When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
I've had two 1987's with the BW 9 bolt rear end. Both had covers with a rubber plug and a bulge in the middle of the cover. Both had coded GU6, G80, J65 and G92 but both were LB9/5 speeds. I've found an 87 with the L98/Auto. I always thought that all L98's in 1987 came with the BW and 3:27 gears. This car does have GW6 (3:27), G80, J65. But it does not have G92 code and the rear end cover is a 10 bolt cover. Can anyone definitively say they know for 100% sure that all 1987 L98's came with the BW 3:27? Cuz that would mean this one's been swapped. It is for sure not a BW axle. And what about the G92 code missing from this car's codes? If it was swapped wouldn't it have a G92 code?
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
Originally Posted by neilcase
I've had two 1987's with the BW 9 bolt rear end. Both had coded GU6, G80, J65 and G92 but both were LB9/5 speeds.
There's something inconsistent here. GU6 is a 3.42 10-bolt. I suppose your two LB9/T5 ?IROCs? could've had that 10-bolt, like 90-92 LB9/T5 cars, but you specifically stated that they had 9-bolts, for which the code should be GM3 (3.45), not GU6.
Now, I believe 1987 was the first year the IROC received the 9-bolt, while Pontiac had been using it since 1985, but I don't know if IROCs started receiving 9-bolts immediately when 1987 production began. Reaching here, but maybe it's possible that they were supposed to be receiving 10-bolts, and were still labeled as such, when the integration of the 9-bolt actually began? That might explain why your labels have GU6, and the cars had 9-bolts.
Originally Posted by neilcase
I've found an 87 with the L98/Auto. I always thought that all L98's in 1987 came with the BW and 3:27 gears. This car does have GW6 (3:27), G80, J65. But it does not have G92 code and the rear end cover is a 10 bolt cover.
Regarding this part of your post, are we to assume you're talking about IROCs? All you've said is 9-bolt cars. Because Formulas, TAs and GTAs had 9-bolts, WITH the performance axle ratios, and GW6 is the code for a 3.27 9-bolt, but the G92 code wasn't listed on their SPID labels. The performance ratios were part of their performance packages, but the G92 code wasn't formally present. So if this particular car is a Pontiac, then there's your answer to why G92 isn't on the label.
Lastly, about all of the cars in question, have you confirmed that the VINs on the labels match the VINs behind the glass, the body panel labels and the firewall? I'm guessing you have verified their legitimacy, but it's worth a mention.
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
Originally Posted by sofakingdom
If the G92 code is not present, it didn't come with it.
The car owes you nothing because you "thought" it.
Sounds like somebody swapped something sometime or other for some random reason. Not sure how this is hard to figure out?
Your condescending comment "not sure how this is hard to figure out" fails to hit your mark when you yourself said if they G92 is not present then it didn't come with it. And then you say somebody had to have swapped it out. I said it didn't come with G92. Can't swap something that was never there, according to your own theory. Doh! So that clearly also eliminates you as any possibility of a definitive answer.
if you didnt understand my question then I'll rephrase. It has nothing to do with what I thought or what "the car owes me". I've seen it said in multiple threads on the forum that ALL 1987 L98 came with the Borg Warner 9 bolt. Who knows for sure that ALL 1987 L98 came with a Borg Warner 9 bolt. Because I have found one that appears to disprove this statement and I am trying to determine what is true and what is simply believed to be true. The SPID does not have a G92 code. Most people believe that is the code for a BW on 1987. I've read this is true of G92 and I've read that NO G92 does not necessarily mean a BW. Clearly sofakingdom doesnt have the answer.
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
My LB9/t5's were GM3 cars. Not sure why I typer GU6. They are absolutely Borg Warner axles because I pulled the covers off, cleaned them and refilled them via the filler plug. Plus they are easy to spot with the distinct cover shape. I also had a 1987 L98 that DID have the BW but the SPID label was missing so I can only assume it showed G92. But wasn't the BW for the 700r a different ratio than for the T5? Regarding the car I'm looking at buying right now. Here is the label. It's clearly an 87 L98. Even if this label doesnt match this car it had to have come from some car. But every other code on the label matches what the car has. This appears to be an unmolested car based on the 40+ pictures the guy has sent me. So I pose the question. Where all L98 cars also SUPPOSED to be Borg Warner (because this one isnt) and what if any code indicates BW? It seems that it would be code G92 but I've read that isn't necessarily true. EDIT: Also incouding a pic of this actual rear end.
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
Counting the bolts is easy, but sometimes that top center 10th bolt can be hard to see or missing, making it appear to be a 9-bolt, when it's a 10-bolt.
