Will Lee

I believe we’re at a mutual agreement then.

I will never know all of any such specifics.
..I do know that nobody truly would.

The only reason I’ve tried to educate myself of such things is in regards to the rarity of my own car’s specifications.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Not exactly. I don't agree with the idea that anything special or unique, specifically in terms of added power, was done by GM or SLP to only the very last of the '02 cars (or special ordered cars) that rolled off the assembly line, T56 or 4L60E. Anything available in the final weeks of production (such as the 345hp package) was also available to be ordered earlier in the model year. Furthermore, all of these cars (1998-2002) had been underrated, not just the last (or even all) of the 2002 examples.

And the "345hp" package itself was not underrated. It was a 20hp bump over the base rating (it was the base rating that was actually understated, as it had been since 1998). I don't believe that any otherwise stock LS1 engine has ever, or could ever, gain more than 20hp from a catback exhaust and air lid (which is exactly what was included in the package). So there was nothing "freakish" (or understated) about the actual package itself.

If you are stating that nobody truly knows what sort of test mules and interesting internal project cars that GM might have produced, then I would agree. No telling what they experimented with internally, in fact not even every GM executive might be privy to all such information. But those are not saleable units, not cars that "leaked" out to unsuspecting buyers at franchised dealerships. No stealth/secret "factory freaks" (e.g. heads, cam, or other such components that didn't belong) were released to the public in those final days on the assembly line. Of this we can be certain, simply because there is too much EPA regulation for anything like that to happen on a regular production vehicle of that era or later.

Will Lee

Anything I previously noted about “hidden-gem,” “leaked,” “secret,” “special-built,” ”custom-ordered,” “Factory-Freaks,” “..etc. etc.”
..we’re ALL, statements I’ve either read or heard of & about that were obviously not statements I could nor would validate as being my very own.

Just because I’ve shared such statements DOES NOT mean I believe in any nor all of them to be 100% true.
They’re interesting notes that I myself have chosen to take into consideration & not as being anything factual nor as proof of any knowledge, numbers, &/or statistics.

“You do not agree with THEM.”

Because it’s rather odd trying to disagree with “me” when I myself am not disagreeing with anyone nor anything on this thread.

I could simply throw away the two cents I’ve shared if you folks would much rather like to believe that I have no sense at all..

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

When one presents information (particularly when it is NOT prefaced with something cautionary as to the accuracy or provenance), it's a natural assumption that the individual in question must agree with what is being presented. So the "information" may not have originally come from you, but in this case you were the presenter - hence the disagreement.

I think this might be a bit dramatic.

Over the 20+ years that this site has been in business, we always strive to cut through the falsehoods and unsubstantiated rumors, and keep data and tech as accurate as possible - because that is what's in the best interests of this site, our members, and any folks who are hoping to learn the facts and truths behind these vehicles. It would be a disservice to the collective knowledge of this site (and its purpose as a factual resource) for folks who know better to NOT speak up when they see data that simply isn't correct. Understand that folks who are just at the beginning of their journey with a 4th gen F-body could easily become confused when they see incorrect data posted, such as your earlier post about LS6 intakes only being in a small percentage of 2001 & '02 LS1s. This was likely just a typo on your part, as I assume you know better if you've been involved with these cars for quite some time, but the fact remains that if nobody were to speak up and this "information" went unchallenged, it could be very confusing to a future reader who might then assume that it's correct (and further perpetuate a falsehood).

And the same holds true for claims of "stealth/secret/leaked" items or packages that would be so rare and such a regulatory impossibility that nothing of their existence has ever been proven other than someone claiming of a "rumor". To perpetuate these things is really the same as agreeing with said rumors, some of which are just too far fetched to be anything more than an Urban Legend of sorts.

