(first posted 9/20/2012) GM had some memorable screw-ups in the ’70s, but they were merely warm-ups to GM’s main act of self-mutilation of the ’80s, during which it orchestrated its biggest-ever market share drop. There’s enough fodder in that horrible decade to keep our GMDS series going for way too long; but perhaps the saddest story is that of the all-new-for-’82 Camaro, because it promised so much and yet couldn’t escape the death rattle that permeated GM–and I do mean ‘rattle’ in the most literal sense.
Like so many GM products of the 1980s, the all-new Camaro looked good on paper and pretty nifty in glossy prints: dramatic new styling, a 300 lb. weight reduction, a new coil-spring rear suspension, optional rear disc brakes and a lift-up rear hatch that was reputedly the largest and most complex piece of auto glass ever produced. And that’s about it for the good stuff. A closer look beyond that swoopy skin and into the spec sheets quickly turned some of us a whiter shade of pale.
The standard engine was now the 90-hp, 2.5-liter “Iron Duke” four, a lumpen element that rivaled a Farmall tractor’s noise, vibration, harshness and even power characteristics. It was one thing for the four to shake, rattle and roll all the way to the Safeway in Granny’s 2,400-lb. Citation, but quite another in the case of the 600-lb. heavier Camaro.
Ah, but there still was a Z-28 on tap with an optional V8 that featured actual fuel injection! Something that GM had mastered way back in 1957, no less. A fuelie Chevy V8 in a new lightweight RWD chassis: Praise the Lord! And the Z came decked out with stripes and hood scoops guaranteed to raise a young man’s testosterone level. Unfortunately, it was a cock-teasing exercise in frustration because the Z-28 did anything but come.
Chevy’s Cross-Fire Injection system was not an update of the fine Rochester port injection unit of yore, but basically two Iron Duke throttle-body units. Calling Zora Arkus-Duntov! GM’s reluctance to do what it eventually was forced to do–offer a proper modern port fuel injection system–was hard to fathom. And easy to shut down.
In 1985, I finagled a brand-new W124 300E. Its street-light drag racing prowess was hardly high on my list of risking-my-new-job-by-leasing-an-expensive-company-car rationalizations. Then I hired a Sales Manager who drove one of these Z28s, which proudly wore its Cross-Fire Fuel Injection badges and had a husky exhaust note. He always liked to make the big tires chirp (cheep?) when he pulled out of the parking lot. Good thing there was a bit of a curb to help make it happen.
The little three-liter six in the Benz was almost half the size of the Z’s V8, and I knew my solid hunk of German steel weighed about 300 lbs. more than his pride and joy. Still, something told me I could take him out, or I damn well had better, because there was a lot at stake: Ever since I hired him, I began to have nagging doubts that his braggadocio management abilities were as oversold as his Camaro’s swiftness. We both knew that one way or another, a showdown was coming.
The road that led to the station had once been part of the former Glendale Airport, and was as good as it got for a grudge race–about a mile long with almost no traffic, and unusually wide. One morning, we both arrived at the same time; as we turned the corner to the home stretch, we lined up side-by-side, stopped and nodded.
The Camaro’s V8 torque and lighter weight gave him a decided edge at the start, and I had a nagging sense of dread. But the high-winding six breathed deeply and sang its song; I caught up and passed him, and hit well over ninety before throwing out the anchor to pull into the parking lot. It was the beginning of the end for him, and within a couple of weeks he pulled his blubbering Z28 out of the parking lot for the last time.
Don’t believe me? In tests, the 300E pulled 0-60 times between 7.5 and 8.5 seconds, depending on the magazine. Here’s a link to a MT test of the Z-28 with the optional fuel-injected V8: 0-60: 9.42 seconds; 1/4 mile: 17.13@80 mph. Pathetic, but this typically fawning review of the times does make for an interesting time warp. Oh, right…the 1982 Camaro was MT’s COTY. That both the Vega and Citation had shared the honor might have been a giveaway; for that matter, you’d have thought GM would pay MT not to give the award to the Camaro: a hex on all their new cars.
Before I rag on too much about the Camaro’s limp ways, I will admit that Chevy eventually dealt with that problem. By 1985, the Viagra-popping IROC Z had 215 hp, and by the end of this generation, in 1992, it packed all of 245 hp–not exactly the momentous numbers that would come with the next-gen F-body. But isn’t that the usual GM way? Bring out a brand new POS and piss folks off, then eventually improve it after having lost–permanently–a huge chunk of the buyer base. It was GM’s patented formula for losing market share.
If the driving experience wasn’t quite earth-shattering, it certainly was nerve-shattering. My one and only drive in a Camaro of this vintage almost made me puke. It was an unanticipated rental, for a multi-day conference in Houston, that sported the V6 that came standard in our featured RS. Sadly, it is all too easy to rag on the 2.8′s pretentious, semi-burbling exhaust that raised utterly unfulfilled expectations.
I had never actually gotten into one of these F-Bodies, and the experience was a letdown of the worst kind. Naturally, I had been spoiled by my tall, comfy and superbly-built Mercedes, but I also was quite familiar with the contemporary Fox-body Mustang GT, which had a fairly practical body and reasonably good build and materials quality.
Lowering myself into the Camaro was akin to getting into a Disneyland kiddie ride: The “car” felt like it was a malformed, cast-plastic replica of what a real Camaro presumably was. I found myself sitting on the floor of a black-plastic lined tomb with the worst visibility and most wretched dash I’d ever encountered. And once under way, everything creaked and groaned: Was this the new cart for the Haunted Mansion?
The ride was about as supple as a roller coaster, but I admit it had a pretty sharp turn-in that enhanced the amusement park theme. It might have been mildly amusing for about five or six minutes, given the car’s lack of any genuine power and profound ride quality compromises. I also like having a rear seat that is actually accessible and usable, as well as a genuine proper luggage compartment instead of a tray like the one you put your shoes in at the TSA line. That biggest-ever piece of automotive glass covered the smallest-ever automotive trunk. That kind of sums up the Camaro right there.
Well, the faithful sure fell for the new Camaro, and sales shot up for the first two years, topping a spectacular 250k in 1984. Then the painful reality of horrible build quality, mechanical ailments, cheap interiors and getting shut down by German taxi cabs set in, and sales began their long plunge. The Mustang was discovered to be the Camaro’s polar opposite in almost all these qualities, and thrived. The Camaro shriveled, along with the rest of GM in that decade of decline.
Postscript: I wasn’t planning to re-run this today, but I’m deeply involved in building a new house and there’s nothing else in the hopper. And it just seemed like the right time. I realize my perspective and experience is not going to jive with some others’. So be it. I don’t pretend to be objective; who is? If you want statistics, they’re available elsewhere. Each car has many different stories to tell, and I tell mine.
In closing, I add the words of one 1985 F-Body owner, who left them as part of a detailed comment the last time around. Is his story typical? Hopefully not. But it is representative of how GM managed to lose millions of buyers in the 1980s and beyond. Keep in mind that by 1985, GM was already four years into building the third-generation F-Body.
By TTAC Commenter “carnick”:
The very first new car I ever owned was the kissing cousin of this car, a 1985 Firebird with the 2.8 V6 and a 5 speed stick. I just finished grad school (for the second time)…and I had a job starting in a month, so in that time had to find something more reliable than my Renault 5. With $54 in my pocket, and the $500 I got for the Renault, the options were limited (even in 1985). Then GM came along with one of their clever marketing schemes – a ‘credit card’ sent to new graduates, which let you buy the GM car of your choice for no money down and 5 year financing (the amount they would finance depended on your income).
Well, that was like a gift from the pagan gods to me. I made the rounds of Chevy and Pontiac dealers, had a bullseye set on the Camaro and Firebird from the start (the Corvette was way out of reach for my starting salary). Unfortunately, I soon discovered that a V8 in any F-body was also out of reach of my wallet as well. So, the best combination I could afford was a Firebird with the 2.8 V6, but at least with a 5 speed (I rationalized that lots of European “sports” cars had 6 cylinder engines, plus other than off-the-line torque, the V8 really didn’t feel that much faster).
It was a 20-something’s wet dream car. Bright red, with a 2-tone red and gray interior and red lighting everywhere (which my girlfriend at the time – and now wife – called tackier than a cheap whorehouse). My first paycheck went to real “mag” wheels, a 5 spoke 3-piece forerunner to the real wheels of today (I had to get rid of the “wire wheel covers” – on a Firebird!).
Paul, I completely second all of your comments on build quality (such as it was). That fowl started rattling itself to death within the first month. It was obvious that GM didn’t expect to sell many sticks, because the shifter boot was the cheapest, flimsiest, tissue-paper thin excuse for plastic I had ever seen. It would crack and split every month. I literally brought it back to the dealer 10 times in the first year just to have the shifter boot replaced (I eventually tired of the regular visits, and had an upholstery shop make one out of decently durable material).
