(first posted 7/22/2015) Chevrolet’s 3rd generation Camaro needs little introduction, having been produced for 11 model years, with over 1.5 million cars made. However, this car is one of the lesser-remembered Camaros, the luxury-oriented Berlinetta. Yes, the Camaro had a luxury model, and this is it.
Before discussing the car itself, it may be helpful to explain the name. Chevy borrowed the term, berlinetta, from the Italian. It’s a term with no precise translation, but refers to a coupe, and is typically associated with various models of Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Maserati and Fiat. The Camaro bears little resemblance to its Italian namesakes.
The Berlinetta trim level was first offered in 1979, replacing the Type LT, and marketed as a more refined and luxurious Camaro. Its timing explains the reason a “luxury” model was ever offered at all. In the late 1970s, GM was faced with an aging 2nd generation Camaro, and the Malaise Era had thoroughly taken the fun out of the former muscle car, with underpowered engines and shoddy build quality. But while government regulations sapped performance from cars in that era, nothing sapped luxury – so Chevy created a new package to take the Camaro slightly upscale and generate some showroom interest. It was a cheap fix; most of the amenities offered on the Berlinetta were available as options elsewhere in the Camaro line. However, placed together in a new package, with minor trim pieces and new wheels to accentuate it, the Berlinetta did generate interest, and sales.
In 1979, 67,000 Berlinettas were sold – nearly a quarter of all Camaros. That number and proportion of sales would never be surpassed, but by the 2nd generation’s last year of 1981, 20,000 Berlinettas still found homes, and the trim level was popular enough to migrate over to the 3rd generation Camaro for 1982.
When introduced, the 3rd generation F-body cars (Camaro and its twin, the Pontiac Firebird) caused quite a splash. As is usual with new car introductions, the high-end Z28 grabbed most of the attention in the form of advertisements and press reviews. However, three trim levels were offered: the entry-level Sport Coupe, the high-performance Z28… and the Berlinetta.
Regardless of the trim level, GM nailed the looks for this car – the hatchback Camaro’s low, angular silhouette was a significant departure from the norm in the early 1980s, and turned out to be exactly what the sports coupe market was looking for. Its sales success ensured that the design would be emulated by other cars throughout the 1980s (notice the similarities between the Camaro and the later Dodge Daytona and Nissan 300ZX).
The F-cars were certainly not perfect, and were considered somewhat crudely built. As with many cars of its era, durability was often poor. But these factors did not hamper sales much. In its introductory year, the 3rd Generation Camaro achieved almost 190,000 sales, surging to 261,000 by 1984.
The base Sport Coupe (offered with a 4-, 6- or 8-cylinder engine) emphasized value, while the high-performance Z28 offered standard V-8 performance, a sport suspension and ground-effect lower-body extensions. In the middle was the Berlinetta, with a mid-range price and a standard V-6 , and optional V-8, engine.
GM stressed the luxury aspect of the Berlinetta, and called it a luxury grand touring car, although “luxury” may seem an exaggeration nowadays.
Differences from the Sport Coupe consisted of mostly comfort and convenience items. Standard features on Berlinettas included upgraded upholstery, door trim and headliner, more sound insulation, body-colored mirrors, and the 2.8-liter, 107-hp carbureted V-6 engine. Most of these items were still available as options on the cheaper Sport Coupe, but they all came packaged together in the Berlinetta, along with this model’s most distinctive attribute: gold trim. There was one technical specification unique to Berlinettas: a “smooth-ride suspension” to provide a more comfortable ride than the bone-jarring Z28 or Sport Coupe suspensions.
Sources of production numbers: “Standard Catalog of Chevrolet: 1912-1998” and “The Story of Camaro”
The Berlinetta was the least popular Camaro version offered. In 1982, 21% of Camaros were Berlinettas, but that proportion dropped in each of the following four years. In our featured year of 1983, 28,000 examples (18% of Camaro production) were made. By 1986, its final year, only 4,476 Berlinettas were produced, and the Berlinetta was discontinued after that point.
Berlinettas like this 1983 example are easy to identify due to their gold-painted finned alloy wheels, subtle gold pin striping around the wheel wells and above the lower accent color, and gold “berlinetta” (with a lower-case b) badges on the bumper, pillar and dashboard.
The tail light design was also slightly different, which this particular car illustrates well. This car has a Berlinetta right tail light (with a light-colored frame for the license plate light and a horizontal black stripe in the middle of the lights), but has the left tail light from a Sport Coupe. Berlinetta-specific replacement parts are likely tough to come by these days, which may account for the unmatched tail lights on this example.
This featured car is equipped with the standard V-6 engine and has many of the popular options of its day, such as automatic transmission, air conditioning, cassette stereo with “Extended Range Sound,” and cruise control. More unusual is the rear wiper, which was somewhat uncommon on the F-body cars, despite the vast expanse of rear glass area.
Not included on this car are power windows or locks, intermittent wipers, or a rear spoiler. While the red paint and camel interior appear well matched to the gold exterior trim, Berlinettas were available in all the 12 exterior and 6 interior colors as were other Camaros. This car probably carried a list price of about $11,500.
The large rear glass area led to a boon in one particular aftermarket specialty: rear window louvers. The louver market took off after the introduction of the 3rd generation F-bodies. Along with later sports coupes that mimicked the glass hatchback design, this car style enticed numerous aftermarket suppliers to sell louvers as a way of keeping these cars cooler.
In retrospect, the concept of a sports coupe-based “luxury grand touring car” such as the Berlinetta seems a bit peculiar. A sporty-looking car, but one with gold trim and more luxury – rather than sport – attributes would not be an easy sell today. But the Berlinetta was the product of a certain time, when performance and quality had waned, so “luxury” took their place. Chevy persevered with the Berlinetta through 1986 (it received a space-age electronic dashboard in 1984, which stirred interest in the car for a while), but in time, market conditions changed. No such luxury Camaro has been made since.
It is hard to imagine the current generation of Camaro – or any similar car – having a luxury variant, let alone one with just 107 horsepower. Maybe someday the concept of a car like the Camaro Berlinetta will make a resurgence. But until then, we can learn from the few examples remaining on the road just how different the car market was three decades ago.
Good looking car from the outside, cheap cheap cheap on the inside. That said, a friend of mine had one with the 2.8 & auto and while not terribly inspiring to drive, it did ride ok, the hatchback had some utilitarian value, and it was shockingly reliable for that vintage of GM product. Was it screwed together as well as a Mustang? Not by a long shot, but Mustangs never turned heads like any version of Gen III Camaro.
You really have to wonder how Chevy dealerships sold so many 3rd gen Camaros with interiors like that. The swoopy fenders and low rooflines no doubt lured many a car guy into monthly payments but you have to wonder if prospective buyers ever actually sat in the car. And they aged horribly. A 2 or 3 year old F-body looked like a 10 year old Honda, if you were lucky. Too bad, because they were very good looking cars from 20 feet away.
for how many years did the Camaro have that weird “radio on a pedestal” thing on the center console? I remember some douche I knew in high school had one.
I think that was only for the final years of the Berlinetta. I recall an old Car and Driver road test that said the radio module shook so much on rough roads that it was rendered unusable.
I have an 84 model with that stereo
I rather liked the interior on these – that tall, dark, wall-like dash especially, but also the velour seats and nicely integrated center console, some of which were fitted with this oddly-positioned clock on early models:
I find the oddly-positioned clock strangely appealing in these cars. That clock was in fact available in 1983, however this particular car was equipped with one of the higher-end sound systems, which came with a digital clock that replaced the analog console-mounted clock.
I like it too! I’m hard pressed to think of another car with a clock just forward of the armrest.
The set knob is cleverly located in the console storage compartment. This is the first thing I look for when I spot an earlier 3rd-gen Camaro.. I think it’s the coolest little option
I have a Camaro berlinetta it is a really dark brown gold strips and rims and the inside is dark grey with the black dash and tea tops. If it is in perfect shape would it be something that I could take to the car shows?
