96 LS-1 TA prototype
06-10-2010, 11:28 AM
#1
96 LS-1 TA prototype I guess the thread got deleted
wrong category, poster didnt have proper stats to post
a FS. So without any reference to the advertisement(dont give him the benefit of that) I want to focus on the validity of the item vs debate over where it should be listed.
I still say show me the proof that GM used all the 98+parts on a 96 body. Granted it was marked EX but that doesnt mean its a show piece or prototype. It could be a crash test car for engineering group or a saltspray test for the coastal areas. Im not saying it is but what I am saying is keep an open mind on what this car could have been.
I still want to see the casting numbers and dates of the parts that are 98+. Sometimes engineering will produce a part(and associated part#) that will not show up anywhere else(such as a parts book,or on any production car) IF this does indeed have such parts and they are valid with the dates produced of before March of 96 then that can at least establish a basis for a prototype. Many times people will get caught up in the hype and jump into something they shouldnt have.This could be one of those occasions.
wrong category, poster didnt have proper stats to post
a FS. So without any reference to the advertisement(dont give him the benefit of that) I want to focus on the validity of the item vs debate over where it should be listed.
I still say show me the proof that GM used all the 98+parts on a 96 body. Granted it was marked EX but that doesnt mean its a show piece or prototype. It could be a crash test car for engineering group or a saltspray test for the coastal areas. Im not saying it is but what I am saying is keep an open mind on what this car could have been.
I still want to see the casting numbers and dates of the parts that are 98+. Sometimes engineering will produce a part(and associated part#) that will not show up anywhere else(such as a parts book,or on any production car) IF this does indeed have such parts and they are valid with the dates produced of before March of 96 then that can at least establish a basis for a prototype. Many times people will get caught up in the hype and jump into something they shouldnt have.This could be one of those occasions.
06-10-2010, 03:34 PM
#2
I was having PC issues and couldn't reply earlier to that thread, but I did snag the pictures from the eBay link. A very curious car indeed.
I ran the VIN# through CompNine's VIN decoder and that car DID exist within it. It showed as a 1996 model year vehicle, but the build date is "unk" (unknown). I looked for a LS1 RPO (which DID appear on the '96 and '97 Camaro "mules" used during LS1 development), but instead it showed LT1. It DOES have RPO "VS7 VEHICLE NON-SALEABLE NON-SALEABLE VEH(VS7) " (as do 20 other '96 Firebird coupes). The only other low-quantity RPO this car has is "WD2 Unk. ", also on 20 other '96 Firebird coupes.
The exterior RPO is 41U (black), so that is consistent w/ the story (and the black door-jambs w/ aqua overspray). All the other RPOs on that car look like any other generic '96 T/A. The transmission RPOs (MM6, MN6) are just like any other 6-sp f-bod.
IMO, given the numerous decals that indicate that car was a GM engineering test car, it'd be hard to argue this car was "faked" into being a GM mule. I don't think we can rule-out the possibility that it was initially built w/ a LT1, and then was primarily used to "test fit" the upcoming '98 panels and LS1 engine in order to develop any Pontiac-unique pieces for the upcoming design change. This may account for the low miles on the odo. Most of the durability testing of the LS1 probably took place in the Camaro or C5 mules. Even if the casting dates of the drivetrain are after 3/96, that doesn't mean they weren't swapped-in at a later date by GM engineering for the test-fitting purposes this car obviously was used for. RPO LT1 indicates St Therese installed a LT1 by 3/96, that doesn't prove that GM engineering didn't swap it out at a later date.
Regarding the curious decal (that is unreadable in the photos) on the transmission, who's to say that this wasn't a left-over from the '93 prototypes, retrofitted w/ a clutch to fit a LS1? Also, wasn't there a T56 manufacturer change in the mid '90s? Maybe they were testing a prototype from the new manufacturer? Just about anything could've been scrounged together to build this car in the GM engineering "garage". Mules tend to serve multiple purposes for the engineering department. What may have started out as a mule for testing a new LS1 airbox and EGR solenoid may have been later used to test a new transmission manufacturer.