9-bolts have BORG WARNER, maybe simply BW, cast into the bottom of the pumpkin housing.
The axle ratios and their equivalents: GU6 is 10-bolt ratio 3.42, and GM3 is the 9-bolt equivalent of 3.45; GU5 is 10-bolt ratio 3.23, and GW6 is the 9-bolt equivalent of 3.27. LB9/T5 typically received GM3 3.45 9-bolt or GU6 3.42 10-bolt. L98 received GW6 3.27 9-bolt or GU5 3.23 10-bolt.
As for why there is no G92 code on that label you're showing, even though it lists GW6, which is the BW performance ratio of 3.27, I can only guess that perhaps because that ratio automatically came with the L98 as part of its performance package, then the G92 code wasn't specifically listed? That's what Pontiac did, but Chevy typically listed it, or so I thought.
But that label is on the car with the 10-bolt in the other picture? Label lists the 9-bolt axle ratio, so the axle was either swapped at some point during the car's lifetime, or the switch occurred at the factory, due to a possible untimely change by Chevy between the 10-bolt/9-bolt in 1987.
I'd lean toward the later swap, as Sofa suggested. There's not likely to ever be any evidence to the contrary.
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
You've made some good points. First off it is unquestionably a 10 bolt in the car. And it appears to have been native to the car because #1. The SPID label indicates so #2. The seller is experienced in selling older cars and he says not one single thing on the car appears to have been molested in any way. So the swap theory, although valid is the least likely. Plus who would swap a 9 bolt and replace it with a 10 bolt? Maybe the dealer would do that due to a defect or recall but then the label would indicate it being built with a 9 bolt. So perhaps the boiled down question is this. EXACTLY what RPOs indicate a 9 bolt Borg Warner? That is really what seems to be unclear. I always thought it was G92. Maybe that is still correct. If so then the statement that all 87 L98's came with a BW 9 bolt (G92) is false. We have one right in front of us disproving it.
I am not as familiar with the performance gear options as you seem to be. But I always thought if it was a performance gear it would have the G92 code. You're saying a GW6 in a 10 bolt was considered a performance axle? Not disputing that just clarifying what you're saying. I think the theory that this car got a 10 bolt due to production line changes or shortages or perhaps it was a very early or very late car is most likely. We cant see the build sequence number on the label so I have asked the seller to send me that.
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
Originally Posted by neilcase
You've made some good points. First off it is unquestionably a 10 bolt in the car. And it appears to have been native to the car because #1. The SPID label indicates so #2. The seller is experienced in selling older cars and he says not one single thing on the car appears to have been molested in any way. So the swap theory, although valid is the least likely. Plus who would swap a 9 bolt and replace it with a 10 bolt? Maybe the dealer would do that due to a defect or recall but then the label would indicate it being built with a 9 bolt. So perhaps the boiled down question is this. EXACTLY what RPOs indicate a 9 bolt Borg Warner? That is really what seems to be unclear. I always thought it was G92. Maybe that is still correct. If so then the statement that all 87 L98's came with a BW 9 bolt (G92) is false. We have one right in front of us disproving it.
I am not as familiar with the performance gear options as you seem to be. But I always thought if it was a performance gear it would have the G92 code. You're saying a GW6 in a 10 bolt was considered a performance axle? Not disputing that just clarifying what you're saying. I think the theory that this car got a 10 bolt due to production line changes or shortages or perhaps it was a very early or very late car is most likely. We cant see the build sequence number on the label so I have asked the seller to send me that.
No.
GW6 indicates a BW 9 bolt with a 3.27 gear.
So according to the SPID, this car was built with a BW 9 bolt with 3.27 gears. What has happened in the subsequent 36 years is anyone's guess.
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
Originally Posted by neilcase
wasn't the BW for the 700r a different ratio than for the T5?
No. A 3.42 10 bolt behind a T5 V8 has the same ratio-specific RPO as a 3.42 behind a 700R4 V6. And the RPO changes if it a 3.45 9-bolt behind any trans. option.
This appears to be an unmolested car based on the 40+ pictures the guy has sent me. So I pose the question. Where all L98 cars also SUPPOSED to be Borg Warner (because this one isnt) and what if any code indicates BW? It seems that it would be code G92 but I've read that isn't necessarily true.