Worse yet, we have folks like dtkb who posted several years ago in this thread, flat-out claiming to own a Unicorn. But then his own documentation (appraisal) didn't even agree with the factory documentation (broadcast sheet) he presented. Was the appraisal a straight forgery? Why was that the only document shown that even referenced any of his "facts" (or story) when there was supposedly so much other supporting documentation (including videographic evidence)? When you arrive on the scene claiming to have a Unicorn, you'd better be ready to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Scammers are everywhere, and sometimes they are very good at fooling folks. Was he hoping to use this public declaration to provide some level of future legitimacy for his claims in preparation for an eventual sale? Hoping to set the stage for big money? Who knows...but nobody in the community would benefit from letting something like that go unchallenged.

So it's really not about arguing just for the sake of arguing, it's about challenging things that are totally unsubstantiated and/or plainly incorrect. Usually it's just a mistake, typo, misunderstanding, ignorance, etc, but at worst it could be the malicious intent of a scammer.

Will Lee

Don’t just remove my latest of my responses..
TAKE THEM ALL DOWN.

..please.

It’s quite apparent that anything I’ve had to share is already well known, & my responses are not being deemed as “helpful.”
In fact, they seem to be more-so rather misleading.


Also..
“RPO code: R9Z ..is for the ~pre-sold~ (none stock ordered) vehicles a dealership would custom order from the factory for certain individuals following their desired specifications.”

Now.. it’s been my knowledge that certain dealerships often have their own certain/special option packages.. for any/all makes & models.. & that’s just how things have been since the very beginning of automobile sales.


So.. am I really supposed to believe that everyone who fully paid for a vehicle prior to it being built.. were getting vehicles with the exact same build specs as one a person could order from the stock line-up.. checking all the package & option boxes WITHOUT it already being fully paid for???

..so there’s no benefits for the person who gives them all their money up front huh??

yeah right.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

I have seen RPO R9Z appear on several custom ordered cars from the '90s of which I was familiar, one was a '96 Cadillac Fleetwood. I was actually with my Grandfather back in 1996 when he custom ordered the aforementioned Fleetwood (in fact I even drove him there to pick it up upon delivery, Thanksgiving weekend 1996); he actually did attempt to request a full-sized spare wheel & tire as part of his custom order, but GM kicked it back and would not allow it. Even something as simple as a full-sized spare couldn't be specified under this "custom order" RPO because it was not available for the model - there was no "pay up front" option that could change this. The dealer ended up having to order him another wheel through the parts department and mount & balance a tire for it prior to delivery. I could post a picture of the SPID if anyone cares to see it, but RPO R9Z does not mean that any "secret equipment" that was otherwise unavailable/unintended for a given model could suddenly be specified from the factory.

In the very beginning of automobile sales, the Clean Air Act and its various revisions hadn't yet been passed. It is true that there was a time when knowing the right combination of things to fill out on a factory order sheet (and/or having a "friend/family member" at a given plant) could make things happen that weren't necessarily supposed to be possible - even in regards to engine and engine component selection. Sometimes a dealer could even persuade GM to produce certain things/combinations that weren't originally intended, usually in support of motorsports and under the COPO program (Fred Gibb requesting TH400s in early L78 3rd gen Novas comes to mind), which then occasionally filtered down as regular production options. But such was before the myriad of EPA/regulatory tests and standards that were imposed on the OEMs (meaning well before LS1 F-bodies were produced).

As for dealer-type installed packages, yes those certainly did exist in the world of the 4th gen F-body, such as the GMMG creations, Berger, Blackbird, etc. But these are not stealth/secret "hidden gems" that sneaked off the GM assembly line at the tail end of production. They are known, well documented cars that were modified after they left the GM assembly line.


In a word, yes (at least in terms of how it was assembled by the OE manufacturer). But, understand, code R9Z does not indicate that all of these special/custom ordered vehicles were paid in full up front, prior to delivery.

In a word, no (at least in terms of how it was assembled by the OE manufacturer). Now, that's not to say that you can't find a dealership that specializes in high performance modification to alter the car however you see fit prior to taking delivery, either by them or a subcontractor, but it would NOT have come off the assembly line with any "special/secret" internal parts that weren't part of an already available and documented configuration.