I don’t understand the hate some harbour for these cars here. I had a ’88 as a rental on my first USA trip. 2.8 V6 (injected by then) TH700. It could have used more power, but on my short aquaintace with it, I had no issues. I don’t recall any rattles, bits falling off, etc. I got it airborne once too.
Interior trim didn’t strike me as luxurious, nor as cheap either.
Ride & handling were OK and having a real handbrake (not those foot operated ones)
meant some fun handbrake turns on the dirt roads around Tucson.
All in all, I have happy memories on ‘my’ Camaro
It may (or may not) be coincidence that your ’88 Camaro was not built in Norwood, OH. The Norwood GM Assembly plant was notorious for high absenteeism and poor build quality. It was the site of the infamous 1972 GM strike that pretty much wiped-out various GM models for that year. GM offered to keep the plant open but the obstinate UAW local refused any concessions (or convince employees to come to work) and the factory was finally shuttered in 1987.
One of the more amusing anecdotes about the closing is that after GM made the decision to close the plant (something the UAW local had claimed would never happen), suddenly, the employee parking lots were overflowing with assembly line workers now deciding to come to work in a belated effort to keep the place open. Of course, by then, it was too late.
Combined with a car that wasn’t exactly engineered well in the first place, it’s easy to see why 3rd generation F-body cars have a very poor reputation (at least those built from 1982-87).
Van Nuys wasn’t much better.
They get hate because everyone is a critic and 30-some years later they do have squeaks and most fell apart or are falling apart and that’s what people remember/think of when they think of these cars.
I believe the poor quality reputation these cars have has as much to do with who owned them as how they were built. My HS parking lot was full of these cars and they were flogged and beaten to death for the most part.
My first car was an 86 Camaro, it was a plain Jane 6 cylinder, but it was black with a grey interior and I thought, and still think, a really sharp car. I got it around 92, and it had 50-60,000 miles on it. It was a good solid used car.
It was slow as dirt but completely dependable. In my 3 years of ownership I never had any problems with dependability was. I think the only thing I ever had to do to it was replace the alternator which was easy, even for a 16 YO.
I loved that car, I bought some Torque Thruster rims for it and looks wise, I would still absolutely rock that car. I never cared for the RS models of the 3rd gen, but I loved the looks of my car.
Today everyone loves to talk about how crappy 3rd gen Camaros were but like I said, IMO a lot of that is just people talking crap and remember a car their buddy owned that was on it’s 4th owner and had been ragged to death.
My Camaro didn’t have any rattles or squeaks either. I put probably 30,000 miles on it in the time I owned it and then gave it to my dad, who drove it for another year or so before selling it himself. If I could find one today in decent shape I wouldn’t hesitate to buy it and swap a more modern drivetrain in it.
I have an 84 Camaro Berlinetta. It is a good car. 305 engine. The road noise is no more than other cars such as the Grand Am or Honda Accord Coup. The Camaro seats sure could use more padding. It is a good car and has held up very well.
Holy crap you are looking at them with rose colored glasses. These cars were the epitome of GM plastic interior crappiness. While it didn’t disintigrate as easily as the 1970s era GM plastic, it was hard, squeaky, and rattly. The Camaro was an unbeliveable rattletrap even when new – I had one. My 1986 with T-tops lost all semblance of integrity after the 25k mile mark.
The dash was a nightmare noisemaker, partly due to its design. Did you know that the 3rd Gen F-body’s HVAC vent system is held against the firewall solely by the pressure of that vast wide plastic dash casting? It’s all friction holding it in place against gravity! That dash is held against the firewall using only 4 bolts, two on each end. I disassembled mine and lined the dozen or so interlocking plastic ductwork pieces with thin poly foam at the joints in an attempt at rattle and squeak abatement. It was a huge improvement, but how this got past the proposal stage only proves GM’s incompetence at building reliable and durable vehicles.
The Mustangs of this era had a luxury model too – the Grande in the early seventies, then the Mustang II Ghia (some with a luxury group that added burgundy velour upholstery and thick carpeting paired with silver paint and half-vinyl roof outside). The Ghia continued in the first few years of the Fox platform cars before being replaced with the GLX (which saved Ford some licensing fees from what I understand). That continued until the facelifted ’87 IIRC.
Here’s the ’76 ‘Stang Ghia interior with the aforementioned luxury group. It should have been called the Mustang Brougham!
By the mid eighties some of the Mustang II Ghia’s had acquired some proper teenage Centerlines. A sister of a friend had one and to go from those wheels on the outside to the Ghia interior was jarring, but I liked it.
Is that velour? Sweet!
Yep! Button-tufted, even.
All Mustang II Ghias had this style of seat trim, but the Picardy velour cloth was optional; others got either ribbed cloth or vinyl. Every Ghia got the thick carpeting and plenty of woodgrain and chrome on the dash, doors, and console – which I happen to love. Too bad the outside was so toylike and malproportioned and its performance below par.
This interior is exactly like the ’75 Ghia with 302 V8 a family member bought in 1988 for $300.00. It was able to make it home from the seller under it’s own power, but just. 2 head gaskets and a radiator repair and it was back on the road. The paint was totally oxidized, the vinyl roof peeling and the interior was various shades of pink, red, and purple due to sun damage. It looked more like it was 30 years old at that time. 15 MPG on a good day. But for $500.00 total it did the job for a couple of years. These Mustang’s did not age well, but the V8 engine and C4 automatic transmission were durable. I once rode in a ’83 Camaro V6. I was impressed how good it looked from the outside. I was appalled how cheap it seemed on the inside. But as time goes by this generation’s styling is holding up well. A co worker had a gen 3 Camaro with the 4 cylinder auto. To call it slow was an understatement.
neat interior – was leather ever offered?
If I recall correctly this generation of Berlinetta had a unique IP with the gauge cluster and switch gear next to the steering wheel moving with the tilt column. I think they stole that feature from the 928.
It only lasted a few years before GM discontinued it and I’d hate to try and fix it today.
Yeah, there’s a good retrospective over at C/D:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/battle-of-the-beaters-archived-comparison-and-the-winner-is-page-3
Besides the tilt IP cluster, it also had turn-signal indicator paddles, digital speedo, bar-graph tach, rare-for-its-time steering wheel buttons, and the radio and cassette player on a swivel head apparently inspired by a 1959 Philco Predicta TV. The tape player, instead of loading by inserting a cassette into a slot, was loaded vertically in the manner of home cassette decks. Best of all was a strange little reminder dial on the overhead console that let you spin dials to remind yourself of the dates of preset items such as “celebration” or “medical”:
And yes, this stuff all broke quickly.
Yeah, as I recall it the Berlinetta of that vintage was laden with gimmicks that GM quickly ditched for either cost or quality issues or, most likely, a combination of the two.
I can’t imagine owning any of that stuff long term – GMs of that vintage had enough trouble keeping interior plastic from breaking even when it didn’t move, I can only imagine how that pivoting/tilting stuff worked out.
I think by 85 when the 2.8 got MPFI and 135hp and the T-5 5sp. was standard, this could have made a good commuter car, which lets face it is what most pony cars were. Nice upholstery, more sound deadening, and an efficient 60 degree V6, and a less punishing ride could have kept more people in pony cars. The hatchback was present to give utility.
When the 82s came out, there was much talk that the small block V8 was just a place holder until the HO/twin cam/turbo versions of the V6 arrived. The Mustang 5.0 put the kibosh on that, and pony car fans were treated to a 60s style horsepower war in V8 small blocks. No one would have predicted that. What fun.
Yeah, the fuel-injected (throttle body IIRC) V8 was mated only to the 3-speed automatic. The carbureted version could be had with a 4-speed manual but was slower (an ’82 with the V8 and 4-speed struggled to hit 60mph in ten seconds). I don’t even want to think about how awful these must have been with the Iron Duke 4….
After law school, a girl in my apartment building bought a new Camaro. The first time I heard it start and run, I could tell it had a four. I remember thinking “this is so wrong.”
In 82 C&D tested a Celica GTS, the one with the Supra wheels but base engine, and said the combo.(96hp carb 2.4) performance and smoothness were comparable to a Camaro with the iron duke.
