meine96ws6

iTrader: (4)

So, I have owned my car for a few years.. But, I got told there are only 42 red leather interiors with this same options.

1996 WS-6
A4
Trans Am, T-Top
Red Leather Seats and door pieces.

I put up a few pics in my album. Any one have something similar?

1badSS

iTrader: (1)

I dont know how rare the car is, but I do like the int.(nice car,and nice pics)

Joshiedoom

iTrader: (4)

Wow had no clue. I learned something today thanks to you. Now post up the associated codes for that interior!

Brangeta

I love that red leather interior. I wish Camaros were available with red leather.

JohnnyBs98WS6Rag

iTrader: (1)

CompNine.com's database contains 19 '96 WS6 A4 coupes w/ RPO 702 or 703 dark maple red leather interior. Not sure how many of those had red exterior (could look that up though). However, it appears CompNine's database is incomplete for this year, so this number may be higher.

meine96ws6

iTrader: (4)

I was told something about torch red leather. i don't have all the information. but, i knew its rare because i have only seen one other interior like mine.

SuperSport346

iTrader: (2)

Wow, I never knew there was a factory red interior! I'm jealous, you have a rare car there!

Joshiedoom

iTrader: (4)

Thats what im saying. Take some good pics and start this thread up. I though the red insert looked too ricerish but if the factory did it, screw it Im doing it.

Brangeta

When I was in Las Vegas last year, there was a T/A with red interior at the big car museum thing in the Wynn hotel.

Trans Am Jam

iTrader: (7)

damn. that's sick. never knew about this

meine96ws6

iTrader: (4)

Yes thats exactly my interior. I am looking for some pictures.. And yes the factory offered it for the first time in 1996 for 4th gen cars on the research i have done..

meine96ws6

iTrader: (4)

I added pics but, i dont have any of just the seats.. i will take some more for sure this summer when i am home.

Joshiedoom

iTrader: (4)

Sweet I always have loved the red/black theme and that interior color is amazing. Id actually consider putting my rear seats back in lol

JohnnyBs98WS6Rag

iTrader: (1)

Red leather interior was offered on the Firebird from '95-'97. It was RPO 702 or 703 (depending on reclining/power option) and was called Dark Maple Red (although that's not very dark).

"Flame Red" cloth (73B) was offered on the Camaros from '94-'01. "Flame Red" leather (732) was offered on the Camaros only in '96.

CompNine's database shows no Firebirds w/ 732 Flame Red leather, although their database is missing several '96 'Birds, so I suppose it's possible all of the ones w/ RPO 732 are among the missing units.

Check your RPO decal and let us know if you have 732 or 702/703.

Brangeta

Unfortunately, red leather was never an option on the 4th gen Camaro. I'm not sure where you got that information, but it's unfortunately wrong. I wish it was true.

69camaross

iTrader: (4)

Exactly, I'm not sure where CompNine is getting his data but I see him being quoted all over the place with wrong as hell information.


You primarily see the red leather show up on 95 birds as that was the year it was primarily offered. A few white 95 Firehawks had the red leather option. I've never seen a red leather seat 96-97. 96 I can see having been produced if it was an early production, however not so much on the 97s as I have never seen any evidence on them being used for the 97 model year.

Funny how they offered this red interior, (white leather also in 95) but niether one was mentioned in any of the sale brochures.

JohnnyBs98WS6Rag

iTrader: (1)

I should clarify my previous statement. RPO 732 Flame Red Leather interior was NOT "offered" on regular production '96 Camaros. However, 36 Z28 'verts were built (COPOs??) that were all white, black tops and red leather interiors, all A4s and for some odd reason did NOT have the LT1 V8 but instead had a 5.0L LB9 V8 installed. I'm not sure if these were production mules (although the red leather would seem to indicate they were not), promo cars, exports (although not to Canada or Virgin Isles) or something else. I don't recall seeing any information posted or published about these cars, I just "stumbled" across this RPO combination when gleaning CompNine's database for production breakdowns. When I found that the total Camaro 'verts was 36 more than the sum of L36 'verts and LT1 'verts combined, I poked around until I found that the LB9 engine RPO had been installed in 36 units. These were all identically equipped cars, including the RPO 732 interior trim color combination (breakdown of these cars in the link in my sig).