Nothing required a third gen to ship with either rear. If Borg Warner's pricing went way up, GM would have shipped new builds with 10-bolts. I am sure the 9-bolt seemed like a way to beef things up, at a decent price point for an OEM at the time, so that's what they did. I am unaware of any dealer literature that (hypothetically) would have led a buyer to expect a 9 or 10 bolt. Because, this is tier 1 supplier opportunity in the 80s. There were limited slip shortages and some GM models didn't get them as-ordered in the years preceding 1985. Related? I don't know.
G92 represents optional rear gear instead of the one automatically included.
A stand-alone option for 3.23 instead of 2.73 would lead the car to get a G92 RPO.
A model / option package with no opportunity to order a different final drive ratio would not need G92 because the assembly line would have the info "All ABC packages get the 3.27. No exception." But a lower model that could get 2.73 standard, and a trailering or performance package that included the 3.27 might get the G92 used if needed on the assy. line.
Originally Posted by neilcase
You've made some good points. First off it is unquestionably a 10 bolt in the car. And it appears to have been native to the car because #1. The SPID label indicates so #2. The seller is experienced in selling older cars and he says not one single thing on the car appears to have been molested in any way. So the swap theory, although valid is the least likely. Plus who would swap a 9 bolt and replace it with a 10 bolt? Maybe the dealer would do that due to a defect or recall but then the label would indicate it being built with a 9 bolt. So perhaps the boiled down question is this. EXACTLY what RPOs indicate a 9 bolt Borg Warner? [
The make / model and RPO are all that's needed for the third gen. You couldn't get a 3.27 rear axle 85-90 in an F without it being a 9-bolt. You couldn't get a 3.23 without it being a. 10-bolt.
That is really what seems to be unclear. I always thought it was G92.
Nope. Salespeople and enthusiasts with a vested interest in a car seeming valuable, rare, desirable, or otherwise doing the equivalent of bleach and a Brazilian on their swarthy sister will label things "high output," "performance gear" and other nonsense.
But I always thought if it was a performance gear it would have the G92 code.
It's still an optionally available gear indicator.
I think the theory that this car got a 10 bolt due to production line changes or shortages or perhaps it was a very early or very late car is most likely. We cant see the build sequence number on the label so I have asked the seller to send me that.
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
I am beginning to think this is the most likely scenario for this car. I'm betting GM used what they had at the time. Unless the car was built with a BW and that rear end was blown up (not likley) and then replaced with a crappy 10 bolt. I just don't see anybody swapping a BW for a 10 bolt otherwise, especially when no other mods were made to that car. (It still has the original cat on it).
In theory I could put the rear end in it that was supposed to be in it and I wouldn't be committing a forgery.
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
And what about the G92 code missing from this car's codes?
Help us all understand how, if a car didn't come with some particular RPO code, that makes it "missing". ???
Either it DOES have the code, or it DOES NOT have the code. Not too hard to figure out here. Not sure how you think I'm in error on this point.
If it was swapped wouldn't it have a G92 code?
Are you SERIOUS??? What does "swap" have to do with whether or not some code is on the SPID sticker?? (except to the extent that the car may have come with something or other, as listed on the sticker, but something else was swapped in) Why in the world would you think that if some car came with some 9-bolt, and some yutz swapped in a 10-bolt for whyever, that a particular RPO code is somehow OBLIGATED to miraculously appear on the SPID sticker?
I always thought
Seems to me that the basic problem comes down to THIS. Just because you "always thought" something, doesn't automatically make it a FACT.
they know for 100% sure that all 1987 L98's came with the BW 3:27?
I for one CANNOT make this claim. I would hesitate to do so in any case; all it would take is ONE car that differs from this, to make me a liar. Words like "all", "none", "always", "none", "never", etc. are VERY DANGEROUS, for that reason as well as many others. Not least of which is, the "small sample size" fallacy, humorously embodied in
I've had two
as though that makes one an expert on "all".
Personally I have no insider knowledge about "all" 87 L98 Camaros coming with 3.27 (a specific 9-bolt ratio) gears. I am QUITE CERTAIN that this is not the case in other years. But be all that as it may, if the SPID sticker doesn't have G92 on it, then the car didn't come with G92. But at the same time, given that G92 means "performance gear ratio", and NOT a specific number, it may well be that some random ratio might well have come in cars WITHOUT being ordered on the shop floor as G92. For all I know, 3.27 may well have been a standard option on the menu for gear ratios that year, without being restricted to the G92 package. I don't know that "for 100% sure" of course in this specific case, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand either, without better proof than "I always thought".