I can see at the time the lure of light weight front drive with a sewing machine like 1.8 ala Prelude. This is where the Celica went in the next generation. I think a better long term answer was to find more power and smoothness for the iron dukes. That allows the retention of RWD and the big engines for the performance versions. By the early eighties in the USA even BMW was struggling to keep the 3 series light enough for their emission chocked 1.8.
GM did eventually upgrade the Iron Duke in 1988 with a balance shaft for improved smoothness, and eventually coaxed an additional 20hp from it (to a whopping 110hp) but by then the Camaro base engine was a V6. GM called these the “Tech 4”, though Car and Driver thought “low-tech 4” would be more apt.
Still not enough. Today Chevy has a 190hp 2.5 Ecotech in Impala/Malibu.. The big block fours of today are what inspired my comment. There smooth, torquey and powerful and now often render the V6 choice superflous
V6 is the new V8.
2.0T 4 is the new V6
Yeah, don’t know what took GM so long to make a decent 4 cylinder engine. Nobody had today’s power in their four-bangers back then (except maybe Saab) but they should have prioritized building something with silky smoothness that every ’80s Honda had.
@lee: Saab’s turbo motors weren’t as stout as the Mopar 2.2L & 2.5L turbos in the 80’s & 90’s.
I think with the refinement in materials and electronics over the last 30 years, the new turbos should be far better than the ones we’ve seen since then. If I needed a replacement for our ‘good’ car, a nice Malibu or Regal turbo would be on the short list.
Today’s fours are a different beast than the 80s, even with turbos. I have a ’15 Hyundai Elantra now (1.8, 145 hp, 130 lb-ft, 6M), and I had an ’89 Plymouth Sundance a while back (2.5t, 150 hp, 170 lb-ft, 5M). The Plymouth would show a clean pair of taillights to the Hyundai under any condition that I can think of, though the weights are similar. The Plymouth had a balance shaft and the Hyundai doesn’t, but the new engine is still smoother. The Elantra easily doubles the mileage of the Sundance. It’s all in what the priorities were.
I would love to have my 86 Camaro with the V6 MPFI and 5sp manual again. I loved that car. Traded it for a minivan when I had kids. I should have kept it and bought a minivan. Can’t find one nowadays.
My aunt had a black one of these, and this might be the first time I’ve thought about it in 30 years. I don’t believe I ever rode in it, so my memories of it are fuzzy.
I think the 3rd gen F-Bodies are getting old enough that they’re starting to be cool again. For the first time ever, I like the ’80s Z28s. Nice find!
I fear that 3rd gen F-Bodies, while stirring some pleasant high school nostalgia for those of us in our 40s, will never make good restoration candidates. They were so poorly built in the first place that few survive today, despite big production numbers. For the few that continue to rattle around under their own power, the cost of restoration would be prohibitive given the limited value of a ‘mint’ example. There are a few outliers like the 1989 20th Anniversary Trans Am, and maybe some Indy pace car decal jobs, but only if they were purchased new and left in the shrink wrap, so to speak.
Will never make good restoration candidates?
Yeah right. People are already restoring these cars and the build quality is no worse than any of a million other cars from the era.
I still see these cars daily driven all over the place, even here in Indiana where rust is the number one killer of older cars.
I had a 3rd gen Camaro, I owned it for 3 years it was in my family for 4. We never had any problems with the car. It didn’t squeak or rattle any more than most cars from the era. The interior wasn’t any cheaper than any other generation’s interior.
I had the 6 cylinder, and while not fast, it was a solid, dependable car. The car was roughly 10 years old when my dad sold it (I had sold it to him) and it still ran great.
when I was in HS (the early 90s) you could still find daily driven 1st and 2nd gen Camaros, you could still find reasonably priced nice examples of old Camaros. The 3rd gen is in basically the same place 1st and older 2nd gens were back then, in the early phases of being “classic” cars. In 1994 I bought a solid 72 Z28 for 4,500 bucks. Good luck finding an early 2nd gen Z for that price now.
My point is people were saying the same exact thing about 1st and early 2nd gen Camaros when I was in HS. Most of them were ragged, out, beat up junkers because they had been through 3-4 owners by that point with half of them being kids.
Go to any classic hot rod or muscle car show and you will see 3rd gen Camaros.
People are already starting to restore them and they are no worse build quality wise than anything else GM or Ford or Dodge was putting out at the time. For that matter my ex roommate had an early 90s Honda just a few years ago, and that things interior was a hideous whorehouse red and cheap as could be. It reminded me of my grandma’s 87 Plymouth Horizon interior. But for some reason people have decided Hondas had “high quality” interiors while for some reason Camaros are “cheap”.
They get the “rattle and squeak” rep and mine never rattle or squeaked. I get that the doors were badly designed and over the years will sag and rattle….but the newest 3rd gen is over 20 years old at this point. Of course they’re going to be breaking down.
I’m not sure how people decided to single out Camaros from this era either. I mean when is the last time you looked at a Fox Body Mustang interior? When is the last time you saw one of those that hasn’t been restored or isn’t a garage queen that wasn’t ragged out?
I saw a 87 Grand National for sale the other day and the interior in that thing looked ridiculous, but you never hear people ragging on those cars, and they even have the same problem with having long squeaky doors that sag over time.
Really, I’m not sure why people decided to single out 3rd gen Camaros for build quality, but that crap has gotten waaaaay out of proportion to their actual build quality. They weren’t and aren’t any worse than the majority of cars produced during that era.
As someone who owned one for years, and had friend who owned them (I actually had a friend who right after HS bought a red Berlinetta pretty much like the one in the article) I never had any problems with mine. I had to replace the alternator at roughly 70,000 miles, and that is it for repairs that it needed under my watch. It was a good, solid dependable car, with IMO, great looks.
I would definitely rock one today if I could find the right one. Although I would want to swap in a more modern powerful drivetrain.
Well, your experiences with the 3rd gen Camaro sound like the exception to the rule. I recall a Car And Driver long term test of the ’83 Z-28 that said you could wipe off the paint off with one swipe of a wet cloth plus it suffered numerous oil leaks, a broken differential, and other annoying maladies. This was not an isolated incident, the general trend for 3rd gen F-bodies was pretty grim in the quality department. And Consumer Reports data backs this up.
I believe the 1st and 2nd gen F-bodies were more durable, better screwed together, and ultimately will always be far more collectable. Recall that management / labor relations at GM in the 80s had declined to the point where the workers at the Van Nuys plant were deliberately sabotaging cars by leaving bolts unscrewed. There was a systemic dysfunction there that produced some of the worst automobiles in the company’s history.
They looked great – long, low, wide and aggressive yet clean and modern. But I wouldn’t take one over any ’67-‘.
As for their survival rate, I live in the rust-free south, where I know boatloads of F-bodies were bought in the 80s. This is musclecar central. Yet when I do spot a 3rd gen Camaro or Firebird on the road it’s so rare as to be a cell phone worthy moment.
Sure buddy, here’s a test (I’ve already done it myself but I don’t expect you to believe me so do it for yourself).
You claim there are none of these cars left…..and nobody is going to collect or restore them….right?
So go to Ebay and do a search for 3rd gen Camaros. Also, do a search for aftermarket and restoration parts for 3rd gen Camaros.
Then come back and let me know if there’s any 3rd gen cars left, if anyone collects them and if they have any aftermarket support.
As for the whole “paint comes off with the swipe of a wet cloth” lol. Just lol.
How do you expect me to take you seriously after that?
Well, your experiences with the 3rd gen Camaro sound like the exception to the rule. I recall a Car And Driver long term test of the ’83 Z-28 that said you could wipe off the paint off with one swipe of a wet cloth plus it suffered numerous oil leaks, a broken differential, and other annoying maladies. This was not an isolated incident, the general trend for 3rd gen F-bodies was pretty grim in the quality department. And Consumer Reports data backs this up.