Having said all that, I wouldn't want to own that car. Its basically a big expensive paperweight you can't get licensed to drive on the road and, given its built from several pre-production parts, has crappy fit and finish. Considering the countless hours of wrenching that car surely saw at the hands of GM engineering, half of the bolts holding it together are probably stripped-out or missing. 54 miles on the ODO doesn't add any value to that car, it certainly isn't "like new".
I ran the VIN# through CompNine's VIN decoder and that car DID exist within it. It showed as a 1996 model year vehicle, but the build date is "unk" (unknown). I looked for a LS1 RPO (which DID appear on the '96 and '97 Camaro "mules" used during LS1 development), but instead it showed LT1. It DOES have RPO "VS7 VEHICLE NON-SALEABLE NON-SALEABLE VEH(VS7) " (as do 20 other '96 Firebird coupes). The only other low-quantity RPO this car has is "WD2 Unk. ", also on 20 other '96 Firebird coupes.
The exterior RPO is 41U (black), so that is consistent w/ the story (and the black door-jambs w/ aqua overspray). All the other RPOs on that car look like any other generic '96 T/A. The transmission RPOs (MM6, MN6) are just like any other 6-sp f-bod.
IMO, given the numerous decals that indicate that car was a GM engineering test car, it'd be hard to argue this car was "faked" into being a GM mule. I don't think we can rule-out the possibility that it was initially built w/ a LT1, and then was primarily used to "test fit" the upcoming '98 panels and LS1 engine in order to develop any Pontiac-unique pieces for the upcoming design change. This may account for the low miles on the odo. Most of the durability testing of the LS1 probably took place in the Camaro or C5 mules. Even if the casting dates of the drivetrain are after 3/96, that doesn't mean they weren't swapped-in at a later date by GM engineering for the test-fitting purposes this car obviously was used for. RPO LT1 indicates St Therese installed a LT1 by 3/96, that doesn't prove that GM engineering didn't swap it out at a later date.
Regarding the curious decal (that is unreadable in the photos) on the transmission, who's to say that this wasn't a left-over from the '93 prototypes, retrofitted w/ a clutch to fit a LS1? Also, wasn't there a T56 manufacturer change in the mid '90s? Maybe they were testing a prototype from the new manufacturer? Just about anything could've been scrounged together to build this car in the GM engineering "garage". Mules tend to serve multiple purposes for the engineering department. What may have started out as a mule for testing a new LS1 airbox and EGR solenoid may have been later used to test a new transmission manufacturer.
Having said all that, I wouldn't want to own that car. Its basically a big expensive paperweight you can't get licensed to drive on the road and, given its built from several pre-production parts, has crappy fit and finish. Considering the countless hours of wrenching that car surely saw at the hands of GM engineering, half of the bolts holding it together are probably stripped-out or missing. 54 miles on the ODO doesn't add any value to that car, it certainly isn't "like new".
Last edited by JohnnyBs98WS6Rag; 06-10-2010 at 03:46 PM.
06-12-2010, 10:34 PM
#3
TECH Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you ignore the fact that the car in numerous places says NOT SALEABLE in big *** bold print, it's still basically scrap as it was an engineering mule that somehow escaped the crusher.
the low miles on the cluster mean nothing as that cluster is digital which is not what was "stock" for a 96 when this car was originally built.
The Aqua color looks like Barbados blue which came on 2004 GTOs.
Not sure how this seller acquired this car but honestly he better be careful cause if GM sees this car and he doesn't have some bill of sale (car won't have a title) from GM, it's considered stolen company property.
Again this car is barely worth the sum of it's parts as "experimental" 4th gen parts are useless and of no value.
the low miles on the cluster mean nothing as that cluster is digital which is not what was "stock" for a 96 when this car was originally built.