I vividly remember water leaks around the stylish ‘frameless’ windows. The fit of the door glass into the roof was less than exacting (about a 3/4 inch or more gap all around), which, in GM’s typical way, they “engineered” by fitting inch-thick foam weatherstripping gaskets (which I think they also did on the Solstice/Sky – time-tested and proven!). Which would pinch and get caught in the window, and then leak like a reamed out sieve. I would bring it back to the dealer just about every week for another attempt at replacing the weatherstripping and keeping the interior dry (hey, it was my first new car and I was going to get my money’s worth on warranty work).
The best example of GM engineering prowess was when the engine started leaking oil like a worn out colander – right after the (at that time very short) warranty period expired. Like, a quart every 300-400 miles. The service manager cheerfully explained to me that “they all do that” because the engine had virtually no gaskets in it. In a typically short-sighted GM cost-cutting move, some bean counter somewhere calculated how much money they would save by using liquid sealant in most of the engine gaskets (valve covers, oil pan, etc.) instead of gaskets (I’m sure it must have been at least $2 or $3 per car). So, behold, the gasketless wonder, assembled with liquid sealant (which I suspect was specifically “engineered” to get through the warranty period but not much further). However, he even more cheerfully informed me that GM did sell a “gasket kit” and they would be happy to partially dismantle the engine and fit gaskets wherever there were not any – completely at my cost, of course.
Overall, in the first year I brought it back to the dealer 46 times. It became a regular Monday thing. I was heartbroken. I had owned many 1960′s and 1970′s GM cars (including Camaros) which were fantastic, and was thrilled to buy my first new car. But it would be my last one from GM.
With the 5-year no-money-down financing, I was way upside down on the loan. I didn’t have the ready cash to sell it and pay off the difference, so I had no choice but to keep paying it off until I got close enough to the balance. Which eventually I did, and then sold it – to my boss (I left the company very soon thereafter). As soon as I sold it I bought a 2-year old 1984 Honda CRX, followed by my second new car, a 1988 Honda CRX, and never looked back at GM.
My experience was far from unique. All of us in the waiting room of the dealership on Monday morning, bringing in our problems of the weekend, swapped very similar stories. There were a lot of guys like me who grew up loving GM iron from the 60′s and 70′s, and were just aghast at what had become of GM’s cars in the 80′s. I loved the old GM cars, but I haven’t set foot into any GM dealership since that Firebird fiasco 25 years ago, and doubt that I ever will for the rest of my life. GM lost millions of buyers forever with their insane cost-cutting.
Roger Smith specials. I guess that’s what happens when you have bean counters running a company. They make decisions based on income statements and balance sheets, and assume that hey, look at this nice revenue line, let’s just reduce costs and presto!, more profit. They don’t understand that if you don’t give customers a reason to buy your product, and instead give them reasons to not buy your product, the revenues are going to go down a lot faster than the expenses do. Which is exactly what happened to them, and why GM’s market share over the past 30 years has had the trajectory of an Iraqi MIG augering into the desert.
I remember reading an article at the time which interviewed both Roger Smith, and Toyoda-san, the head of Toyota at the time. Each was asked, ‘is your company in business to make cars, or to make money’? Smith answered, ‘of course, we are in business to make money’. Toyoda answered, ‘we are in business to make cars, and by making the best cars in the world, we will make money’. While Toyota has had its problems lately (they caught some GM virus), I think the general path both of those companies have taken over the past 30 years shows which strategy works best.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Such a true story on so many levels.
In the early ’90’s, I had an ’89 Mustang with the 2.3 and automatic. A friend had an ’89 IROC-Z with a 350. He looked down his nose at the Mustang because a) it was a Ford, and b) it was a four-banger.
I drove his on several occasions. Going down any less than smooth road was a cacophony of troublesome noises. The Mustang? Yeah, it had a few, but nothing nearly as bad as the Camaro. It felt like a tub of metal held together with duct tape and sheet metal screws being pulled by a healthy engine (although it always blew blue smoke upon startup – “oh, all 350’s do that..”).
When I went shopping for a new car in ’96, did I look at a Camaro or even a GM? Not even on my radar. I bought a Thunderbird.
Living in the midwestern US, these were everywhere in the late 80s. From the outside, these appeared to be just another in GM’s long, boring, line of successful cars. In the late 80s, I got to know a guy who had a Firebird Trans Am. It was the cool one, black with the gold stripes and decals, the cool wheels and T-tops. After awhile, I finally got a ride in it. The thing was just awful.
It seemed that every joint between two pieces either squeaked or rattled. The structure shuddered with every bump in the pavement, which seemed to be transmitted directly into the car by bypassing the suspension system. The side window did not seal against the weatherstrips and I had a wind whistle in my ear the whole ride. When I got out of that car, I was shocked and amazed.
I had grown up around GM cars. They were so maddeningly competent, good looking and comfortable. Kind of like the kids in school that everyone hated because they were so perfect. That was GM. A company that had about 50 percent of the market in 1962 and about 45 percent of the market as late as the early 80s.
Suggest to anyone back then that you liked Fords and the result was outright derision. Mopars? all you got was condescending pity.
Complete and total self-immolation. Every other US company always had to live with trade-offs and compromises. Every other car company battled organizational and management weaknesses that hobbled it over and over and hurt its products. Only GM had the resources to build whatever it wanted to build.
One word in GM’s defense – CAFE hurt them. GM had always excelled in big cars – that was their core competency. GM’s size gave it the opportunity to throw engineering resources into attacking weight of every component. They had to maximize their CAFE numbers to sell more big cars. GM became uncommonly good at cheaping out in virtually every component. Weight and cost came out of everything, but so did that famous GM quality.
JP with all due respect, I don’t buy the CAFE thing for GM at all. In this era, Ford built some pretty (or fairly at least) good cars but practically everything that came out of GM was absolute crap. I do note that Ford had the same CAFE regs that GM had. These is simply no excuse for making a product as bad as this.
These F-bodies were complete junk. My buddy bought a 1983 Berlinetta with V-6 and 5 speed and to this day, I have never been in a worse car.
I know that we disagree on this. My take is that between about 1979-83, Ford was in such tough shape that with the exception of the Escort, its entire line was built on permutations of the Fox and Panther platforms. Ford spent most of its engineering dollars taking existing stuff (like engines that dated to the 60s) and updating them.
Chrysler got lucky because Iacocca ashcanned almost all of the big stuff, and with all of the fresh L and K cars and their variants, ChryCo banked CAFE credit for years.
GM was flush with cash and clean-sheeted almost everything. In the end, the only stuff that was any good was when they did like Ford and updated some old stuff. Most all of the new stuff turned out to be horrible.
It’s a good thing for Ford that the Fox platform was such a good one. It keep them going until the Taurus/Sable saved their bacon.
I feel like GM was almost a victim of its own success. By the time they had a ton of cash and could afford to clean-sheet everything they couldn’t engineer themselves out of a paper bag.
A black v6 , 5 speed always sat in the corner of the body shop were I worked then one day it was replaced by a Merc 500sl. The GM disease of cost cutting took a decade to reach MB ,with the 210 E Clase and so on. Porsches 911 replacement the 996 suffered the same fate.
210 sell in the UK for “beater” money whilst the 124 series £1000-4000!.
996s can be had for Boxer money.
I agree with jpcavanaugh…. while always a Ford guy….grudgingly I have to admit GM had the big car down to perfection …..Two cars come to mind, one friends father had a new 1961 Olds Starfire convertible …awesome … another friend …his mother drove a new 1962 Olds… very fast.. we kids all of 10 years old were very impressed… another neighbor bought a new 1966 Pontiac OHC….Cool cars all of them….
Same old same old…….
Sigh….I hope a car that was at least 2 x more expensive than a Camaro was at least a little faster.
Since you feel so strongly, why don’t you run a counter-piece to this and defend this car and GM of this era? I’m sure it would be an interesting read.
I’m probably more sick of the GM-bashing than Carmine and see “defending” these cars here a waste of time. The likelihood of opening the minds of the Euro Supremacist Mindset is about as great as the likelihood of the ESM influencing my opinion of these vehicles. The continued negative comments do reinforce my view of the ESM though.
If we can certify our rants as ESM-Free, do we get a pass? 🙂 I love the 1957 Mopars, but I have to acknowledge that their quality was awful and the inner workings of the company that built them was spinning into chaos. These F bodies may not be to my taste, but I could see where they could draw folks in. If these things had been built the way GM cars traditionally had been, they would have been huge hits, like the 2nd Gen F cars. It is, I think, an unfortunate fact that the wheels came off at GM at some point, and the company became a long, slo-mo train wreck.
I was thinking about this after my initial post. From the 1920s on, GM was the undisputed leader of the industry. Every other company had to do something that GM never had to do for itself: try to build cars better and more appealing than those coming out of GM. The history of the industry into the early 60s is of companies continuously trying to offer products that could match GM’s in quality, style and appeal. Sometimes successfully, but usually not. Like the Roman Empire, it could not be conquered from without. But at some point (I choose the chairmanship of Alfred Donner) the great company began to rot from within.
As someone who came of car-buying age in the 1980s, I believe that JP hit it right on the nose.
I can remember when buying a GM vehicle meant you got the most stylish, best-engineered and best-performing vehicle in its class (with a few exceptions). That went out the window in the 1980s, and it was largely of GM’s own doing.
