was hurtin' more and more, with evry passing year. The same as 3rd's, the later 2nd's were advertised like mad, and for a generation they were the **it! Then the 3rd's, not really liked much buy many older F-body fans, but towards the end of that era, the engines were starting to get some power again. The 4th gens were hardly advertised much at all, and thus they aren't very popular. IMHO, they ressemble the 3rd gen's quite a bit, so to me I just see progress in these cars. While I have not raced these cars like others, I have driven them hard on the street. I have had more than a few ppl get out of my 4th gen, after some hard corners, thoroughly impressed, and considering buying one. Anyone who thinks 4th gens don't corner well, I can't help you with that, and as for the engines........Well they were quite a bit better in 4th gen's IMO. I'm just going to sit back, and wait til all the dust settles. The way I see it, this is all just smoke & mirrors, and I could care less what the anti-GM press thinks, except for the fact, that some of their nonsense filters into ppl's minds. Screw the press. Sorry for the long post, but I just had to rant!

 

3rd gens do weight in a bit less though..

but the 4th gens come with a better front suspension design(which is why they could get away with a softer ride up front), wider tires, better brakes, and more hp, and perhaps a bit stiffer body.

 

My brother has an '80 T/A with WS6 and that thing corners like mad. I feel more confident cornering in that car then I do in my '02 C/E. That car feels planted while my T/A feels like it could walk the back end out without warning.
Of course mine rides much better. His will rattle your fillings out going over anything but the smallest bumps. Forget railroad tracks. He has to creep over them.

 

No so fast there, pilgrim.

What is the entire purpose of "Zeta"?
It's to create a series of vehicles using a modular platform.

Australia's used one structure as a jump off point, and since Mark Reuss already spilled the beans, we are using Sigma.

Sigma has already shown itself to be highly adaptable. One chassis, and you have the CTS, STS, and a crossover SUV. Different sizes. Same chassis & components. 2 widths. One AWD capable (STS & crossover) and one not (CTS).

Makes sense to make one width on a "budget" version of that chassis since it costs alot more to make a chassis various widths than it is to lengthen it... or shorten it.

Again, before the herd here goes into it's depressive, GM-slamming stampede, we might want to see what happens with our own eyes first. We might be pretty pleased.

Just a suggestion.

 

The difference between my 87 WS6 and my 97 WS6 is decent. Yes the 87 can corner, but not as well as the 97. The steering feel in the 97 is better, it's tighter, gets better gas mileage and is faster in the quarter mile. Oh, it has a higher top speed too. I guess that pretty much sums it up. I've had too many f-bodies of all years to even count and the older versions just don't handle quite as well as the later years. Ironically the best handler of the group that I drove was a 94 V6 with monster sway bars, good shocks and 285/40/17s on all four corners. That car would handle like a monster. Not much power though.

 

Well put! And where's all the ppl, who said Caddy would never let em' get the CTS platform for a Camaro? IMO ppl have been conditioned to bash GM first, and ask questions later! Too bad really, alot of ppl are missing out on some great product because of this.