The Aqua color looks like Barbados blue which came on 2004 GTOs.
Not sure how this seller acquired this car but honestly he better be careful cause if GM sees this car and he doesn't have some bill of sale (car won't have a title) from GM, it's considered stolen company property.
Again this car is barely worth the sum of it's parts as "experimental" 4th gen parts are useless and of no value.
06-13-2010, 11:02 AM
#6
Seller will deliver car to Vermont.
I don't know anything about prototypes, but my guess is that this thing is legit. You can't buy it as a driver, so the condition isn't critical. Test mules are supposed to be beat up a little.
This would be a nice car to add to a Trans Am collection. The biggest improvment in the 4th gen's 10 year model run was the switch to the LS1 in 1998.
I see a 1996 LS1 test mule being desirable as time goes on.
I don't know anything about prototypes, but my guess is that this thing is legit. You can't buy it as a driver, so the condition isn't critical. Test mules are supposed to be beat up a little.
This would be a nice car to add to a Trans Am collection. The biggest improvment in the 4th gen's 10 year model run was the switch to the LS1 in 1998.
I see a 1996 LS1 test mule being desirable as time goes on.
Trending Topics
06-14-2010, 10:46 AM
#10
TECH Fanatic
Why did I imagine Super Mario speaking when I read that ad...?
It looks legit to me. I'm surprised it has the 98+ body though, I was expecting a 93-97 body.
I can't find the pic, but I think this car was used in a GM promo pic back then. It was a nighttime photo, and the Firebird was an unusual blue color that looked like this I think.
A FRIEND OF MINE HAVE A CAR DEALERSHIP THERE AND THE CAR WILL BE THERE IF A U.S. CUSTOMER WIN THE AUCTION !!!
I can't find the pic, but I think this car was used in a GM promo pic back then. It was a nighttime photo, and the Firebird was an unusual blue color that looked like this I think.
06-15-2010, 09:16 PM
#12
Teching In
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: america
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another nice concept prototype on ebay
sold at barrett-jackson 2-3 years ago and now on ebay
also have the VS7(non-saleable ) option !!!
very interesting !!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1994-...item4ceff835b0
http://www.compnine.com/vid.php?vin=...r100024:devil:
sold at barrett-jackson 2-3 years ago and now on ebay
also have the VS7(non-saleable ) option !!!
very interesting !!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1994-...item4ceff835b0
http://www.compnine.com/vid.php?vin=...r100024:devil:
06-16-2010, 04:24 PM
#14
Teching In
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: america
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-20-2010, 07:37 AM
#17
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sullivan, IN
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
on the last picture, i really like the fit between the center tail section and the tail lights. you also have to wonder if it was a re-paint to discuise the car when it "left" GM? it would be hard for me to imagine all that overspray from a paint job done inside a factory. (i know it wasn't "factory applied")
06-20-2010, 03:45 PM
#18
on the last picture, i really like the fit between the center tail section and the tail lights. you also have to wonder if it was a re-paint to discuise the car when it "left" GM? it would be hard for me to imagine all that overspray from a paint job done inside a factory. (i know it wasn't "factory applied")
06-20-2010, 08:32 PM
#19
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd give the guy 3k for that car and just drive it around the backroads of near the house. If I got pulled over I'd tell the cop I'm testing the car for GM lol.
Paying 6K+ for that car is plain nutty though.
Paying 6K+ for that car is plain nutty though.
06-21-2010, 05:45 AM
#20
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sullivan, IN
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm not trying to start any crap here, but RPO LT1 says it left St. Threrese with a LT1 motor also! i went to a local college here and went thru the auto body program. we had several vehicles donated from GM, and i know how we treated those cars! we didn't mask anything either. our instructor walked around them with a hammer in hand, and put a pretty nice dent in them for all of us students to work on. there were over 25 of us! you better hope that car didn't suffer under those conditions somewhere!