Will Lee

Stop quoting my previous posts as if they’re of any relation to the points I’m now currently trying to make.

You’re trying to correlate multiple different discrepancies together to promote disbelief.

This site seems to have a goal of generalizing these cars together as if they don’t possess any rarities that could increase their interest and/or value.

You keep repeating your clear discrepancies with the terms “hidden gems” “stealth” “secret” etc., etc… as if you’re specifically targeting such information.

I provide different information that gets positively acknowledged yet at the end of its acknowledgment out come the same discrepancies regarding previous subject matters.

I really don’t understand why you feel such a need to keep repeating such discrepancies as if they’re of any further importance, nor relevance.
You’re actually starting to convince me of these terms being controversially significant.

No need to worry yourself about that tho, because who am I?
Just one person of course.

Who else might recognize what I’ve recognized without beginning to form their very own conspiracy theories?

You, definitely won’t!
..& that is something I believe everyone can agree with.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Okay. So then what point, which has nothing to do with any of your previous posts, are you currently attempting to make? Have we completely moved beyond any suggestion of undocumented, otherwise unavailable extra-performance LS1 F-bodies that could only be had by customers placing special orders at the end of production? If so, then we're moving in the right direction!



If the new point is to baffle us with double talk, then I agree that you have succeeded admirably!

Will Lee

It’s been expressed that R9Z involves the expedited shipment of the vehicle to/from receiving “up-fitted” parts.

Many would likely correlate this with the vehicle going through the hands of SLP Performance, except if that were the case.. wouldn’t all Firehawks then posses the R9Z RPO code?
Because that is not the case.

Now, others express R9Z as simply involving expedited shipping of delivery at further expense of the owner..
..when in fact, such a request actually has it’s very own RPO code of E2O.


R9Z: Control Sales Item Number #100
To this day, for any vehicle that has this RPO designation.. it’s still not known what “Item #100” is.
Being that the RPO code is still used today on mostly trucks, but also other older models of cars as well.. it’s been widely accepted that “Item #100” more-so represents a certain package re-fitment, rather than being the same single item received by such a widely diverse group of vehicles over the many years.

Unless you can come up with the specifics of “Item #100,” ..you’re going to call this as being “SPECIAL/STEALTH/HIDDEN-GEM”
related.


Also noted that 221 select 1995 F-Body cars received the R9Z code.. I’d like to know if any of those were the Comp-Ta’s?

I actually own a 1994 Fleetwood Brougham.. & since you’ve mentioned it’s possible relation to the R9Z code.. I’m going to check what code designation it has for its custom ordered hard-top.
Just out of curiosity.

Since a good majority of Firehawks were the main recipients of the R9Z code during those few years of their production..(Camaro-SS’s as well, only fewer) ..this would indicate a high likelihood of being a performance related refitting or upgrade.


So regardless of having no specific answer for any same group of vehicles that have the R9Z code.. & what answers have been provided being only the case for (one-off) individual vehicles.. all of this relates to only one single mystery RPO code.

I have no real interest in any of the other mystery RPO codes, but I believe their existence can definitely be acknowledged in regards to all vehicles having special rarities, &/or hidden-gems of some sort.
Either performance, luxury, or aesthetically related.. the proof is out there, but it’ll never be generally accepted over the internet.

JohnnyBs98WS6Rag

iTrader: (1)

I think too much weight is being placed on the R9Z RPO code here. In the case of the 4th gen F-bodies, it has no bearing on the drivetrain options that came off the assembly line. You had 4 options (V6/V8 x MT/AT) for any given production year. Sure, there were part substitutions on the line (LS6 blocks for example) within those 4 options, but none of them resulted in any real change in HP outside the normal production tolerance variations.