The C-Class Mercedes didn’t interest me then, and still doesn’t today. I would, however, take a Fox-body Mustang over a post-1981 F-body.
It’s not necessarily a “domestic versus foreign” thing with not liking this version of the F-body. I doubt that very few people cross-shopped the entry-level Mercedes with a Camaro in those days.
These Camaros were sold as the real deal at the time – a definite reaction against the cars like the Hornet AMX or Mustang II Cobra whose performance resided largely in their stripes and fake hood scoops. We should therefore expect the Camaro to at least stay even with an entry-level Mercedes sedan in the “stop-light grand prix.”
Not comparing the Camaro to any European cars whatsoever. it was of a completely different genre.
Looking at the Camaro in its own light, it was the right car at the right price that was cost-engineered rather poorly, rode with a very rough ride and tended to fall apart.
The low seating position, low roofline, and cramped back seat really don’t count against it, because those things were self evident to anybody who test drove one. Those were the sacrifices for riding in style.
But I remember the cars being panned by the auto journos for being so slow and bone jarring, and for generally not being as good as they should’ve been, considering it was a complete redesign of an 11 year old car. I also remember so many of them looking beat up and past their useful lives as early as the late 80s-early 90s.
When I was shopping for my Jetta I actually looked at the Camaro and by that point, they had the 5.0 litre TPI. The car actually went pretty well by the standards of the day but the quality of the car was atrocious.
I also looked at the Mustang GT 5.0. That was a cool car and I often regret not buying it.
I had no idea anybody would cross shop a Jetta…. with a Camaro?
The only thing those two cars had in common is how fast they would drain your wallet once the warranty expires.
Sports/specialty cars usually are cross-shopped against more utilitarian cars. Unless you’re actually racing it, the purchase decision for a sport/specialty car requires selling yourself on the compromises required to own it (cramped, rough ride, no cargo space, etc). If you can’t sell yourself on that, it’s Jetta Time.
I don’t understand the issue here. Obviously Paul’s Benz was/is superior to the Camaro. This issue was with the Camaro owner’s attitude.
I got my driver’s license in 1986 and loved these cars. In 1989 I got a summer job in the body shop of a ford/mopar dealership. We regularly drag raced (customer’s) cars, most memorable was a chevy camaro v8 auto, mustang gt 5 speed, probe gt 5 spd. Being part time, I got the probe. they both smoked me in the beginning but my endless courage got me ahead when we hit curves. I liked the probe the best anyways, the camaro was 1 year old with leak marks from the t tops and the doors squeaked terribly on bumps. The mustang was definitely fastest, and I dont remember customer complaints with them. The body cladding on the mustangs was awful though.
Finally we also had dodge daytona turbos around but they were completely lacking in fun, not fast, no handling, notchy terrible shifters. I didnt really drive a real car until my brother got a BMW M3. Never been the same since.
You could read a newspaper in the (empty) area between the radiator and the engine. I am always concerned about the compromises made to have a car accept a 4, 6, or 8 cylinder engine.
These things were made out of the same paper maché that the Dodge 1968 & 69 Chargers were…
All that flexible front vinyl covering – it warped so quickly and just looked terrible in no time. I also regarded the plastic panel covering the rear lower portion of the hatch glass – CHEAP! Also quite flexible.
Lots of these on the road back then, but I very happily enjoyed my array of K- and K-derived cars and other Chrysler products that decade and never looked back.
At least the car in question wasn’t purple…but that’s about it.
Move along, nothing to see here…
Yes. This was GM at its lowest, in my opinion. At the time, I no longer liked the B bodies. I would prefer a…a…a…FORD! That hurt.
Yup, all true. This car was a huge disappointment.
I remember feeling let down with the new for 82 styling. It was ok, but not great. Something was a little off with the proportions. And the F-Bomb’s wierd bowling ball T/A wheels didn’t help.
Also disappointed with Cross-Fire Injection. Why? Because the name sounded so cool. So promising. What a great name for what turned out to be such a POS, cobbled together train wreck.
Yes, these were wretched cars. Cramped, cheap and uncomfortable.
Car and Driver mocked the name “Cross-Fire Injection” in a review of an ’82 Corvette. I forget their exact words, but something like, “Stand back! It’s about to cross-fire!”. The poor man’s fuel injection. It would be interesting to see three early 80s GM cars, identical in every way, except one with a carburetor, one with cross-fire injection, and one with port injection, and run a comparison.
I was going to post that same C/D joke! Glad someone else remembered it. 🙂
I seem to recall a later C/D mocked it as “Cease-Fire”.
I enjoyed this one. As a younger man,I had a 1988 MustangGT, with about 225hp and torque at 275. The smaller GT was kighter than these and it was easy to embarrass Z Camaros. After a year or two these Camaros started to drop trim parts and in the next few years disappeared all together. I still see plenty of late 80;s and early 90’s outon the road and runninging just fine.
I worked with a guy who had one of these in either IROC-Z or Z28 trim.
All I remember about it was vapor lock in the summer time
Anytime I see one of these – or a Gen IV – I think…
“donor car”.
A wrecked ’87 Firebird Formula 350 became the donor for my ’89 Caprice TPI swap back in 1996. Talk about a wake-up call! My Caprice was a “Y” serial number so it got the Olds 307 with a Q-jet. Poor mileage and no power. The TPI was good for an extra 2 MPG, not to mention all the extra power.
At least the SBC engines continued to improve…roller cams, one-piece rear seal, improved gaskets…Tuned Port Injection.
And the Turbo 700 trannies were beefed up for the ’87 MY and evolved into the 4L-60E.
It’s true the cars improved over the lifespan but any Camaro/Firebird I rode/drove of this vintage just reeked of cheap when they were new. The rusted-out ’69 Camaro convertible I owned in college felt more solid. And so did the one or two Gen II’s I rode in and drove.
Imagine if GM had actually built the rest of the car as well as they built the engine?
And Paul, a family friend and business partner had a similar experience to carnick’s with a Buick Skylark in 1987. The car fell apart after just a year and the dealer basically laughed at her. She went to Honda and never looked back. The ’87 Civic that replaced the Buick lasted for 15 years and somewhere around 200,000 miles IIRC. She replaced that with a CR-V and then just 4-5 months ago with another CR-V.
“The car fell apart after just a year and the dealer basically laughed at her.”
Sounds familiar, parents had a 70’s Buick Skyhawk and dealer ‘techs’ said ‘”You shoulda bought a V8 big Buick”. Not everyone wants a frigging boat!Wonder why they lost so much market share? duh!
Don’t be silly! The demise of the US auto industry was a dastardly plot to infect us with a virus to make all us saps buy Japanese cars. We all know that when you peel back the door panel on a Jap car you can see the beer cans.
Japanese cars are just a flash in the pan. After the first winter, nobody will ever want one.
My dad bought a brand spanking new 77 sky hawk for my sisters first car. 3.8 V6. It was brown and crappy. Due to the color and the car’s overall shape, her friends nicknamed it the poopmobile.
And it was a turd. This was not the revised, “good” 3.8, this was the bad old days one. Engine was completely rusted after just a few years. The car wouldn’t go uphill. Literally. There was always a pool of water int the passenger footwell. I’d have to raise my feet up every time she came to a stop.
When we traded it in (on another Buick!), it was 6 years old and had maybe 50k miles on it, tops.
What a shame. It was right sized, right priced, and looked good on paper.
BTW the replacement Skylark was much better. IIRC it was a reliable car. Just don’t get me started about those X-car brakes….
Poopmobile! Best response of the day. Starred, Flagged, Favorited, RT’d Bookmarked.
Is it wrong that I still like the looks of these? Let me be quite clear though: only in stock form. The minute the owner “mulletizes” one we’re done.
The first one of these I really got close to at all was in 1985. I had graduated school and moved into an apartment. A girl downstairs bought one of these. My first impression – both were quite good looking. Unfortunately, the girl turned out to be the kind of airhead who repeatedly left town on the weekend without turning off her very loud alarm clock, and the car turned out to be a V6/automatic. Ugh. I think they were made for each other. Good looks outside, not much to recommend them inside.
No. I can see the appeal, from a safe distance.
I discovered the magic of a light vehicle and a well engineered (IMO) engine in 1981. It’s true that it was a light pickup but I never went back. Reading this makes me sad for the U.S. but happy for me that I didn’t.
Btw, I don’t really think GM mastered FI in 1957. It’s true that they sold it but think it was only for the guys involved in racing. Judging from my 77 impala and the lookalike caprices that I still see out there, this reduction in quality must have been almost overnight. I am sure glad I don’t have anything to contribute on the really bad quality in this generation camaro.
And as usual, Chrysler’s version (the Bendix Electrojector fiasco) made GM’s effort look downright brilliant.
The ‘Deadly Sin’ with 3rd gen F bodies was poor quality. They were huge hits when new in 1982, and helped perk up economy. But, trips to the dealer and expensive repair bills drove people to import showrooms.
It’s one thing to get buyers with good styling, but another to push them away bad dealer service . i.e. “Your Camaro breaks down a lot, buy a new one!”