I believe the 1st and 2nd gen F-bodies were more durable, better screwed together, and ultimately will always be far more collectable. Recall that management / labor relations at GM in the 80s had declined to the point where the workers at the Van Nuys plant were deliberately sabotaging cars by leaving bolts unscrewed. There was a systemic dysfunction there that produced some of the worst automobiles in the company’s history.
They looked great – long, low, wide and aggressive yet clean and modern. But I still wouldn’t take one over a ’67-’81 model.
As for their survival rate, I live in the rust-free south, where I know boatloads of F-bodies were bought in the 80s. This is musclecar central. Yet when I do spot a 3rd gen Camaro or Firebird on the road it’s so rare as to be a cell phone worthy moment.
So rare they’re “cell phone worthy”?
I live in Indianapolis.
Cars rust like crazy here because they use massive amounts of salt on the roads.
Yet…..when I got to Craigslist…..and do a search for Camaros……I see many listings for 3rd gen Camaros. Odd, given that they’re so rare they’re “cell phone worthy” wouldn’t you say”?
Oh,, but I”m sure you’re going to say I’m lying, right?
So here you go, a link to the Craigslist search.
http://indianapolis.craigslist.org/search/cto?query=camaro
Now look through that and tell me how “rare” 3rd gen Camaros are. I still see them literally every single day driving around here. They are the exact opposite of rare.
I”m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you live in some really rural area of the south where you don’t see many, maybe where you live there aren’t many but guess what? Where you live obviously doesn’t represent everywhere else. 3rd gen Camaros are not rare at all.
Well, I just ran your search, and not a single third gen showed up. Maybe 4 more years did them all in?
They all migrated west? 12 third gens in my area
https://chicago.craigslist.org/search/sss?query=camaro&sort=rel&min_auto_year=1982&max_auto_year=1992
I had forgotten that the Berlinetta hung around so long. I remember the 79 because of a conversation I overheard in college between a couple of girls. One was telling the other that her daddy had just given her a new car. When the other girl asked what kind, the first replied (in her very best Valley Girl voice) “a Berlinetta.”
I think Chevy tried to tap into that elusive luxury/sport combination and was fairly successful with it. That is a hard combination to get right, bit I think this car pulled it kff fairly well.
My sister’s best friend was given a Berlinetta by her parents for her 16th birthday. Consequently, I always saw it as the “chick car” version of the Camaro. Hers would have been a ’79 or an ’80. I remember it having special filigreed badging, which reinforced the feminine nature of the car in my mind.
One of my best friends bought one in the mid 90s, I always thought it was really gaud and exactly what a Camaro shouldn’t be.
I also hate how they (or at least his) didn’t have any kind of spoiler on the back. Never understood that. I had a 86 regular old Camaro and it had a small spoiler, not like the huge ones on RS but IMO the perfect size which really set off the back end of the Camaro.
My friend’s met it’s demise because he jacked it up in the wrong place and punched the jack through the floorboard lol.
It was getting pretty ragged out anyway, it was over 10 years old by that point and had obviously had a hard life.
Anyway, I never really thought of them as “chick’s cars’ just really ugly Camaros.
What would have been cool would have been in say the Po river valley in Italy and overhear two pretty rich girls talking. “What car did you get?” answer. :An IROC!
Valley Girl voice… “a Berlinetta”. It’s a week later and I’m still laughing about this. 🙂
Good article on a forgotten model. Somewhat similar to the Esprit Firebird. My impression at the time was not that the berlinetta was a luxury car, more that it was a “Camaro for girls” as guys would always want the Z28. Perhaps the naming of it, having a feminine-sounding name was the issue. I just seem to remember women driving berlinettas.
As other have commented, these cars looked great on the outside but were a pain to live with and ride in. Mustangs were much better cars to live with day-to-day. I always thought that the styling was too close to the Corvette, that maybe the F-bodies stole some thunder from it. At least the Camaro didn’t have hidden headlights, that’s probably why.
Yeah, I was looking at the pic of the large rear glass in this article, and through it you can see the cargo area and how incredibly shallow it is – only about a half foot below the top of the rear seatback. Then I remembered that the 3rd-gen Camaro has what must be the most uneven floor in a hatchback ever. There is a deep trough just ahead of the bumper when you open the glass hatch, but it soon rises way upward to cover the gas tank. If you fold down the rear seat (which wasn’t split on earlier cars), the resulting floor extension is at yet another level – below the gas tank hump but higher than the trough on the other side. On the Berlinetta (and optional on other Camaros I think), there was a folding cover over the trough that kept the floor even behind the rear seat (creating a storage bin beneath it), but it only served to emphasize how shallow the luggage compartment really was.
The hatch area had more cubic feet than a Celica or Mustang hatch. The trough was weird but was good for keeping groceries from flying around.
Quite correct. Small RWD cars in this era usually had very shallow cargo areas. The trough was weird as you note, but useful exactly as you describe. None of these cars were golf club friendly in this era, probably why I drove GM A and B body cars during this time.
My cousin had a black on black 1984 Berlinetta with the V-8, t-tops, totally loaded to the max. That was probably the most macho Berlinetta made as I never thought of it as a “chick” car. The swivel radio and electronics were very cool on that car. He had that car for at least 10 years, and drove the last few years with none of the dashboard electronics working. I rode in it many times and always thought it was nice enough, although as it aged it became a total rattle trap.
Back in high school and college in the late ’70s and early ’80s a new Berlinetta with T-tops (or Rabbit Cabriolet) was what the rich girls drove. Chick cars.
What goes around comes around….the 2016 Camaro will have a 4 cylinder engine as the “base” engine. (Over at Ford, the Mustang will have a V6 as the “base” engine with an Eco-boost 4 cylinder as the next step up. Repeating the situation in 1982.)
Couldn’t it be said that for the 2nd AND 3rd generation Camaro the Rally Sport took over for the LS and Berlinetta? For some reason, customers could “buy into” a Luxury Mustang, but not a Luxury Camaro….but only as long as the “idea” was new.
In 1982 the base engine on a Mustang was the 2.3L Lima 4 cylinder. The V6 was never the base engine during that time.
I grew up with these 80s pony cars, and of course the base models were more popular than V8s. I drove an 88 V6 5 speed quite a bit, and honestly it was adequate power. By that point it was MPI 135hp. Fun car, really – not fast, but the handling was sharp. In comparison, an 88 2.3L mustang was a horrible slow buzz bomb. Anything above 3,000 RPM in the ford brought on significant vibration. However the mustang was better built and finished IMO. Probably more reliable.
Fast forward to present; I have a good friend with an 88 Firebird forumula with the TBI V8 5 spd. Sounds nice, slow as ever. It is so confusing to your brain to hear burbling V8 sounds and a manual transmission, but be accelerating so slowly. With my phone I timed a 0-60 with the Firebird vs my 4cyl Camry SE, and the Camry was significantly faster. I wasnt flogging either car.
we need a pic of the crazy dash from 1984-1986
B&W doesn’t really do it justice – here it is with the red and amber lights and blue digital displays
…..and the view from the passenger seat:
I am sorry, but that just looks cool. Won’t last perhaps and hard to restore. This is a Camaro though, and every now and then their fans need an injection of bad ass.
lol awesome – the cracking on the dash though 🙁
Space… the final frontier.
The analog dash in this car had its own special feature, too.
The speedometer was a round gauge with two calibrations — one for miles per hour, and the other for kilometers per hour. It had a single double-ended needle — the white end pointed to mph, and the orange end to km/h. I can’t think of another car that had a speedometer like this.
Also, I am curious whether the relative positions of the mph and km/h sides were reversed for Canadian-market cars or other metric-based export markets.
From what I’ve read, the two-pointed speedometer was a result of trying to make an interesting gauge given the legal constraints at the time. There was a 55 mph national speed limit in effect then, and NHTSA when it was run by Joan Claybrook in the late ’70s decided that speedometers that read to 120 or 140 or 160 made it too obvious how slow 55mph really was, what with the needle barely climbing the gauge. So it was made illegal for speedometers to read above 85 mph so that 55 would look relatively fast, and there had to be some sort of highlight at 55 mph (in practice, since the calibrations were often on multiples of 10, the highest number would be 80). It was also at this time that a second calibration in kilometers became legally required.