FWIW, my T/A has R9Z, but I purchased it off the dealer's showroom floor, although it was "special ordered" by someone else who lost patience waiting for it to arrive due to delays from a strike at the T56 plant. However, I believe CompNine shows there are 3 other '98s with the exact same combination of RPOs, including R9Z. Keep in mind that there were not nearly as many options (other than color), so there was nowhere near as many obscure RPO combinations as were possible back in the '60s when some cars have 6 or more engine options, 4-6 rear axle options, 3 transmission options, etc.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Ok, so I guess we are still on the possibility of R9Z having something to do with exclusive and otherwise unavailable performance options.

I can't agree with the bolded part. None of the publicly sold LS1 cars with this RPO have ever proven to contain one single performance related item that wasn't otherwise available via the WU6 (Firehawk) or WU8 (SS) package, and/or as part of the Y2Y offerings. So where is the likelihood of this being indicative of an exclusive performance upgrade? In fact, here is an SPID for a late-production 2002 Camaro SS, including the "Y2Y" RPO and a VIN-matched supplemental SLP sticker showing the "345hp package" (which is as good as it got for any LS1 F-body in terms of horsepower), yet there is no R9Z code - because such was not necessary in order to get the highest performance options:






So here is some interesting D-body history. The final year for this platform was 1996, but production of the '96 models continued all the way through November of 1996 (some folks even claim December, but my understanding is that only B-body counterparts [Impala, Caprice] were still being produced that late, and that D-bodies were done in November. Could I be wrong? Sure, and if somebody has a '96 D-body built in 12/96 I would love to see the VIN, would be very interesting to see how many units were produced after my grandfather's November car.) In any event, my grandfather's car had the latest sequence number I've ever seen for a '96 Fleetwood; it was built in 11/96 and was likely at the tail end of production for Fleetwood. As mentioned, this vehicle contained the R9Z code because he custom ordered the car earlier in the year (and there was considerable question as to whether or not it would even be built due to the late order and plant issues). Even though it was to be one of the final Fleetwoods off the line, and he custom ordered the car, there was no offering for R9Z to contain anything "special" that wasn't otherwise part of the normal ordering process. Again, he couldn't even get that full-sized spare installed on the assembly line, even with this custom order. Paying in full up front was not a stipulation for this RPO, nor did doing so gain a customer any additional access to options that were otherwise unavailable (otherwise the dealer would have offered this to him when ordering the car - instead, the dealer had to offer him a new full-sized wheel & tire when the car was delivered).

Here is the SPID for said 1996 Fleetwood. Note the R9Z code, present only because he custom ordered the car; not to do with anything performance related nor any special access to otherwise unadvertised options.



Well, that plus 25 pennies will certainly get you a quarter.



Exactly that. JohnnyB nails it again!

Will Lee

Any time this code appears on any model of vehicle, it's of a select group of such vehicles that have more option availabilities than their previous year’s top trim level.

As in having the “Z”06 heavy duty clutch introduced as an option, to later making it a standard installment on many top of the line F-Body’s.
(Not that this is anything exclusive, but it IS a change in regards to a performance related option that wouldn’t be reported to the owner due to it being made standard issue.)


..& I’d say we’re more-so on the path of it involving any/all categories of newer model-year’s updated/upgraded option availabilities.
This could always possibly include (but not be limited to) performance options.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Well then let's stop beating around the bush here...just exactly what sort of features (especially those which impact performance, as much of your posts have focused on such) are you claiming were included or available on an R9Z car that weren't otherwise advertised or available on that same trim level? What is that very late '02 SS I posted above, with the 345hp package clearly documented (withOUT R9Z), missing that could have otherwise ONLY been had on an R9Z car of the same?

Will Lee

I think you’re misunderstanding the assumption of one vehicles RPO code R9Z.. being COMPLETELY different from the very next vehicle in line’s RPO code R9Z.

As in it could possibly just represent a change from previous model years options being made standard for later model years.

This could include all possible categories of options.. including performance.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

I don't misunderstand R9Z, but I don't think I understand the sentence you just posted above.