As much as I want to defend the F car I really can’t (though I may have in the past). I liked my 89 (may have been a 90) RS but with the TBI 5.0 and auto it hardly tore up any asphalt. It did cruise nicely at 80-90 mph on I55 between Chicago and St Louis though.
What made things worse was that my girlfriend at the time had a 98 Z24 that would walk me like I was standing still. Beat by a GIRL! In a Cavalier!
The 1982 F-Bodies looked great when they debuted. After the second fuel crunch, the Iranian hostage crisis, a severe recession, the bailout of Chrysler, the near-bankruptcy of Ford and the debut of the problematic GM X-cars, these cars were a breath of fresh air.
The prevailing belief at that time was that they would be switched to a front-wheel-drive platform, or discontinued altogether (the Mustang was supposedly in peril, too). These cars were therefore initially a nice surprise.
Unfortunately, they failed to deliver. I remember a Car and Driver long-term test of a Camaro that had a huge number of problems. The worst was that the car had to have its rear axle replaced. The car’s quality was simply awful.
Just rented the newest version for several days, via an “upgrade”. It was such a cartoon car that we called it the “Roger Rabbit car” (which is probably an insult to the cartoon industry). I’m average height – 6’3″ – and could barely get into it. Once in, it was nearly impossible to see out of the slits that pass for windows. Backing up was hopeless. When I threw things into the back seats, I could barely reach them to get them out again. The trunk was big but the trunk lid was tiny. We never did figure out how to dim the dash lights.
Plenty of power, though, and I did like the heads-up display. Maybe it’ll be available on a Honda some day?
I never understood why anyone who was interested in cars would find any appeal in this model. It was too fat and two wide and it appeared to have been styled with teenagers and guys who thought it might be a chick magnet. Their was nothing remarkable about its engineering.
Its chief competitor, the V8 Mustang, was lighter, not so wide, didn’t have the “designed in a high school shop class look”. That said, there was nothing about it really worth writing home about.
I think GM deserved all the bashing it got back in those days and that this model, like the Cimaron (sp?) was a deadly sin. It got away with this kind of disrespect for it customers for many years, and then went bankrupt. No, the critics are not all elite Euro worshipers. I have heard people say that for years but have never had any of them offer a real defense for these GM products
With all the Fox Mustang love around here you would think it handily outsold the Gen 3 Camaro during its long run. But in 5 of the 10 years they were on sale together the Camaro sold better, as recently as 1991 just before they were both set to change. I can’t find sales figures for the Firebird or Capri but if I could I think we would see the F-body twins outselling the Ford twins between 82-92. And that’s with two fewer body styles.
It pains me to say that because I thought the Gen 3 Firebird was hideous. Not worthy to replace the Gen 2. I didn’t think any car could get better looking than the Gen 2 Camaro but the Gen 3 was, at least in IROC trim.
When GM added the 350 V8 with multiport injection (1988?) it was a revelation. Everyone was talking about how technology finally solved the the problems of low power and bad fuel economy. And also about how the IROC Z could just about match the much more expensive Corvette in acceleration and handling.
If you’re going to say a long 10 year run virtually unchanged for appearance, fantastic sales, great performance for the buck don’t matter because of all of the rattles and space inefficiency then you would have to add all generations of Corvette to the list, especially the Gen 4. Wouldn’t you?
Already started on it: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/04/curbside-classic-gms-deadly-sin-9-1990-corvette/
Oh wow you did call the C4 a Deadly Sin. I was being facetious.
Look I hate fiberglass cars and would never buy a Corvette no matter how good. And yes the early C4s had that horrible ride.
But for the first time in my lifetime we had a car from GM that handled great, looked great and could run circles around any Porsche or Ferrari on a road or race course.
The C4 was a revolution and so good that GM felt secure just evolving that idea with the C5 and C6. I could see a DS for one of those but not the C4.
Out of curiosity are you a fan of the B-bodies at all? How about the current Tahoes?
I also do a GM’s Greatest Hits series: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/09/curbside-classic-gms-greatest-hit-3-1979-chevrolet-caprice-classic/
This was still over at TTAC; I haven’t brought it over here yet. But we’ve done lots of B-Body love here, this being just one example: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/the-gm-b-body-a-love-song-in-b-major/
I don’t have much interest or experience with current or recent large SUVs, so I’ll not pass judgement. But I have considerably respect for GM’s Suburbans and Tahoes generally speaking.
Very nice write ups on the Bs! I did some searching and found the Cadillac Brougham CCs by Cavanaugh. Those were also excellent.
Thanks, Keep searching or use the Portal; we’ve had lots of B-Body posts.
Calibrick, maybe Mustangs were loved because they were descent cars which were fairly reliable and delivered what they promised. The GM products weren’t and didn’t. I haven’t owned a Ford in 25 years so I don’t have an animal in that fight. Try to be objective for a few minutes.
I was being objective. I cited things like sales figures and vehicle performance to back up my opinion that, aside from the rattles and overall poor quality (on par with rest of domestic industry BTW) this was a successful car right up there with the Fox Mustang.
Maybe too successful. GM had no idea the car would live so long and sell so well. The tooling wore out and caused fit problems with the body panels that made them harder to weld together. Ironically some of the car’s structural issues can be tied to its overall success.
Like someone else said the small interior size relative to the exterior was a known “issue” during the test drive. The car should receive a bad grade for ownership experience, for sure. Nearly all Big 3 cars had that problem at the time but I can’t think of one that topped the Gen 4 Camaro for longevity, sales and profit.
My point is I see enough offsetting good here to undo a label like “Deadly Sin”. Nothing shakes, shimmies and rolls like a Corvette but I don’t see that on any list.
From a sales standpoint, these cars were initially successful. The bigger question is whether they ultimately lost sales for GM by driving away customers.
And I don’t believe that the bad quality was caused by worn-out dies. The rattles, leaks (with the T-tops) and shaky structure were all present when these cars debuted. Nor was their build quality typical for Detroit at that time. A Fox-body Mustang or Capri was superior in that regard.
Back in college, I had a friend who bought an almost-new 1986 V6 Firebird 5-speed (former GM company car, there was a great employee discount on those), that I got to spend several hours in, on an overnight out-of-state road trip (to White Castle?!). It was a nice car to drive when new, and we did get pulled over for doing 59 in a 55 in Ohio (no ticket).
An older engineer at our plant (Delco Electronics) bought a brand-new IROC Camaro around the same time that I got to ride in a couple of times – really-good acceleration for that era, but the wide tires tracked the ruts in the freeways like it was on rails, so it was not at all fun to drive on long trips (unlike the stock Firebird mentioned above that rode on much skinnier tires). And as mentioned above, there were a lot of squeaks and rattles exacerbated by the stiff suspension.
At Delco, we made the center-console-mounted “Pod” radio for the F-bodies (anybody remember those?) and I can’t remember what year that design finally disappeared. It was probably the strangest car stereo implementation that had occurred for half a century.
I installed a lot of car stereos in the mid-90s, and I don’t remember the F-body ever having the “pod” style stereo. I could be wrong, though.
For sure, GM had a multitude of cars that DID have the “pod” stereo rather than their normal “DIN and a half” sized decks, which were produced concurrently.
GM C/Ks had the pod from 88–94(?) I think, where the “head” was immediately to the right of the driver (almost part of the cluster), the tape deck was down in the mid-dash area, and the actual “brain”/tuner was under the dash, completely hidden. I believe that maybe Corsicas had a similar setup, and other platform-mates across the GM line.
As an aftermarket stereo installer, these were a huge pain in the ass. The only way to accomodate a normal (DIN sized) aftermarket deck usually required major compromises, and then you had to take steps to eliminate the actual interface of the old radio by replacing it with a pocket or some other kind of “blank.”
Of course, the aftermarket stereo industry has been gutted over the past decade by a multitude of factors, not the least of which is the demise of the old “standard size hole” or DIN to double DIN. GM was ahead of their time!
The Berlinetta had an optional AM/FM/cassette that was attached to a swiveling mount on the console. It really is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen.
That is strange. What a kludge. How long did it take to get all wobbly?
(Photo from Old Car Brochures)
Great pic. I remember that brochure, had one myself when I was 13. Thought that was just about the coolest thing ever
Wow! Having done a LOT of 3rd Gen Camaro/Firebird stereo installs, I can honestly say I’ve never heard of (and much less seen) a unit like that. Must have been an exceptionally rare option.
Thanks for the info!
Yup! That’s the one! I know it well because my job was to make sure that the wire harnesses (from Packard in Ohio) made it to our plant for these babies. In some cases we chartered single-engined private planes just to get the parts to our plant on time – if we went down, so did the assembly plants.
i had a pod in my 1984 berlinetta (5 liter ,4 speed auto),it was common in those cars and was dropped when the berlinetta line was dropped.i liked it at first but eventually went with a custom aftermarket deck install.
i loved this car and drove it daily for 6-7 years and its among 4 3rd gen camaro/firebirds ive owned and im sure ill adopt more of them when i find clean,non t-roof cars in mint shape.
i just picked up (2017 )an 86 firebird trans am,spotless,squeek free 5 speed v8,no t-roofs
I’ve always thought of these as the “Mustang II of Camaros”. When I see Mustangs at car shows/well cared for examples it’s always 64-73 and then 79 (Fox) till present cars. Same thing with the Camaro/Firebird twins. I see 67-81 and then 93 and up cars at shows and being well cared for. The third gen cars are never anywhere to be found, at least in the Chicago area.
