Dealership has a 93 Lt1 camaro for $7,985? Good price?
http://www.speeddensity.org/showthread.php?t=679
*Edit* Updated 700R4's bearing the name 4L60.
Last edited by Fastbird93; Jun 10, 2007 at 08:19 PM.
VERY clean car is the first thing that comes to mind. Second, kind of hefty price tag for a 93. I bought mine bone stock (private party though) for $8400 with 50000 miles, and it was very clean until I drove it into the desert
. I would definitely get a Carfax report on that car if you are truly interested, because it may have been in an accident and gotten fresh paint for all you know. Just my 2 cents.
. I would definitely get a Carfax report on that car if you are truly interested, because it may have been in an accident and gotten fresh paint for all you know. Just my 2 cents.
Could be several reasons for that, as I have experienced side bloster wear on several cars that are barely driven.
1) Leather is not durable, my '89 shows wear as it only has 15k miles, I've had it since it had 5k miles and had no wear at all on it when I got it.
2) My 99 TA shows alot of wear on the bloster and has only 25k miles.
3) My '95 TA has 100k miles and barely shows any wear
There's definitely a difference in feel of the leather in those cars, the 89 and 99 feel alot softer than the 95.
Also, I have to move the 89 and 99 alot out of thegarage if I want to put any car on my lift since the only place to park them is behind it, so they get sit in alot and only get pulled out of the garage and back.
I've also climbed into one with something in my back pocket that poked a hole in the bloster before...maybe that happened and tore it ever so slightly and started the process.
Just thoughts....If it truely was from wear and driving it alot and false mileage, there would be several other signs of that....pedal rubber wear, dirty undercarriage, dirty motor in behind places that aren't easily cleaned. Too clean of a motor is a bad sign also. Clear coating in the motor is a bad sign to me also..trying to hide things ususally. Look are any carpet wear, seat belt wear, steering wheel wear/slickness from being worn..etc.
1) Leather is not durable, my '89 shows wear as it only has 15k miles, I've had it since it had 5k miles and had no wear at all on it when I got it.
2) My 99 TA shows alot of wear on the bloster and has only 25k miles.
3) My '95 TA has 100k miles and barely shows any wear
There's definitely a difference in feel of the leather in those cars, the 89 and 99 feel alot softer than the 95.
Also, I have to move the 89 and 99 alot out of thegarage if I want to put any car on my lift since the only place to park them is behind it, so they get sit in alot and only get pulled out of the garage and back.
I've also climbed into one with something in my back pocket that poked a hole in the bloster before...maybe that happened and tore it ever so slightly and started the process.
Just thoughts....If it truely was from wear and driving it alot and false mileage, there would be several other signs of that....pedal rubber wear, dirty undercarriage, dirty motor in behind places that aren't easily cleaned. Too clean of a motor is a bad sign also. Clear coating in the motor is a bad sign to me also..trying to hide things ususally. Look are any carpet wear, seat belt wear, steering wheel wear/slickness from being worn..etc.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Dec 1, 2014 08:08 AM