The 732 RPO was not installed in any other '96 Camaro.

69camaross

iTrader: (4)

Please stop quoting this ungodly incorrect database of nonsense. Do you know what an RPO LB9 engine is? it's a 85-92 305 (5.0L) TPI engine. This was NEVER was used in a 4th gen. Again it proves how this Compnine "database" is based on incorrect information. It says cars existed with options and paint codes that either never existed or wouldn't have been installed or sprayed on a 93-02 F-body.

JohnnyBs98WS6Rag

iTrader: (1)

Fair enough. You are right, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of CompNine's VIN/RPO database. I do not know the specific origin of the data, or how it traces back to GM's VIS database (which I believe, we can all safely assume is the "gospel" of GM production facts, right?). However, not having direct access myself to the GM VIS to check for myself, CompNine's data is the next best thing available I've been able to find based on the sheer volume and detail of its contents.

Additionally, considering the sheer volume of the data contained within CompNine's database, I believe it is reasonably safe to assume that it originated from the GM VIS database. Certainly, you don't believe they hand-punched in all that data from a stack of paper build sheets, do you? Even if they did, for what purpose, or motivation would they have to fabricate data to create cars or RPO combinations that never existed? Also, it is not inconceiveable that this database would contain pre-production, prototype and engineering test "mule" vehicles alongside all of the production vehicles. It is not unusual for these non-production vehicles to contain components that never made it into the regular production vehicles.

WRT the LB9 RPO on these mysterious 36 cars, I too found it very odd that these cars would (could) get an engine that was supposedly out of production for several years. If you bothered to look at my breakdown table you'd find that I identified these "mules" as an "RPO anomaly" that shows up in their data. Is it possible that GM had left-over LB9 engine assemblies laying around and they decided to install them into a batch of their pre-production or engineering mule '96 Camaros? It's happened before. Is it a coincidence that 36 of the '96 Camaro 'verts did NOT have the STE RPO indicating they were built on the line at St. Therese? Again, not the first time this has happened. It may also be possible the LB9 RPO on these 36 cars was in fact a GM accounting error and they actually received LT1s. All I know is that according to their data, of the 7457 '96 Camaro 'verts "built", 4087 had RPO L36 (V6), 3334 had RPO LT1 (V8), leaving 36 that had RPO LB9. Coincidently, 3370 '96 Camaro 'verts had RPO Z28 (3334 LT1s and 36 LB9s).

Look, by all indications, these 36 "cars" that showed up in CompNine's database were pre-production engineering mules, and as such never made it into the hands of the general public. I cannot vouch that they actually contained the 5.0L TPI V8, all I'm doing is reporting what CompNine's database indicates which is these 36 cars did NOT have RPO LT1 but instead had RPO LB9. Only GM and god knows why. However, the existence of RPO LB9 on these '96 Camaros does not "prove" that CompNine's data is an "ungodly incorrect database of nonsense". Certainly, I've found several omissions where their data appears to be missing a full-count of all of the production vehicles that were built. But from the data that IS in there, I've cross-checked their data against other 3rd-parties' data and found it to be as accurate, if not moreso, than any other source I've been able to find. Where I've found anomalies such as the LB9s, I've flagged these in my breakdown sheets and listed them seperately, FOR WHAT ITS WORTH.

If you could provide me direct access to GM VIS, I'll be more than happy to re-validate and update these breakdowns. Also, if you wouldn't mind pointing out any other example of "ungodly nonsense" in their data, I could look into it and possibly provide an explanation.

Joshiedoom

iTrader: (4)

Hmm, good points throughout the thread... kinda like ive seen a 1983 corvette and its parts from the factory but yet they didnt make them