aklucsarits

My buddy used to have a 2002 Camaro SS that he bought new. That thing was a BLAST to drive. Just put it in any gear and step on the gas and it hauls. Handled very well too despite the crappy tires it came with.

The only thing I hated about it was how hard it was to tell where the front of the car was. The hood is so long and high and impossible to see over.

Andrew

formulaofsuccess

out of the box the handling isn't terribly great but with a little work they can be brought up to respectable marks. they have a large turning radius (all gm's do) and are a little sluggish in steering feel. power wise you'll be in heaven as they are fairly stout from the factory and accept bolt ons/tuning with very open arms and great gains. it's quite easy to yank 350-400 whp out of them

try going over to camaroz28.com and reading up/posting some questions. everyone over there is extremely knowledgable and a great group of guys/girls.

oh, i've owned a couple F-body's in my time so i kinda speak from experience

Rickjames

I think I mentioned that I've heard its a great car--one of my good friends still loves it. And yes, now that this thread has started, I've read more about it. And according to the original questions, it seems like it would fit the posters original needs--cheap to mod, insane speed, good handling, etc.

I think after riding in several cars with the same body style--the camaro, trans am, etc--and the previous poster mentioned about the hood being so big. I definately agree with that statement.

I guess just drive what you are interested in and see what you like. If it were me, I'd want something a tad bit lighter and smaller--but thats just me. Also, styling is subjective--so just cause I'm not into the car, dosent mean its not for you. But I think in terms of reliability, seems like the car is pretty good. Definately better than some of the rotary rx7s.

CG

I gave this car serious thought before buying my S2000. For handling I wanted to delete the T-top since I was going to autocross it. There's a lot of good info in this thread. IMO, the doors and hood are too long but that's not a reason to stay away from the car. It doesn't have S2000 handling but the cars are a blast to drive.

steven975

yea, the powertrain really is top-notch

the shifter has very long shifts (compared to the S2000 anyway) and is a little notchy, but for a tranny that handles the torque it does, what do you expect?

Grip-wise, they do well, but the tossabilty isn't there. That doesn't mean they handle bad, but saying they handle great isn't a true statement, either.

The rest of the car, i dunno. Many comments basically say it feels like an 80s GM car, and considering it got it's major redesign for the 93 model year, isn't a big stretch. I know the old F bodies were notorious for how bad they were assembled, but I do think the newer ones with the LS1 motors really cleared up that myth. Do I want one...no. I'd go for a Corvette instead as you can find a C5 for a great price.

Clayman

That's the only issue I had with the F body cars, as well. I remember driving a buddy's and I could barely see over the dashboard. It was super fun to drive (like a sledgehammer with four wheels), and sounded awesome.

One of the great things about those cars is that with very little modificaions, you can have like 400hp. Hell, I think changing the tail lights gives you 5hp!

brockLT1

Everyone has done a great job describing the car, nicely done . As stated before, its tough to get any car to be as "tossable" and as point and shoot as an S2K. With that said, its not hard to make an F-Body handle like a beast.

http://www.thunderracing.com/catalog/?acti...p&vid=3&pcid=93 (click on the left side of the page to see all the suspension parts)

if you add a few suspension parts, and buy a good set of tires, I think your car will handle really well!

steve c

Oddly they really don't. Anyone over 6 feet only needs to sit in a Mustang and Camaro to understand why the superior car in terms of performance is no longer being made.

bjohnston

I think these are some of the ugliest cars ever made. What are they, 200" long riding on a 98" wheel base? I think that gives them a 5' front overhang. Also, build quality appears to me to be lousy (panel gaps, interior materials, etc.). Now, I love a big Murican V8 as much as the next guy, but I'd try to scrape together enough dough for an LS2 GTO. A lightly used example of those ('05) could be found for around $25K, I would think. They're nothing great to look at either, but at least they're not offensively ugly like the Firebird WS6. Build quality seems far better, space efficiency is better (trunk notwithstanding), LS2 is better, and it has an IRS.

rockville

I'm referring to the cargo area. At 6' tall I have plenty of space in front (not in back). Thanks to the large hatch you can easily put a bike in the back. The 80's fastback Mustangs were better but the later trunk only cars lost the practicality of a hatch. Also, we must consider this in the context of other sports coupes.