Many cars of the day had large speedometer faces designed for higher readings – the Corvette’s was about 7″ in diameter – and using all that space for widely spaced calibrated readings looked lame. The Camaro two-sided speedometer was an attempt to make a gauge that at least looked at first glance that it could display higher speeds than it actually could.
The 85mph speedometer rule was rescinded in time for the 1983 model year, although many cars (especially American cars) continued to have 85mph speedos throughout the decade. I don’t know off hand if Canadian-market Camaros used the same gauge. I don’t *think* Canada had an 85mph (or metric equivalent) speedometer law.
I found this video, I think it was pretty neat for 1984. Certainly a lot more advanced than my ’84 Mustang.
Cool video. GM really did have a thing with gizmo interiors in that period, no doubt some of it related to internal pressure to give Delco Electronics something to do.
Also, given my experience with GMs of that era, I’m surprised he needed the key to start it, LOL.
haha my 1990 buick doesn’t need a key anymore…I remember the first time if fell out while driving…..total wtf moment
I had virtually forgotten about the Berlinetta. I never thought much about the name, but the Berlin part never registered as Italian. You learn something new everyday on CC.
The ’79 version with wire wheel covers and white walls is how I remember these. I’m guessing that with its upscale pretense that it sold well as a “college grad” special to women. Sort of a modern counterpart to the “secretary special” 1965 Mustangs.
Count me in the camp that is not so hard on the “cheap” interiors in the Gen III cars. Look again at the interior of the subject car and you’ll see soft fabric and carpet on almost the entire door panel and carpet running up the walls to the console. You can find hard plastic panels in all these areas on many brand new cars today. I will admit that these were college era cars for me, so I’ve been in many of the General’s early ’80s designed cars, and the interiors did tend to be a bit creaky – much more so than their older B, C, E body cars that were still in production. The black dash and console are kind of cool in concept, but the execution isn’t really great – but not a lot worse than a lot of competing product at the time, including the Japanese. Generally not of fan of steering wheels with square hubs.
I almost always find consoles (and doors) with carpeting running up the sides to be attractive. Wish this was more common nowadays. So right about the abundance of hard plastics on new cars – car buff mags rave about modern VW and Audi interiors because the door panels and armrests are of soft materials, something that was routine on mid-price American cars in the ’70s and ’80s
“I’m guessing that with its upscale pretense that it sold well as a “college grad” special to women.”
I think you are right:
That commercial – so ’80s!
But, ugh, that final line, “IF this is today’s Chevy, I’m freeeeee!”
Corny, but the real problem is that IF word was some of the earliest advertising where GM’s marketers were saying “okay, we were wrong in the past, but now we are right.” Heck, even the “Today’s Chevy” theme has some negative connotations. GM killed an entire division with “It’s not your father’s Oldsmobile.” Buick is still doing this stupid stuff with their “That’s not a Buick” campaign.
How hard would it be to rewrite that line in a completely positive fashion……
In my Berlinetta, I’m Freeeee!
No negative, reinforces the name, corny – but what isn’t 30 years later?
GM, please reply for information on where to send the check.
Yeah, I thought that last line was odd too.
This reminds me of the “ride, Pontiac ride” commercials. Which I love, corny or not.
Dave, your confusion about the nationality of Berlinetta is understandable; its root is “Berline,” a type of a horse carriage originally built for the Elector of Brandenburg, where Berlin is. Berlinetta is therefore an Italian diminutive of it meaning “little saloon.” Not entirely inappropriate for Chevy to borrow, for a change.
I had a ’95 Z28 convertible, my second new car. It lasted 205,000 miles, It was incredibly reliable, no major work, needed only a radiator and wear items. Everything still worked well, the top was very tight and completely lined, the car was quiet, got mid 20s mileage, was quick and comfortable. For the money, considering the other cars I’ve owned over the years, it really stood out.
A 95 was a 4th Gen Glenn.
I actually really wanted a 4th gen convertible, I almost bought one but I would have had to wait for it to arrive (was going to order it) and the speed limiter the convertibles had turned off my 19 year old brain. I mean, I never planned on going 150 MPH but if I was going to buy a Z28 I wanted it to know it could do 150MPH if I needed it to lol.
I found a cool used cop package Z28 and bought that instead. It was never actually used as a cop car and it had a six speed. It looked just like a regular Camaro, no Z28 badges, which made it a really cool sleeper.
I only had it a year or so when I wrecked it, I was coming around a corner out in the country where my grandma lived and some idiot was letting someone out in the middle of the road. I swerved to keep from hitting them and hit wet grass and slammed into a telephone pole totally the car. I had only been doing 35-40 MPH too. It didn’t even set the airbag off, but the front end just crumpled.
And that was the end of my 4th gen Camaro.
I like the sound system. One I liked is the delco 2000 series with equalizer and four speaker. In the new cadillac ct6 you can get a 34 speaker system from bose.
I dunno. I think I would make a very bad chick but I like it.
I was going to make a comment about Texas sun, solar heat, and that back window but it popped up in the comments. Those panels were also popular in pickup trucks and I knew a lot of AC guys that had them. Window tinting was real popular even with people who didn’t sell drugs.
Overall, I wouldn’t mind having one of these. Did they ever come out with a 4.3 or 3.8? Seems I remember that but not when.
Good article and well written. Hope we see more from you.
Not in the 3rd Gen
The only V6’s available were 2 2.8l (LC1-82-84 and LB8- 85-89) and a 3.1l (LH0) 90-92
Now there was the limited edition 1989 Trans Am GTA that got the Grand National 3.8l turbo.
3800 was available toward the end of production of the Fourth Generation (1993 – 2002) Camaro/Firebird. I always thought a 2002 Firebird with t-tops, 3800 and 5 speed manual would have been a nice “grand tourer” in the sense that you wouldn’t win any stoplight drag races but it would likely be nice for going from city A to city B without using too much gas or having too high of an insurance premium.
In 1982, a coach of mine in high school got one of these with a V6. We always thought it was funny that he didn’t go for a Z28. Perhaps he was worried about the gas crisis coming back in full force…
I wonder if history will begin repeating when it comes to adding “luxury” packages to sporty cars. I’d argue that we are already having a ’70’s flashback where the look, but not the reality, of “performance” is rampant on cars today. The market is bursting with “performance” visuals and bigger rims on cars without any sporting abilities (Camry SE, BMW 320i M Sport, etc., etc.). It seems like a redux of the malaise era “performance” graphics packages on weak-engined cars. Now that you have Ford pushing Ecoboost 4-cylinder Mustangs–can a Ghia be far behind? Chevy could easily follow suit with a neo-Berlinetta to further enhance the cocooning look of the redesigned car. And the Challenger was just made for a vinyl roof and woodgrain interior–an SE model could easily join in another FCA frenzy of retro branding.
These Cars were like Belly Buttons – Everyone had one!
I owned a 1997 SS that looked like this one except it had a black top and peanut butter leather interior with a 6 speed stick and the optional (quite loud) “2 on the left” exhaust. The car was a blast to drive and would pull down 31mpg on long freeway trips.
A lot of people don’t realize that the chassis for the 4th gen F bodies was almost unchanged from the 3rd gens and when the 3rd gens came out they were one of the best handling cars in the world ….albeit it came at the price of terribad stiffness and harshness.
I owned the car for 4 years and in that time I replaced the water pump and the driver side power window motor (super common btw).
The positives of this car were as follows
1.styling I loved the way the 97SS looked and was MUCH better than the 98′ refresh imo
2. dat LT1 doe……….the motor made a lot of low end torque and sounded beast. Down on top end compared to the LS1 that replaced it but had a much better sounding exhaust note.
3. Shifter and transmission were solid and beefy feeling though mine did have an optional hurst shifter.
the bad
1. Seemingly incongruent combination of stiff as heck suspension with all the chassis rigidity of warm play doh
2. The rattles…..EVERYTHING on the inside rattled.
3. Visibility out of the front was horrible as you could not see the front of the car which made parking super interesting.