Surprisingly there’s still one hanger on who lives in my neighborhood near Wicker Park. Still original paint that’s peeling a bit but for the most part in fantastic shape. It’s obvious the owner loves it.
“…you’d have thought GM would pay MT not to give the award to the Camaro: a hex on all their new cars.”
Well, it was good luck for the 1973 Monte Carlo, 1977 Caprice, and 1979 Riviera, all won MT COTY. But we know the other dubious winners.
Calibrick: Points well made. And who can forget about the Mustang II of the 70’s. That left Ford fans pretty to make a lot of apologies.
I remember the F-body was so low to the ground that they had a giant blister in the passenger foot well for the catalytic converter. The rear seat was a joke, and the passenger seat awful. So it’s really a driver-only, 1-seat car.
This Deadly Sin thing is silly. I would dismiss it as a way to stir things up and get people to comment but when you do an internet search on a Gen 1 Seville or Gen 4 Camaro this website and the “Deadly Sin” label pop up.
As it sits the criteria is subjective to the point that it has to be explained over and over again. The last explanation said something like it isn’t about the DS feature car as much as it is about what came next. Huh?
Is there a Deadly Sin list for Ford? What would you do with the Mustang II? A huge POS in anyone’s book but without it there would never have been a Fox Mustang. Mustang II makes the cut but not the Gen 4 Camaro?
It’s too much of a stretch to tie a car (often just a snapshot of a company) to a company’s future business moves. GM in the 80s was trying to do too much (not too little!) too fast. No company in history made more investment over 10 years in new platforms (X, J, H, Fiero, Corvette), powertrains (V864, HT4100, Northstar) and technologies (EV1) than GM.
I feel one reason it rushed so hard was because of the pundits screaming for more European hardware like FWD, IRS, OHC which they sure as hell got out of GM, in record time.
GM didn’t go bankrupt because they introduced models that were less car than a Mercedes that cost twice as much. It failed because it tried to do too much too fast. Those failed technologies burned too many buyers and they never went back.
My point is that GM and Cadillac of the 80s had NOTHING to do with what the Gen 1 Seville was all about. They would have been better off slow walking the new technology and doing more Sevilles in the meantime.
Which is pretty much what they did with their pushrod V8. They kept refining it to the point it could compete with more modern OHC designs, at a lower cost and with better reliability. The Seville approach 100%.
Also, including “what came next” in the DS definition prevents you from adding a car like the Mustang II to the list for Ford. I think something like “air ball” would be better and easier to work with. It could include cars like the Fiero, Aussie Capri and Holden Pontiac GTO which are always fun to talk about.
I’ve done a Ford DS for the Mustang II: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-19765-mustang-ii-cobra-ii-fords-deadly-sin-ii/
Since Ford never died, the designation is questionable.
Yes, the DS thing is a bit silly, but then so were GM’s many mistakes.
I happen to think that GM started making mistakes a long time ago. Those may not have directly contributed to their demise, but let’s consider them warm-up acts. I’d suggest you read DeLorean’s book “On A Clear Day You Can See General Motors” to give you a better perspective of how mistakes made in the 50s and 60s laid the groundwork for the eventual demise of what was the world’s most profitable corporation.
The MII isn’t really a deadly sin. First off Ford never killed itself. Secondly they did immediately take steps to correct some of it’s problems. 74 did not offer a V8 and it wouldn’t fit in that engine compartment. So upon hearing the cries of “I want a V8 they corrected that problem for the 75 model year. That required a fair amount of money be spent for designing and tooling all the new parts required. To make it fit required a new hood, header panel, core support, inner fender and trans tunnel. They also needed a new oil pan for the engine, and a new axle. So Ford took it more as a wake up call. It also was replaced with an all new car sooner than had been originally planned.
GM on the other hand did nothing to address all the problems of the Camaro and then just re-skinned the crappy chassis for the 4th gen which as we discussed the other day lead to the death of the Camaro.
The Mustang II never knew what it wanted to be. Ford sold as many notchbacks in Ghia trim as they did fastbacks in sporty trim. Was it a mini Brougham, a pony car or an economy car?
The market didn’t seem to know either because the V8 they worked so hard on never sold well. The real issue was that the MII wasn’t a very good car. It was expensive, cramped, slow and with the V6 got horrible gas mileage.
What saved it were high gas prices and the fact that the Japanese competition hadn’t yet hit critical mass. Ford, realizing its mistake, totally overkilled performance with the Fox Mustang and had a Turbo 4 AND 5.0L V8 both available from launch.
The Gen 3 Camaro came later and did fine against the foreign competition because it had a clear and unique image, that of the Z28 and later the IROC-Z. When GM applied that look to the less expensive SS V6 that image just got stronger.
By contrast the Cobra II and King Cobra variants did nothing for sales or image coming late like that. That’s the ass backwards way to do it and it never works. See Fiero CC.
BTW the advent of the SUV as a “cool car” alternative to sports and pony cars is what killed this class temporarily, not the Gen 4 Camaro.
The MII knew exactly what it wanted to be a return to the original. A sportier version of an economy car that had a multiude of (high profit) options so the owner could tailor it to their desires. From a practical but sporty 4cyl 4sp hatchback to a V6 AT economy personal luxury car to after the first year a V8 powered sporty car in two choices of body style.
The SUV did not kill the Camaro directly yes spending money on developing trucks may have eaten away at the budget to fix the mulitude of issues with the Camaro but buyers who were looking for a sporty car did not swap to purchasing 4wd station wagons en mass. Otherwise Mustang sales would have suffered too. In fact if that was the case they should have suffered more since the Explorer was the king of the 4wd station wagon so it should have attracted Ford faithful more so than that other lower selling DS the S-10 Blazer ever could from the Camaro. What killed the 4th gen Camaro was the fact that it was the same $#!& in a new but dated looking package.
4th gens were made in Canada, not Van Nuys.
Both of my 4th gen F-bodies have been fun and solid cars. No T-top leaks…
The chassis can supply superb handling, why change it? Chuck Jordan headed the design, RIP…
When the LSx SBCs arrived, f-bodies became the best performance value on the planet. And most 4th gens RIDE well, too.
Had an 85 Capri RS 5.0 for a DD before. Can anyone remember Foxes with the AOD trans? Mustangs are like Harleys; there will ALWAYS be suckers…
the mustang 2 was a pathetic embarrassment that made pintos look good,the third gen camaro in proper form(tpi and 5 speed) will and does crap all over any fox body made in handling,looks and performance,yes many idiots drove third gens into the ground but the ones that are left are being either restored or turned into supreme autocross killers
Frankly the term “Deadly Sin” is becoming
a bit long in the tooth. Kind of like the cable
news flashing across the screen “BREAKING
NEWS” everytime someone’s toilet over
flows…
the charlies angels era mustang was an abortion,an abomination and a
rolling turd .i would take a 4 cylinder third gen camaro or firebird over one
of those overstuffed pintos any damned day.you seem to have selective
or what i would like to call “incorrect” memory of some pretty atrocious cars
that have been produced.
Tach it up, tach it up
Buddy gonna shut you down
It happened on the strip where the road is wide
Benz and Sin standin’ side by side
Yeah, my fuel injected E-class and a Z-28
We’re revvin’ up our engines and it sounds real great
Tach it up, tach it up
Buddy gonna shut you down
Declinin’ numbers at an even rate
At the count of one we both accelerate
My E-class six is only startin’ to spin
But the small block eight’s really diggin’ in
Pedal’s to the floor hear the big six breathe
And now the Chevy driver’s really startin’ to seethe
He’s hot with throttle-bodies but it’s understood
I got a fuel injected engine sittin’ under my hood
Shut it off, shut it off buddy now I shut you down
Most excellent! Where can I download it? Or do I need to buy a CD?
You already have the video, Paul, in your head!
HAHAHAAHAHAH oh my god, A++++++ will read comment again, thank you thank you THANK YOU for making my day – that was fantastic!!!
I have no sympathy for GM. So we’re picking on them? Who was there for the consumer when they repeatedly foisted inferior product on the market and passed on any responsibility? Eventually, we got the Federal Trade Commission to intervene for flat camshafts and Metric transmissions. And when I first contacted GM about these settlements the representative denied knowing their existence. Typical GM as I kept finding out.
Rant over.
I had an ’82 Z28, and I miss it in some ways. No car since has been as comfortable for me (I’m 5’8″); great road trip car. Incomparably better looking in every way compared to that eyesore they sell now masquerading as a Camaro. If only the components were measurably better. And that powertrain…if you could call it that…what a disaster (humbled by a 200SX Turbo!). If not for these few, minor quibbles (not!), it would be my favorite car.
The Z28 I had certainly was better than the ’76 Civic CVCC and ’79 Accord cars that preceeded it. Head gaskets, paper mache synchronizers anyone?