To me this kind of crap is just a bunch of Firebird owner talk. For whyever, since the day those cars appeared, they have attracted people who like to argue this sort of thing in this sort of way. Me, I'm a Camaro guy, NOT a Firebird guy; that means I LOOK AT THE PARTS, and whatever PARTS are there, are THE PARTS the car has. Sometimes it's interesting to consider what oddball crap some g00b swapped into something (usually, but not always, a downgrade) but more often than not it boils down to, the moron (usually, but not always, some rich brat) got a really nice car somehow, tore up the things that made it "nice" (usually, but not always) by abuse, and stuck in the cheeeeeeeeeeepest thing his local junkyard had that would fit, as a replacement. Which is how cars with J65 and G80 on their SPID sticker end up on the market with drum brakes and open carriers (6-cyl rear axles) in them, and other sorts of sodomy. Once one gets to that point, all further "I always thought" BS is just a bunch of blabbermouth and bishop-buffing. At a certain level you have to lay off the "I always thought" crap and just deal with what's in front of you. This seems to be just such a case.
Last edited by sofakingdom; 03-08-2023 at 08:14 PM.
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
SOFAKINGDOM - you make some good points too. I wonder if you've forgotten the point of this forum which is to share and learn. Maybe it's not to stroke one's ego? I kinda sorta think perhaps you could be more elegant in sharing your knowledge. Makes me lean towards thinking ... oh what's the word? ....... TROLL!! ya that's it! If you're really here to help and not just inflate yourself then you are welcome to comment again. Doh!
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
This seems to have become another one of those threads with someone convinced they found a unicorn car with an oddball assortment of parts that dont make sense. Kinda like the mythical factory 350 with T5 and t-tops thing.
Next thread coming up: How valuable is my unicorn car?
I added cupholders to my Z28. It also has a different transmission ****. It is now "1 of 1" and I insist it must be worth $80,000. Make me an offer though.
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
The "point" of this forum is to spread KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, and TRUTH, about a mass-produced product that dates back 30 - 40 yrs now. The product (82-92 Camaro/Firebird) is pretty well known around here. You are adding NOTHING WHATSOEVER to the overall body of knowledge by inventing this "missing RPO code" crap. Your car is ordinary and usual, mass-produced like all that rest, but perhaps with some parts that have been replaced over the years, with ones that don't match the originals in every detail. It is NOT "special" or "unusual" or "hard to explain" in any manner way shape form or fashion.
The whole premise you are arguing about (which seems to be that you have a "unique" car) is LAUGHABLE. I would advise you, that it's better to stay quiet and merely be thought a fool, than to open your mouth (keyboard) and remove all doubt. Meanwhile, please explain to everyone how pointing out THE TRUTH about your car is "stroking ego" in some way: your car came with a B-W 9-bolt with 3.27 gears because that was the STANDARD GEAR (or one of them) for that powertrain, as a consequence wasn't equipped with the RPO code G92, and has been swapped out to a 10-bolt of unknown properties. This simple common and ordinary set of facts has NOTHING to do with MY ego. It's just FACTS. Posting this same stupidity on every subforum of this site won't change that.
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
And I would advise you and Aaron it is better to be kind and helpful than to be a jerk. What do you get out of that? Does it give you some sort of sugar high that you can't get anywhere else in your miserable and small lives? You said yourself the purpose of the forum. You came right out of the gate with your snide comments. And for what? What did I do to deserve that? Did you come out of the womb knowing all the RPO combos or was there a time when perhaps you didn't know it all? Did somebody, anybody at all hep you? Or are you actually the omniscient super god of third gen that you seem to think you are. Whatever the answer to that might be, don't expect people to bow at your feet when in reality you're a nothing more than a feeble little guy attempting to knock others down because you can't get any taller yourself.
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
Originally Posted by LAFireboyd
There's something inconsistent here. GU6 is a 3.42 10-bolt. I suppose your two LB9/T5 ?IROCs? could've had that 10-bolt, like 90-92 LB9/T5 cars, but you specifically stated that they had 9-bolts, for which the code should be GM3 (3.45), not GU6.
Now, I believe 1987 was the first year the IROC received the 9-bolt, while Pontiac had been using it since 1985, but I don't know if IROCs started receiving 9-bolts immediately when 1987 production began. Reaching here, but maybe it's possible that they were supposed to be receiving 10-bolts, and were still labeled as such, when the integration of the 9-bolt actually began? That might explain why your labels have GU6, and the cars had 9-bolts.
Regarding this part of your post, are we to assume you're talking about IROCs? All you've said is 9-bolt cars. Because Formulas, TAs and GTAs had 9-bolts, WITH the performance axle ratios, and GW6 is the code for a 3.27 9-bolt, but the G92 code wasn't listed on their SPID labels. The performance ratios were part of their performance packages, but the G92 code wasn't formally present. So if this particular car is a Pontiac, then there's your answer to why G92 isn't on the label.