Are you now claiming that R9Z is some sort of factory reference to otherwise unknown, unadvertised options/features that may or may not be the same from one car to the next on the same assembly line, and apparently even the purchasers of these cars didn't know exactly what they were getting in the way of said vague "special" features? So we're back to "hidden gems" and "stealth packages" I see. We are regressing. This makes me sad.

Will Lee

I’m claiming that you’re the one who keeps asking questions like I’m supposed to be teaching you anything new.

You should combat what you know as being false information.. you should not lead people on over subject matters you only hope to disregard.


I understand how amusing it must be watching me mislead myself around in circles.. throwing in some juicy scraps here & there.. ​​​​
..but I’d much rather prove myself wrong.. than keep wondering if I might still be right.. (in regards to whatever factors I’ll continue to misunderstand.)


This was simply the wrong thread for me to begin expressing my opinions & considerations on.. & the subject matter this thread focuses on is not the subject matter I was hoping/trying to contest by sharing what all I’ve heard over the years.
The literal extent of how “my statements” were being taken at first was very argumentative, & unexpected.

I didn’t realize the importance of expressing what all I’ve considered to be true, & what all I’ve remained uncertain of.
Regardless of not knowing, I shared my assumptions & suggestions that all quickly landed me in the hot seat.

I would’ve just deleted my posts if such was possible.. but it wasn’t an option..

I became insulted with how the community began to correlate their misinterpretations of my words together as if I was still trying to argue or even disagree with any of their opinions.

..& it’s just been slowly spiraling on since then as If the title of this thread is/has been my only point of interest!

..just more small factors that get taken FAR too literally.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Huh? I don't even understand what this actually means. Perhaps it's just deflection?

But I will post something very clear, very simple: Please enlighten us by providing an example of physical R9Z-specific equipment on a 2002 LS1 F-body, especially equipment that could vary under the same RPO from one 2002 LS1 F-body car to the next on the assembly line, and was not available nor accounted for by any other means, as you have claimed. If there are facts to prove this, then why in the world would I want to disregard it? That would be important information of which we should all be made aware.

Are you asking me to prove that something which has never been proven to exist, doesn't exist? Because that is my takeaway thus far, and having to write that sentence just gave me a headache.

Will Lee

Perhaps it is deflection?
Indeed.

The best thing you could possibly do is quit typing.
Of coarse you’ve clearly been aware of that since not long after my first few entries in this thread.


Go spend some time with your grandchildren or further promote all your support for the Democratic Party,
rather than expressing yourself as having all the time in the world to proofread anything & everything said by idiots such as me..

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

I would suggest you take your own advice.

I see you have edited some replies above, so I will just summarize here:

The "rumors" you have brought to us certainly aren't doing anyone any favors, you aren't helping or sharing anything useful when you claim that things exist which are not known to exist with your only evidence being, "the proof is out there, but it’ll never be generally accepted over the internet." Why not? Why not share what you have learned and show/explain your sources if you have something to bring that isn't widely known or accepted? That is how the collective, factual database here grows; that is how this site remains valuable.

Instead, you really should have come to this site with an open mind, ready to learn and ask questions regarding the things that you might only know as rumors. It is through such questions that one can learn, and can perpetuate actual facts which will be helpful to others. We all make mistakes, all of us, and the best way to handle this is to not dig yourself into a deeper hole unless there really is a misunderstanding or something that the other party doesn't know which makes them falsely think you are wrong. In that case, evidence and clear explanation is the best route, not arguing in circles and double talk. But it seems more like you were just hoping to make a claim, adding to some sort of "false mystique" concerning a certain group of cars, and hoped that it would go unchallenged.

Keep in mind, I do work here. So as an Admin it's my responsibility to spend considerable time on the site.

Haha! Well I wasn't going to say anything but since you brought it up - I was actually thinking the same thing about you. I guess we would both be shocked by each other's voting history and some common ground here.

And on that note, I think it's time to put this unfortunate exchange to bed.