I’m not a homer, or insisting that any foreign branded car is superior. I just have little patience for junk, no matter how good it looks, or the “engineering” appeal. It’s got to serve it’s primary purpose or it’s of no use to me.
Inexplicably, I will always have a soft spot for that 3rd gen F-body.
@calibrick “This Deadly Sin thing is silly. I would dismiss it as a way to stir things up and get people to comment but when you do an internet search on a Gen 1 Seville or Gen 4 Camaro this website and the “Deadly Sin” label pop up.”
+1
Paul. Riddle me this? The title says”85 Camaro RS”. The POS in your pics is either a 91 or 92 with the exception of the interior pic from a red 82 or 83. And the story is about a 85 Firebird. Yes,you’re real credible when you obviously had to cruise around town for 2 weeks to find that perfect car to photograph just so you could amuse us with your rants. Hey how about some dead on accuracy here, for once. It’s bad enough reading all the BS from people who never owned the cars in the subject matter but for you to be the chief instigator doesn’t say much about your character, or that of this site either. I’m just reinforcing what a lot have to say about how wrong your DS’s are.
You know you miss a real point here. Back in 82 I was a young 22YO white male with the usual amount of hormones pumping through my brain. I also was working the parts counter at one of the local Chevrolet dealers. I didn’t give damn about build quality. Having turned legal driving age a few years after the Malaise decade started I sure as heck didn’t care about how fast a car was. Maybe if I had cut my teeth on something super spectacular like a Hemi Cuda instead of a Fiat 850 Spider I might have but than I suspect these cars wouldn’t have been in my cross hairs at all if I did. All I know is that the first time I drove a 82 Z28 it felt like I was in a state of euphoria. I didn’t notice the rattles, the NVH. All I knew was that driving that car(or any car for that matter) made me feel good. Probably also the reason why you saw a lot of girls driving them. It had an image. What ever you wanted it to be,it was.Oh and it handled so much better than my 2nd gen 76 T/A.Too bad I didn’t make enough to buy one but one thing I did learn in my youth was patience. But my dream of owning a Camaro never came to frutation until 20 years later when I bought a 85 IROC. Oh I had lots of buddies and friends who had them. Even helped a few spec out that special car since I was the dealer connection. About the time the IROC and geniune port EFI came on the scene I was still entrenched in my love of the G-Body. Plus I couldn’t swing that extra $25 a week car payment/insurance premium. So I bought the first black MonteCarloSS in town which in hind sight was probably more practical for me at the time. Just as fast but not quite fast enough if you know what I mean. Oh and I think the real reason why the Mustang blew by, sales wise in the later 80’s was the price difference. Those 5.0 LX coupes were the bargain of the day,performance wise.
I feel sorry for FireTurd boy in your opening story. The last new car I bought was that MCSS. One day I woke up and said “I am never going to pay for depreciation ever again!” Its been used ever since. Plus the fact I can fix just about anything. I don’t care if I have to fix it right the second time around. Thats what seperates me from most of the pedestrians blogging on the interweb. This is a personal Thank You from me to all of you GM haters out there who threw your hands up and surrendered. I’ve bought some pretty sweet cars from you over the years and I enjoyed every minute with them.
You may have a point there with “you obviously had to cruise around town for 2 weeks to find that perfect car to photograph just so you could amuse us with your rants”.
The photos for the infamous Seville CC had faded paint, no wheelcovers, no whitewalls, no front cornering lamp, no bumper fillers, rust and newspapers for seat covers.
“I was working the parts counter at one of the local Chevrolet dealers. I didn’t give damn about build quality….. I can fix just about anything. I don’t care if I have to fix it right the second time around……This is a personal Thank You from me to all of you GM haters out there who threw your hands up and surrendered.”
I hear you, but you have to admit a car company that relies on its customers being mechanics is likely to have only mechanics for customers.
I know/known many mechanics and the own/have owned very few GMs, including a few that were employees of GM dealers.
A couple of points: First, I didn’t spend two weeks looking for this. I had it in my files, along with several others (none in great shape, but obviously this one is quite rough).
I apologize about the MY. Frankly, I can’t tell them apart. I originally had the title say “Gen3 Camaro”, but then I just arbitrarily made it a 1985. In retrospect, I should change it back.
But you make a very excellent point (which I may take up in a post): the fact that this is obviously a site where most of us are enthusiasts, and we know enough about our cars to (hopefully) avoid having to go to the dealer 46 times in one year. (I would have just brought a gun the 10th time).
I’ve repeatedly tried to point out that the Deadly Sins were the mistakes that GM made in losing market share, which eventually brought it down. But it absolutely doesn’t mean that folks/enthusiasts can’t or don’t properly enjoy the cars, DS or not.
I realize folks have a lot of emotions invested in their cars, and I can see the appeal of the Camaro. I think it’s indisputable that the quality was lacking, but if owners could work around that, I know they were cheap, fast fun.
It’s very important for owners (or former owners) of cars like this to not feel insulted by my DS posts. I’m focusing on the history of the corporation; but the cars had qualities that redeemed them in many owner’s hands; just not the general car-buying public at large.
Thanks for yr hard work. Great reads…
Camaro Z 28 and Mustang GT. Roger Smith and Donald Petersen. One a bean counter blamed for the shoddy quality and half baked ideas from 80’s GM. The other a car guy known for reviving the V8 Mustang idea in the 82 GT, the sophisticated fuel injected and intercooled Mustang SVO and Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. The original Taurus.
I’ll take the car enthusiast over the corporate bean counter. GM still lives in the shadow of his failures today, that reputation earned during that Smith era dogs GM. In spite of Smith, GM still had some great car guys under their umbrella, guys like Dave MacClellan, Corvette Chief Engineer. How many compormises must have been made in order to satisfy those bean counters.
I never owned an eighties Camaro, but always admired the design. I think this design, by Wayne Cherry, is miles above the next generation Camaro with it’s rounded, sheet molded compound flanks.
When the 82 model came out, a 4 cylinder was the base engine and up until now, I have never seen a picture of this engine in the Camaro. Thanks for posting that pic, Paul! In a bizarre kind of way, this may be even more rarer then a 69 Camaro ZL1!
You know, the Iron Duke being base engine on the early 3rd gen F-Body seems to get mentioned pretty frequently in retrospectives nowadays – but I’m almost positive it was actually a “credit option” or a “no charge delete” (whatever they call it) and the V6 was standard. I would imagine this was done to meet EPA fleet fuel economy targets, although I’m not really sure… maybe studies showed a real market for a Camaro that produced double-digit horsepower figures? In any case, this is the first one I’ve ever seen as well and I seriously doubt that more than a couple hundred – at most – were built for each year it was available.
Just in case anybody was wondering, I checked with fueleconomy.gov and the 2.5l/5-speed combo in a 1984 Camaro is rated 18city/29hwy mpg under the revised system.
I4 Camaro might have been added for insurance reasons as well. The V8 models were ridiculously expensive to insure if the driver was a young man.
I knew a girl who had one with the Iron Duke….. it was a huge POS as well as a slug.
I bet Paul never imagined that this ugly carcass of a car would create so much commotion.
I will never understand you guys who get so bent out of shape about this Deadly Sin series. I don’t get it at all…
Let me make a sports analogy, which makes sense to me because automotive fandom probably originates in, and is stimulated by, the same part of the brain. I am a fan of the New York Mets. I’ve always been a fan of the New York Mets. The Mets have historically been an awful team… in fact, they’re a dysfunctional and constant emotional rollercoaster that will build you up with false hopes and end up shattering your heart into a million pieces 9 times out of 10. They exist in the largest market and spend disgusting sums of money buying the most brilliant minds and athletic talents in the game, and yet they still fall flat on their face year after year. Their propensity to find new and creative ways to lose defies logic, reason and physics.
So why be a Mets fan then? Because that’s what I am and that’s what I’ve always been. It goes back to before I could fully grasp what “baseball” was, much like most of our automotive fascinations. I am a through and through diehard, and all the suffering is paid off in those brief moments of glory, the constant hope for the future and the memories burned into my skull and made even more legendary through the passage of time.
That said, when the Daily News reports that the Mets LOST, I don’t get angry at them. When the talk radio rips apart their front office for some boneheaded trade or gets on a player for not hustling, I’m nodding my head in agreement – and when I’m sitting in the $21 nosebleed seats eating a $9 hotdog having my eardrums shattered by a 737 overhead and watching some scrub piece of crap reliever blow a 5 run lead in the 9th I am BOOING MY ASS OFF with the rest of the stadium!! Doing anything else would be INSANITY! Losing is objectively bad, and General Motors has been LOSING for 40 years now… in fact, they lost so bad that they actually went out of business, the organization folded. It’s kind of like how the Cleveland Browns ceased to exist at one point, but came back under the same name and different ownership years later.