Lastly, about all of the cars in question, have you confirmed that the VINs on the labels match the VINs behind the glass, the body panel labels and the firewall? I'm guessing you have verified their legitimacy, but it's worth a mention.
Originally Posted by sofakingdom
The "point" of this forum is to spread KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, and TRUTH, about a mass-produced product that dates back 30 - 40 yrs now. The product (82-92 Camaro/Firebird) is pretty well known around here. You are adding NOTHING WHATSOEVER to the overall body of knowledge by inventing this "missing RPO code" crap. Your car is ordinary and usual, mass-produced like all that rest, but perhaps with some parts that have been replaced over the years, with ones that don't match the originals in every detail. It is NOT "special" or "unusual" or "hard to explain" in any manner way shape form or fashion.
The whole premise you are arguing about (which seems to be that you have a "unique" car) is LAUGHABLE. I would advise you, that it's better to stay quiet and merely be thought a fool, than to open your mouth (keyboard) and remove all doubt. Meanwhile, please explain to everyone how pointing out THE TRUTH about your car is "stroking ego" in some way: your car came with a B-W 9-bolt with 3.27 gears because that was the STANDARD GEAR (or one of them) for that powertrain, as a consequence wasn't equipped with the RPO code G92, and has been swapped out to a 10-bolt of unknown properties. This simple common and ordinary set of facts has NOTHING to do with MY ego. It's just FACTS. Posting this same stupidity on every subforum of this site won't change that.
[QUOTE=Aaron R.;6495256]This seems to have become another one of those threads with someone convinced they found a unicorn car with an oddball assortment of parts that dont make sense. Kinda like the mythical factory 350 with T5 and t-tops thing.
Next thread coming up: How valuable is my unicorn car?
I added cupholders to my Z28. It also has a different transmission ****. It is now "1 of 1" and I insist it must be worth $80,000. Make me an offer though.[/QUOTE
Seems like another thread in which a small minded man thinks it's better to belittle and mock someone else than to actually contribute to the conversation. There are more than one of us who believe it is entlrely possible that GM delivered the car with a 10 bolt. But none of us have said we know that for sure. Yet a few of you are so absolutely sure that it wasn't. You are always right and that gives you some license to be mock anybody who thinks of other possibilities than yours. Hope that works for all the other aspects of your life. It doesn't work here.
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
No, GM didn't deliver the car with a 10-bolt.
The RPO code you supplied from the SPID sheet (or wherever else you got it) is a 9-bolt ratio. Therefore that code says 9-bolt. Therefore it didn't come with a 10-bolt.
Either that or you're lying about the gear RPO code.
Either way, it's pretty obvious who's "small-minded" here. Anybody that will come on a forum populated with "experts" to the extent such a thing exists, and try to LIE about what they have, and then attack anybody that disagrees with their LIES, doesn't seem to me a very wise or far-sighted thinker.
Have a wonderful life in your personal fantasy world!!
Re: Another 1987 Borg Warner Question Found a weird car
That is no longer what I'm talking about. My point of my last two posts were about your conduct and not who is correct. You could very well be correct. Where does that give you the right to be condescending and holy? Here's my definitive answer on that. NO WHERE. I'd rather be wrong about something than to be like you. No need to worry about my life. Anybody here can see that.
On a side note. 30 years ago when I built my 1st 68 Camaro there were also guys who thought they were so absolutely correct on how those cars were built. That "correctness" is still being disproven today. GM is well known for using parts they had on hand. I never said I knew for sure this was the case on this car. I said it was a possibility and wondered if anyone else had ever encountered such. And you and Aaron chose to speak for EVERYONE even though there were other members who agreed it was possible. But once you've got a hardened absolutely correct opinion of something you can't see the possibility of being wrong. I have no problem being wrong. It's the best way to learn. You on the other hand don't seem capable of understanding that concept. You keep acting like a deity if it works for you.
03-07-2023, 12:12 AM
Meanwhile, please explain to everyone how pointing out THE TRUTH about your car is "stroking ego" in some way: your car came with a B-W 9-bolt with 3.27 gears because that was the STANDARD GEAR (or one of them) for that powertrain, as a consequence wasn't equipped with the RPO code G92, and has been swapped out to a 10-bolt of unknown properties. This simple common and ordinary set of facts has NOTHING to do with MY ego. It's just FACTS. Posting this same stupidity on every subforum of this site won't change that. 