4. The brakes did not match the performance of the engine at all on the 93-97s but was rectified with the 98′ refresh. They just did not have close to enough bite upfront.
5. Passenger comfort was non existent because of the tiny backseats and the weird hump in the passenger footwell. Oh and the driving position was a strange combination of relaxed and reclined even with the adjustable power seats which did not help with serious performance driving.
I miss that car LOL
“Passenger comfort was non existent because of the tiny backseats and the weird hump in the passenger footwell.”
That’s no exaggeration, those cars were practically one seaters with how uncomfortable every other seating position was.
My understanding is that the hump was added to the floorpan to clear the catalytic converter. All I know is that I had several friends and coworkers who had these over the years and I hated riding in them.
Yes the strange floor pan configuration on the passenger side was due to the cat converter.
To me the driver’s seat is not that uncomfortable. The only thing that keeps me from driving my 1999 Firebird more then once or twice a month is that damn seatbelt. No matter what I do it still rubs my collar bone so that a 30 min drive is hell
How does a 4th gen 97 SS look like a 3rd gen Berlinetta?
So does someone have the break down of V6 vs V8 for Berlinetta sales?
I’m guessing a V8 from any year between 1982 and 1986 would be a rare specimen indeed!
From what I recall, between 1/4 and 1/3 of Berlinettas were V-8s. I came across that information while researching this article, but I can’t recall the exact figures.
The base Sport Coupe was also available with a V-8, and with a sport suspension as well, so it could be equipped like a Z28 but without the flashiness. That would be a rare specimen too.
The three differences that I can think of are the following. The Cross-Fire or later HO 4barrel/MPFI 305 was unavailable on sport coupe or Berlinetta. The Z-28 was available in larger tire sizes. The lower end models used a simpler worm and selector steering gear. Perhaps not with V8?
Right — the V-8 Sport Coupes or Berlinettas were not Z28 clones. Even the sport suspension I mentioned above (the P-41) wasn’t quite the same as the Z28’s.
However, in 1983 the Z28 Cross-Fire engine was only available with an automatic, so that made engine desirability less clear cut, at least for those who preferred manuals.
The later 5.7 IROCs only came with automatics too.
Thanks for broadening my knowledge of this trim level a little more Eric. I’ve always been hot and cold with this generation Camaro. There’s a lot I like about it, but I think the Firebird did a far better job with the styling, making the Camaro’s fascias look slightly unfinished. And who knew JCPenny sold window louvers?
Thanks, Brendan. I broadened my own knowledge about this car quite a bit, too. In fact, when I took these pictures, I had intended to do just a short write-up such as an Outtake on it (partly because it was wedged into a parking space where I couldn’t many good shots of it). But when I started writing, I realized that the Berlinetta was more interesting than I’d given it credit beforehand.
As for the 3rd generation Camaro/Firebird styling, I prefer the front end of the Firebirds but the rear end of the Camaros. For some reason, the rear lights on early-80s Firebirds always looked cheap to me.
I had an ‘8 Z28 instead of a Berlinetta. Yes, the drivetrain left a lot to be desired in durability and performance, but the rest of the car was decent enough for its day. I’ve certainly had worse from GM (and my early Hondas). I could drive this car for hours, it was that comfortable for me. For me, its looks still catch my eye in a way a new one never, ever will. Other than that rotten powertrain, I miss this car.
My mother had an 84′ White with those gold wheels, 305 4bbl. I was 16 and I guess it was about a year old. We used to take it out and burn the tiger paw radials off the back of it. Lots of torque! Very fun car and that crazy swivel radio and weird button/lever for the turn signals. Still remember that. She traded it in for an 86′ IROC and I eventually bought that from her.
Those mismatched taillights were very likely the way the car came from the factory. Things of that nature were most definitely not uncommon and says a lot about how poor quality control was back then.
Gee the factory, then the dealer, then the guy/gal who bought it new just never noticed. Not bloody likely. The quality on this one was such that it lasted 32 years. Give me a break.
The quality control was pretty iffy on these cars but not quite that bad. It was mostly a design rather than an assembly thing.
The “broken chicken wing” turn signal stalk being one of the weird quirks of the car. I also never owned a car with more body adhesive slathered all over the place. I mean the stuff was put on about 3/8″ thick. The inside didn’t look too bad but the choice in plastics was odd. Everything was hard black plastic with a slight texture. Todays stuff is miles better. Oh and the leather seats weren’t fully leather only the actual seating surface was leather the rest was vinyl.
I could still rest my elbow on the window while driving down the road which is something I cannot do with the current car.
You honestly think the car came from the factory like that?
This whole “3rd gen build quality was horrible” thing is reaaaaaaally getting out of hand.
The car VERY OBVIOUSLY had a tail light replaced somewhere in it’s 30 year lifespan.
I guarantee you no Camaro ever left the factory with mismatched tail lights. “Definitely not uncommon”? Come on dude, use your head.
Please state the basis of your ‘guarantee’.
Common sense.
And because they obviously did quality control. Do you really think someone wouldn’t notice mismatched tail lights at the factory? Really? Something that glaringly obvious and you think nobody would notice?
Fine, lets say they didn’t notice at the factory.
Do you REALLY think the prep guys wouldn’t notice the tail lights when it reached the dealership?
Fine, let’s say they didn’t notice.
You really think the sales guys and all the customers they showed the car to wouldn’t notice it had mismatched tail lights?
Fine, lets say they didn’t notice.
Do you REALLY think the person buying a brand new car…..wouldn’t notice the mismatched tail lights?
Fine, lets say they didn’t.
Do you really think even if they bought a brand spanking new Camaro and that somehow nobody at the factory and nobody at the dealership had noticed had mismatched tail lights……that during their ownership….when the car was covered by a warranty and they could take it back and get the tail lights fixed…..that they would never have noticed the mismatched tai lights?
Nobody the owner showed his shiny new car to never noticed that the damn thing had two different kinds of tail lights lol?
His wife didn’t notice?
None of his buddies noticed?
His kids didn’t notice?
You really think nobody ever noticed the obviously mismatched tail lights and said “boy, that’s a sharp car but what’s up with those tail lights”?
Or….are you saying that the 1st owner of the car …..the guy who had paid thousands of dollars and had to take out a multi year loan to buy his new car simply didn’t care that his car had mismatched tail lights?
Like I said man, use your head. Don’t say silly things like “mismatched tail lights was common from the factory”. That’s absurd.
IOW, there is no basis for your guarantee.
The plant where many of the 3rd generation F-bodies were assembled (Norwood) was, and had been, one of the worst within the GM system. It doesn’t sound like Van Nuys was much better. Norwood was the plant that went on strike and virtually wiped-out sales of certain 1972 models and was finally shuttered in 1987 due to poor quality and high absenteeism. This is not conjecture or common sense, but a historical fact.
Coupled with the then corporate mentality that any issues with assembled cars (like mismatched taillights) would be corrected by dealers (if and when they might be noticed), makes it probable that this car has had mismatched taillights from the moment it left the factory.
If it was noticed, the buyer was likely given the choice of having it fixed, or given some sort of spiff, like $100 worth of accessories or service work. My guess would be they took the accessories and decided to live with the taillight as is.
Making it even more probable it came from the factory that way is that there is absolutely no indication in any of the photos of any kind of accompanying bodywork (like mismatched paint or misaligned panels) which would almost assuredly be the case if the taillight had been replaced due to damage.
GM fanboys in denial notwithstanding.
I’m just wondering…do you honestly believe that car came from the factory with two different tail lights or are you just incapable of admitting how dumb that notion is?
The car obviously had a tail light replaced.
As I said there is no way a car would leave a factory like that, but if by some MIRACLE it did, it never get to a customer…..and if by some MIRACLE it did get to a customer there is no way the customer wouldn’t notice it.
How stupid do you have to be to believe that it came from the factory like that lol?
When you see a car with a different colored body panel do you think it came from the factory like that too?
How about when you see a car with a dent in it? Factory, right?