I’m also a General Motors fanatic. In fairness, I am generally more interested in Eurotrash and Jap Crap – however, General Motors is my first and foremost automotive love. I think the company, it’s products, it’s massive scale and it’s glorious history are all beyond fascinating and I still root for it’s reincarnated carcass to this very day. Since we don’t have talk radio or ESPN for the automotive world, this is our outlet – and as a diehard fan I think it’s infinitely interesting to exhume the corpse of this beast and pinpoint where it went wrong on it’s downward march from being an idyllic and aspirational symbol of technological wizardry, style, class, adventure, elegance and performance – like a vision portrayed in those dreamlike 60’s Pontiac ads – to the eventual harsh reality of becoming a grotesquely cynical, soulless and pennywise wreckage that cast a dark shadow over the entire American landscape.
There are plenty of counterpoints that could be made to many cars featured in the series. I certainly don’t agree with all of them, although I think at the very least Paul always makes a valid argument for their placement… but the essence of this whole Deadly Sin concept cannot be in dispute. The facts are in and no matter how big of a fan you are – GM has, very objectively so, been a perennial loser. Defending their losing ways doesn’t make you a fan, it makes you an apologist.
I’ll admit that the DS series used to bother me a bit. Then Paul went more into detail about what the series was trying to accomplish and that he wasn’t calling anyone an idiot or a bad person for liking a certain vehicle. I lightened up a lot about it after that.
I also came to realization that although he and I have the same tastes in trucks and RVs we’re nearly total opposites when it comes to the type of cars we like.
Plus, it isn’t like he’s ever claimed to be the final word in automotive judgement. He even let someone write a piece in support of the slantback Seville the day he ran its DS piece.
Nice analogy and nicely put!
It was the problem in the volume segments that brought down the Big 3. Their niche products like the C4, IROC Camaro, first Seville and Fox Mustang were “triples” to “homeruns”. Many of us hyper-critical car guys remember them fondly and in one form or another they still exist today, which is amazing!
Now look at the the lower and middle ends. No more Cavaliers, Coriscas, Berettas or Luminas. No more Tempos, Contours or 500s. It’s in these segments that GM lost the game.
Accord, Camry, Maxima, Jetta, 3-series and E-class are all still around. You know exactly what each of them is because they were successful from the start and their companies kept them on the same track, they kept FOCUS.
I could say the same thing about the Corvette, Camaro, Mustang and Seville (if you consider the CTS the successor as I do).
If you want to do this as a real exercise you have to look beyond the cars we enthusiasts like, the ones that make splashy Deadly Sin headlines. The cars that the DS series picks on tend to be niche cars that couldn’t, even if they wanted to, do any real harm to the company.
I own German cars and prefer those overall. I am no more a GM fan than I am a Ford fan. My standing up for GM is from a rational car guy look at it. In that sense I am defending more a forgotten star player than the entire team.
Also like the Lt. said, I like this site and don’t want its credibility hurt by saying things like the first Seville was a Deadly Sin. How about you Sean, do you consider the Seville a DS?
Not all of the DS are Niche products a number of them were in the meat of the market like the X bodies and the S-10 Blazer.
Personally as a small contributor I certainly don’t fear any loss of credibility due to the Deadly Sins and trust me they are not being done as a cheap way to get clicks and comments.
Also like the Lt. said, I like this site and don’t want its credibility hurt by saying things like the first Seville was a Deadly Sin. How about you Sean, do you consider the Seville a DS?
No, I actually disagree with the ’75-’79 Seville having a DS tag big time… but I do understand the point being made in that article. Point being, more or less, that GM learned all the wrong lessons from that car’s success. I see it as a good start that should have gotten better but never did, Paul saw it as the top of a slippery slope. Six of one, half dozen of another.
I was originally going to reply to this article suggesting that the 3rd Gen Camaro was in no way a Deadly Sin as well, but I thought about it really hard and… he’s right.
But anyway, disagreeing is one thing – disagreeing is good. Being offended/upset and claiming some elitist bias or personal vendetta is another entirely. That’s clearly not what these things are about or the reaction they’re trying to provoke. If you go through the actual list (click this text and scroll down to GM Deadly Sins) you’ll see there are in fact just as many boring, everyday throwaway cars on there as niche/enthusiast models.
I can’t imagine that doing articles like this is going to hurt the site’s credibility in any way. It’s just another way to tell a story…
Excellent comment, it read so much like Nick Hornsby’s Fever Pitch.
This is some really weak stuff out of that RS owner in the lead picture.
Go to Lowe’s. Buy some 80/100 grit sandpaper, steel wool, masking tape, paint remover, 8 cans of Rustoleum clear enamel, two paint brushes, some superglue, a flat screwdriver, and some rubber window weatherstripping.
Remove the lights and emblems, mask off those sweet purple stripes, sand/strip off all the black paint and failing clearcoat, spray the clear enamel on the bare body, put the weatherstripping in place of the stupid duct tape. Put the lights and emblems back on.
Put a Halloween decoration plastic skull in the rear window, slap on a “I’d rather be doing your mom” bumper sticker, and you’re done.
This morning when I read this I decided to pull out my 86 Trans Am and take it to work and enjoy sin. Always gets a few comments which it did today. It is equipped with a 305 TPI and in the nearly 23 years I have had it has only required minimal maintenance. The thing does not leak and will or used to get 25 to 27 MPG’s on the highway. In comparison to the Mustang GT which may have been faster the Mustang when behind the wheel just felt like a glorified Fairmont.(Which it was). Comparing to German metal at the time a friend of mine had a 84 318 BMW which was in the same price range but slow as hell and in reality felt like a solid bucket seat Valiant with a lead weight behind it and maintenance for it was oh so high. 400.00 for a muffler( my T/A still has what was put on the factory for it after 132,000 miles. Anyway when I bought the car in Jan.of 1990 I never thought I would still have it but I guess I just love SIN!
Run-on sentences aside, you have a beautiful car!
Beautiful car. Beautiful design. Probably the highlight of Trans Am styling, after the 70 1/2 Firebird and Trans Am.
Looks like a well kept car, a keeper for sure!
I almost missed the date and believed you were writing about my mother’s Firebird 350, am early-’70s model. Her previous car, a ’66 Mustang, provided a convenient base for comparison. How I loved that car! It seemed light and nimble and open and cheerful. Overall, the Mustang was such an easy car to drive compared to the barges that came before (hello out there, you ex-Bel-Air drivers).
Then Ma got a wild hair and traded the Mustang for a gold Firebird. Her teenaged son was impressed by the racy streamlining, the sexy cockpit and a significant bump in the car’s perceived and actual power. It was only a week or two before I was trying to get four wheels airborne by gunning it over a humped railway crossing. What could go wrong with that? Nothing fatal, obviously, but frightening. A battery cable, not quite tightened at the factory, slipped off the terminal and killed the car’s engine and power assistance. Lucky the road ahead was straight and uphill!
Those early ‘Birds pioneered the fitment of 60-series tires, so unusually broad that the term “Wide Ovals” was coined. Evidently that was a factor not mastered by suspension engineers. Our Firebird had a hearty appetite for Wide Ovals, worn out quickly and unevenly. Aligned and re-alinged, the car maintained a stubborn waywardness. With no sense of on-center, the car had the directional stability of a thrown hammer handle. Every moment behind the wheel was an aiming exercise, which made long trips longer.
During college Spring Break, my Mom was generous and trusting enough to lend me the Firebird for a road trip from Nashville to Big Bend. We got to Dallas, where we visited a friend’s uncle. I told him just what I thought of the flashy Pontiac. He offered to trade us for his Volvo sedan — temporarily, of course — for the long remaining ride across Texas and back. That’s when I sealed my preference for European cars. The Volvo may have lacked any pretense of performance, but it was comfortable to sit in (for all four of us), easy to drive and the styling didn’t hide the scenery we’d come so far to see.
Mom wound up with her Firebird, even after offering it to me to replace my wacky, troublesome NSU. The Pontiac would strand me one more time, on a busy freeway, when it blew its timing chain. What happened to it afterwards wasn’t worth remembering, but I’ll never forget what she replaced it with: a Mazda RX-2 rotary engined sedan. Hey, I think I know where my oddball taste in cars came from…
As a kid this car represented a leap forward from the previous model and TBH I always liked their style, but I never wanted to own one.
In 1989 while working as a pizza delivery driver my 82 Escort was indisposed for reasons I cannot recall and the manager lent me his brand new Camero RS to use with a 305 IIRC.
Coming from an Escort this car seemed pretty slick and fast until I tried to queue jump a 1983-84 Rabbit GTI at a red light,to which he promptly blew my doors off.
Worse yet he three of his buddies in the car.
I worked at a GM dealer parts dept in the 80s-90s and saw the quality drop. One example, we stocked oil cooler hoses for pick-ups by the hundred. We had fleet customers who bought them by the dozen. How is it that a compnany like this forgets how to make a part they’ve made for decades? I will say that my 78 Malibu coupe 4-speed was reliable, well built and durable. and my 91 Sunbird still starts and runs fine with 400,000KM on it. However, the first time I drove a late 80s Honda, I was shocked at how far ahead those guys were. An ’04 Malibu was my last GM. It was reliable enough, but maintainance and repairs cost as much that for as a luxury car. I thought the hatchback body was brilliant, but typically for GM, they couldn’t execute the rest of the car. So, now it’s ‘Yotas and Lexus from now on.