I’m starting to think you’re just trolling because there is no way you could believe something as dumb as the car in this article actually having left the factory with mismatched tail lights.
And that’s my last post on the subject. If you truly believe that it came from the factory that way……..life must be very difficult for you.
While I don’t know how the parts bin might have worked for this era or for tail lights, I doubt that there was a bin of tail lights all jumbled together so that the assembly line worker had to sort through it to find the right one. I would think that the tail lights would have come in pairs.
A disgruntled worker might have gotten up to some mischief thought. So it’s important to keep the workers gruntled.
I doubt the taillights came in pairs. There was probably a guy on the right and a guy on the left putting them in, and the guy on the left (driver’s side) happened to grab the wrong one that day (or he ran out of the correct one).
Even if there was a proper driver’s tallight available, workers back then would sometimes test the quality control people at the end of the line by installing the wrong part, simply in an effort to try and relieve the mind-numbing boredom of assembly-line work. Sometimes the errors were caught, and other times they were missed and the vehicle was shipped to the dealer (like this car).
There was a great story of this at the infamous Lordstown assembly plant when they were building the Vega. The story goes that, one day, everyone on the line agreed they would do everything they could in their individual assembly area to foul up one specific Vega (not torque bolts down properly, misalign panels, etc.). When that car got to the end of the line, it was put together so badly and so far gone as to need complete reassembly. Plant management didn’t have the resources to completely take apart and put together one, lone, badly assembled Vega and didn’t know what to do with it. So, it was put into a corner somewhere, where it supposedly sat for a very long time.
There is really no way of knowing why the tail lights are different without talking to the original owner. I (conspiring with my local sales manager) put in an order for one of the first 1995 Buick Riviera’s. We did not actually get it, as it was taken for “evaluation”. They did rerun the order and put it ahead of everyone else, so the second car did come after a few weeks. It came with Pontiac carpet savers though.
It does seem unlikely that the tail lights on this could be damaged without damaging the bumper. If in fact this happened, perhaps the body shop got the wrong parts.
It doesn’t take much for a tail light to be damaged and the bumper fine. One of the tails is badly cracked on my ’88 Volvo, and the bumper doesn’t have a scratch on it. Happened before I got the car, but I didn’t find it odd. All it takes is a truck with a high bumper or hitch…someone inadvertently catching it with a heavy object being carried…an errant baseball or golf ball…etc.
I could see a car leaving the factory with a mismatched set, especially if it came from a plant known for poor quality. However, I really *cannot* see the original owner taking delivery of their brand-new Camaro and not noticing or caring that the filler panels were two completely different colors. That would have been taken care of under warranty.
Gents, Rudiger in particular, do you not understand probability?
There are famous cases of bulld quality failures. The odds of this being one are quite slim.
My Grandfather bought new a ’78 Caprice. Eventually, my parents drove it, and then in the hands of multiple grandchildren. I was the auto guy in charge for many years, and I bought parts at the dealer in the early days, and the You-Pull-It in the latter days.
Cars have a history after thirty years, and compromises are made. And, Rudiger, there is no way the manufacturer granted $100.00 in spiffs back then. It was a $35.00 part back then, ask me why I know.
I am sorting out some final warranty issues on my 2012 F-150, and the dealer is only too happy to fix it right if the manufacturer will pay for it. Same story on every new car I’ve purchased over the last 25 years.
The RS trim begat the Type LT, and then Berlinetta.
My buddy has a ’77 Type LT, all modded out, but still with the luxury trim on it.
The LT also started the Italian theme as it stood for Lusso Touring. Lusso being luxury in Italian.
This was the second car I remember riding in. My mom had a red 1982 berlinetta just like this one only without the rear wiper and with the rear spoiler. I used to ride on the center console lid between the seats – I was 4 when she bought it. I have some vivid memories of it, the analogue clock facing upward in the center console, those wheels (she was missing the center caps on a couple), and how even as a small child I never liked the incomplete front end. The Z28 was where it was at.
My folks had a messy divorce. So my mom knew my dad was hot to get one of the first Camaros. When my mom beat him to it he was a bit upset. She got one of the first ones in the state of New Hampshire, the dealer called when the first truck arrived.
So my wounded dad stuck his tail between his legs and went and bought a new Trans Am.
My aunt bought a V8 berlinetta in 1984. It was interesting in that it had plastic hub caps (with gold trim to match the rest of the car), t-tops, rear spoiler, and that fancy audio control system. I got to drive it around one summer in exchange for buffing the paint on it. Again, the lack of the front spoiler absolutely ruined the car for me. She loved that car and had it up until about 2 years ago when she gave it away.
I often fantasize about getting an IROC, but I know how poorly built and then how poorly maintained most of them were. But they are very attractive cars when done right.
I had an 84 sport coupe in the early 90s, 2.8 & 5spd & not much else. I went junkyard shopping for 3.73s,Z-28 sway bars & brackets, & 15X7 steel wheels, I turned it into a pretty nice handler.
You can grind the tab so the secondary barrel opens up 100%, this was a nice little boost in power.
To this day I drive a 1984 Berlinetta with T-tops. Mine has a 305 V8. I have the digital dash and the radio on the pedestal. All of it works except the cassette player. If they are properly maintained they will keep on going.
I remember when so many guys at my office had these IROCs. At that time I was driving a Dodge Caravan or Civic SI. Personally I’d take the blue ’79.
I’ve never been a fan of the 3rd-gen Camaro, though it’s starting to grow on me. Rarity begets admiration? It’s a nice shape overall but the details are just wrong–I never liked the way the headlamps are inset, nor did I care the ventilation/”grille” slots on these early cars. And the interiror was quite terrible (based on one 3rd-gen Firebird that I’ve been a passenger in.)
And that red 2nd-gen pictured–wire hubcaps on a Camaro are so, SO wrong!
I consider these(third-gen) to be the best *looking*
F-bodies EVER. Pretty much in the same token I
hold Eastwood’s fictional MiG-31 from “Firefox”(1982)
http://blog.iso50.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/18953619.jpg-r_640_600-b_1_D6D6D6-f_jpg-q_x-xxyxx.jpg
to be the BEST BADDEST LOOKING fighter jet
in aviation history – and neither plane nor coupe
has aged all that badly in the thirty-plus years since
their debuts, as far as I’m concerned. 😉
If some of you could please help me out with one
aspect of the third Gen Camaro/Trans Am?…
Handling.
How were their road manners? How “tight”/on
rails was the steering. I’m a huge fan of sturdy
steering wheels that snap back quickly to
center coming out of a turn. The “BMW feel” some
call it. Alas, disappearing from most mainstream
sedans and coupes with the takeover by mushy –
and IMO dangerous – EPS(Electric Power Steering).
Did these cars handle as well as they looked?
Thanks and looking forward to your comments.
I have an 82 berlinetta, 305, T top, Black paint and charcoal interior, spoiler and an analog dash. (the “star wars” dash didn’t come until 84) I have had it since Dec.of 82. While compared to today’s cars it does lack some, back then it was right! I was 23 then, looking for a new car when I saw a silver one at the local dealer. Though I preferred the SE Firebird, the Pontiac dealer wouldn’t waiver on the price. Sure I would have preferred a TA or Z but my insurance company sent notice that these versions along with the Corvette, H/O Mustang and 280 Z were not an option. So I found the berlinetta optioned out. You have to consider the times back then. Interest rates were over 21%. So when GM offered finance rates of 12%, I jumped.
One of the problems with it back then was it had a tight suspension and a set of Uniroyal steeler tires. After I had a near miss, sliding sideways towards a brick wall in the rain; I put a set BFG euro TA’s on it. That proved to be the ticket. Tight suspension on good tires. We are talking about a V8 getting 29 mpg. The car proved to be a very comfortable cruiser. Sure I’ve had to replace all of the standard parts. She is on transmission number 4. A THM 200, that’s AAMCO’s problem. (Lifetime warranty)
Today she is much like me, old and wornout, needing some serious TLC. But in the right light it’s still a pretty car. The lines are great. I know it’s considered an ugly duckling but then they were a refreshing change. The 2nd gen’s were getting tired. I doubt if they gain the popularity of the 1st and early 2nd gens. but they do have a loyal following.
Regarding the AAMCO lifetime warranty, my parents got a replacement transmission in 1980 for the 1977 Dodge Aspen wagon with the lifetime warranty. They went through three transmissions in just as many years, until an AAMCO tech found something installed incorrectly and after fixing that, the same transmission lasted another 20+ years. Just had to keep going in for the annual inspection for the warranty.
A friend of mine has a lifetime-warranty front- end alignment from Firestone on a twenty-year-old Cherokee he bought new. They really don’t appreciate him at this point.
I suppose whether the Aspen was a 225 or a 318, the transmission was a 904. I’m disappointed that the original failed in three years. Am I surprised that the rebuilds failed? Not so much.
I vaguely recall a similar story about an incorrectly installed transmission part causing them to routinely fail. Something about the way the way a transmission shaft was installed. Evidently, it would work for a while, then crap. Once corrected, no more problems.
I owned a 78 so the comments may not apply to this body style. While I could see shocks and springs from beneath the car I have doubts they were there to do anything besides contribute to the hefty curb weight. Worked valet parking and my boss owned a 86 convertible, I can’t say it rode any better; but adding to the “fun” I’d never before been in a car less than 10 years old that squeaked, rattled and groaned as much as that thing.
I had a 1982 Camaro Berlinetta in dark green with mint green interior! I loved that car! It was my early high school graduation present from my parents. It never gave us any issues the 2 years I owned it. Unfortunately I had to drive over 120 miles 4 days a week to college while living at home, so my dad bought me a 1984 – hate to even say the words, wait for it – Pontiac Fiero! What a piece of junk that was! I wished I had the Camaro back and just worked longer hours to help pay for the gas… Oh, well, live and learn. I often think of this car as my fond youth years and so wish I had her in the driveway as a classic.
The challenge for GM during the Brougham Age was the overall style of these cars. While you could Berlinetta a Camaro – it still looked like a Camaro. That, in itself, isn’t a bad thing, but compared to what other manufacturers had at the time – that cool style limited the appeal of the car.
Mustang had a notchback coupe style, besides a hatch fastback style. This permitted a more credible brougham option on the Fords. Even Toyota had a coupe along with a hatch which gave the Celica some credibility as a brougham vehicle as well.
So, it was a challenge to see a Berlinetta Camaro, and GM could have had more success with it if the Camaro was also offered as a coupe style. I can’t really imagine one because the styling of this generation Camaro is so iconic, but had GM offered a notchback coupe, then a Berlinetta could have found more success as a brougham luxury secretary’s car.
Right?
I never quite understood a luxury Camaro. I always thought that was the Firebird’s central mission, i.e., an upscale, more luxurious ponycar, like the original Mercury Cougar and Dodge Challenger.
Of course, by then, with the popularity of the Trans Am, maybe GM started seeing the roles reversed, with the Firebird being more of their performance ponycar and the Camaro leaning towards luxury.
Still a popular car here pretty much all Camaros and Pontiac Firebirds are but nobody knows about the 4 & 6 cylinder models.
It was just a few months ago that I learned about the “spaceship” dash that came in the 1984-1986 Berlinettas. That was a pretty cool feature.
In the six years since I wrote this article, I’ve seen this car pop up on our local Craigslist several times. First for a very high price, and then successively lower prices as the months (years?) dragged on. From the ads, the Camaro looked a bit worse for wear than it did in these pictures (not sure if it was the same owner as when I photographed it). I hope it found a good home.
I wasn’t a fan of these when they came out, but if it were possible to find an entirely functional one today (a tall order with all the nascent electronics), it would be a very cool car show candidate, primarily for how advanced it would be for the time frame. If only GM could have gotten their quality act under control…
In going through the original comments, something I didn’t see mentioned was how popular these were on the local, paved oval race tracks. They were, quite literally, the small raceway kings for a very long time. There might be a few oddball Mustangs (and others), but the overwhelming majority were 3rd generation Camaros, and I’d be willing to bet it’s the same to this day, probably since the basic body design lends itself to frequent repairs, as well as the cheap and easy-to-keep-running SBC drivetrain.
Ford seemed to pull off the luxury Ponycar thing off better with the Grande/Ghia/GLX Mustangs as well as the original Mercury Cougar. At GM the Firebird seemed much less a Cougar competitor than a Pontiacized Camaro, and the emphasis on sleek Italian fastback styling kind of painted the second gen and future F bodies into a corner of being sporty first and foremost where luxury add ons, especially on the exterior, looked as added on as they were(like those taillight trim pieces). I think GM didn’t want the Camaro/Firebird be different things to different types of buyers like the Mustang had been so they essentially spun off the “luxury ponycar” into what we now know as PLCs in the intermediate segment instead, complete with the requisite long hood/short deck proportions. Funny enough the Berlinetta showed up when the downsizing of the intermediate lines, including PLCs, occurred.
Unlike many Camaros to enthusiasts these packages seemed to only have any appeal if you were the first owner. Secondhand Camaro buyers tend to want performance and sport, not brougham luxury like your Dad’s Cutlass you learned to drive in had, all the luxury goods are effectively disposable once they inevitably start getting personalized and modified
Funny enough the Berlinetta showed up when the downsizing of the intermediate lines, including PLCs, occurred.
You may have provided the answer. With traditional PLCs going way down in size, GM thought they might be able to get a piece of that pie with the new, 3rd gen Camaro, not that far removed from what Chrysler did with the Charger. Didn’t really work, but I suppose it was worth a shot (although development of all those electronic gee-whiz gizmos in the Berlinetta surely wasn’t cheap, and I doubt they recouped any of that cost).
If the Camaro Berlinetta had been a success, there’s no doubt the 4th gen cars would have eventually gotten the full brougham treatment like the Charger. As it was, the 4th gen f-body seemed to completely abandon the whole luxury thing and went right back to almost total performance (which wasn’t necessarily a bad thing). With one exception, the 4th gen cars completely reversed the bang-for-your-buck equation, leapfrogging the 5.0/4.6 SN95/S107 Mustang. Not only was the 4th gen LT1 now cheaper and faster than the Fords, you got a nifty six-speed manual with it, to boot.
The exception was the location of the LT1’s crank-trigger ignition directly under the water pump. If the water pump ever developed a leak, the coolant would fry the ignition system.
Wow there was a LOT of comments from back in 2015, I even chimed in. I have never thought that the idea of a luxury oriented ponycar was off base. Luxury did mean something different things back then. My Brother bought a new ’72 Camaro LT. It had cloth seating panels, a/c, auto trans, power steering and brakes, am radio, 350 V8, and a column shifter. He quickly added duals and an FM/ 8 track stereo. That car was pretty luxurious with a/c! Then he traded for a two year old ’76 Trans Am. Equipped much the same but added tilt wheel, cruise control, power windows and locks, and power trunk release. Those automatic T/As were great GT cars, and they didn’t ride too hard.
He kept the T/A for a few years then traded for a ’76 Z28 with a four speed. It was as well equipped as the T/A but the manual transmission made it an un luxurious car. It was hard to shift and the motor did not really like to wind out. We thought that it was unpleasant to drive.
It seems that a Camaro without a performance engine was always a let down. While a Mustang with a performance engine was just a bonus. Mustangs seemed to be more readily accepted with six cylinder engines.
When I bought my 2007 Mustang V6 with the Pony package it had leather front seats, the Kicker stereo, driving lamps, and 17 in. Bullitt style wheels. Even with the auto it was a good mix of luxury with sportiness. I think that with better interior materials, especially door panels, carpet and increased sound deadening it could have been marketed as a “Grande” model. The later models did have greatly improved quality interior materials.I had a new ’84 Cougar and that was a plush little machine, not much bigger than a current Mustang.
As to their worthlessness as a restoration candidate, all Camaros and Mustangs have proven to be popular choices. These are cars that we owned during our Youth or wish that we had, so they are part of our dreams and realities.