Thank You Paul. I was trying nicely not to put you on the spot. Damn hard to do with a keyboard. I hope I didn’t come across as some type of hardass with a hard-on for anything GM. I actually envy you guys. All I’ve ever driven and owned was GM with the exception of that 850 Spider and a 71 240Z I had before I went to work for GM. I’m gratefull I have friends that don’t own GMs as I at least can see what all of the hoopala is about. I still don’t believe any one marque is better than another but maybe we can work on that. Always keep a open mind.
Keep up the great work and have a nice weekend.
One question? What does one have to do to contribute to the site? I have a few that I think would be interesting. A few(OK a lot) of stories of actual events that took place with some of DS’s mentioned here.
BTW the 2.5 Iron Duke was also available in the 77-79 Pontiac Phoenix. Another DS? I hope not.
We can be a bit hard on GM (and other companies), but never at the expense of trying purposely to make anyone feel bad. And welcome to CC, as it seems you’ve joined the party fairly recently.
Submissions: send me the text and attach pictures, via the Contact form (up on the top menu bar).
Check out our archives, and if you’re into Iron Dukes, maybe you’ll like this: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/auto-biography/auto-biography-how-i-came-to-be-a-pre-production-test-driver-for-the-pontiac-iron-duke-engine-program/
Although the performance of the early 1980’s Camaros was poor, it quickly improved. Generally in most stock for stock comparisions it usually out ran the Mustang in most comparision tests (some years the Mustang was quicker), but they were close thorugh the 80’s and early 90’s. F-bodies always had very high lateral grip numbers, but the Mustangs usually came up as more agile. Mustang definitely had the more practical design, which help sell the non 5.0L cars.
Keep in mind, for 1982, a 5.0L V8 making 165 hp WAS good. Don’t forget the 5.7L 1981 Camaro only made about 175 hp. Mustang didn’t make 200 hp until 1986. Don’t forget in the 1970’s Chevy 350’s, Ford 351’s were often not even making 160 hp, so in the context of the time, 165 hp was good. The old american V8’s need some time to catch up to the European engines (don’t forget most of these V8’s were designed in the 1950’s and 60’s).
The 1982-92 F-cars weren’t poorly engineered. They were poorly built and had terrible quality control. Had GM built them properly, they probably wouldn’t have lost so many customers to Mustang. Most guys liked their F-bodies – when they worked.
I had the deep misfortune to own, as my first new car, an ’82 Camaro Sport Coupe, red with black-and-saddle interior. It was beautiful and sexy, and at the age of 20 I was cuttin’ quite the figure with the chicks. I was also the envy of the guys on the loading dock at work, most of whom drove clapped-out old Mustangs. Unfortunately, as in the story above, I could not afford a V8 and so had to make do with the pitiful 2.8 V6. Coupled to a 3-speed+lockup Hydra-Matic.
What a piece that car turned out to be. It went through 3 rear ends under warranty (the diff kept eating itself), one new transmission (kept leaping in and out of lockup for no reason), and couldn’t get out of its own way. I did mobile DJ work at the time and managed to cram all my gear into the shoebox and dropped back seat, somehow, but it was painful.
In the end, I was almost relieved when I crunched it into a white ’68 Squareback that came out of the sun just as I was making a left turn. The adjusters totalled it, and I spent the payoff on an ’84 Shelby Rampage (but that’s a tale for another day). I never looked back. In fact, it was the last Chevy I have ever owned (after having been raised on Bowties). Too sad.
My younger sister, bought as her first brand new car, an 85 Camaro, base model with the 2.8 V6 (against my recommendations NOT to). It looked great, was uncannily free from wind noise but…..the night she got it, a kid fell off his bicycle and landed against the drivers door, putting a dent in it. This should have been an omen as this was one of the most troublesome and jinxed cars our family ever owned. Within two weeks of ownership, the fuse for the fuel injection blew causing the car to feel like it was running on 5 cylinders. After that was fixed, my sister took the car on a four hour trip and it came home having gone through six quarts of oil. It was leaking from the oil pan, mind you, it had less than a thousand miles on it at this point. The dealer attempted to tell my sister that was not abnormal for a new car to use oil. She threw the keys at him, and told him to put it on a lift, then stand under it and let hot oil drip on his fool head, then tell her this was normal…there were actually a few obscenities in the scenario, but you get the picture. It took four weeks for the dealer to fix the car. Shortly after she got it back, someone stole all four center caps off the Rally Wheels. Two more bouts of mysterious fuel injection issues, another oil leak and a power window motor that went bad all followed…the car was less than six months old! She moved from NY to Ohio, and actually, the car caused no problems. Then on Christmas Eve, she was grocery shopping. When she came out to the car, there was an early 80’s Bronco sitting on the front of the Camaro! The woman driving the Bronco accidentally missed reverse and put it in first and climbed up the hood of my sister’s car! After getting it fixed, my brother in law convinced my sister to trade it in on of all things, an 86 Toyota pickup. That was no bargain either! It was bone base with no power anything, no a/c and two Ohio winters about killed the pickup box as it was already rusting through. She got rid of that and bought a Toyota Tercel, another piece of junk! It went through exhaust systems and fuel filters like they were free, rusted to hell within three Ohio winters. It was nothing but cheap plastic inside and out. Next came a 91 Sentra, another cheap plastic penalty box, that had constant exhaust, brake and body integrity issues, and again, within a few Ohio winters looked like rolling Swiss Cheese. My sister swore off buying American after that 85 Camaro but, never had such great luck with the Japanese junk that was produced in the 80’s and 90’s, either. I bought a ’10 Camaro and have had no problems with it so GM and the Camaro have come a long way.
Sounds like just plain bad luck for your sister!
Nothing at all to do with her choices of cars.
That poor Camaro, just needs a bit of love and actual caring work. Mine is older, and mine is perfect. And I make sure it stays that way. Either put in the work, or cut the bitching and buy a different car.
Great post.
However, it should be expected that a W124 300E (they wouldn’t have the 400E and 500E until a few years later) with 188 hp should beat a LG4 Camaro (0-60 in 9.4 sounds right) with 150 hp and 240 lb/ft of torque.
The W124 was also $25,000 at the time; the ThirdGen, about $10,000 or so (mid-80s).
The W124 could hit 125-130; the Camaro–115-118.
yes,there is a bit of silliness in this article.i wouldn’t use it for anything fact related,there arent any facts used at all,just personal bias.
Back in 1992, my older sister was in a great career & wanted a second sporty car to use on nice days. Being somewhat knowledgeable about cars even at my ripe age of 21, she asked me to accompany her on her dealer excursions. The first car she drove was a dark polo green ’92 Firebird Formula; 305 TBI (freaking truck motor), auto trans (a must for sis, she hated sticks) & tan cloth w/black accents for interior appointments. A good looking car, but something was amiss. Even sis could feel it. ”I don’t know. It feels junky. And slow. What do you think?” She inquired of me. My answer? ”Let’s go see the Ford dealer.”
Down at the Ford shop, sis first drove a teal blue 1992 T-Bird with the 5.0. “This feels too much like a boat, like your car.” She sneered.
”What about this?” I said, gesturing in the direction of 2 Mustang LX 5.0 Hatchbacks. Both cars had black cloth interiors, auto trans, Pony wheels & convenience group. Only difference was the color; bright red & teal green. Sis chose the red, surmising that the teal green was ”too trendy & would be out of style in 5-7 years.” How right she was. One test drive & we BOTH fell in love with that Mustang. Tight, taut & quick, good fit & finish. She owned that car 10 years & it only needed new tires & a battery in that time. Sis drove her red ‘Stang pretty gently. It was a fine investment; so glad she didn’t fet that Fire-turd. She’d have been very grumpy.
There’s a reason this gen of F-Body is forever associated with mullets, Thin Lizzy cassettes & Jaegermeister: Dudes sporting the former drove them, & the latter 2 items were commonly found rolling about the floorboards in these trashy, rattly, junker-clunkers. No car built by GM deserved to die worse than these piles, except maybe the Chevette.
Back in 1992, my older sister was in a great career & wanted a second sporty car to use on nice days. Being somewhat knowledgeable about cars even at my ripe age of 21, she asked me to accompany her on her dealer excursions. The first car she drove was a dark polo green ’92 Firebird Formula; 305 TBI (freaking truck motor), auto trans (a must for sis, she hated sticks) & tan cloth w/black accents for interior appointments. A good looking car, but something was amiss. Even sis could feel it. ”I don’t know. It feels junky. And slow. What do you think?” She inquired of me. My answer? ”Let’s go see the Ford dealer.”
Down at the Ford shop, sis first drove a teal blue 1992 T-Bird with the 5.0. “This feels too much like a boat, like your car.” She sneered.
”What about this?” I said, gesturing in the direction of 2 Mustang LX 5.0 Hatchbacks. Both cars had black cloth interiors, auto trans, Pony wheels & convenience group. Only difference was the color; bright red & teal green. Sis chose the red, surmising that the teal green was ”too trendy & would be out of style in 5-7 years.” How right she was. One test drive & we BOTH fell in love with that Mustang. Tight, taut & quick, good fit & finish. She owned that car 10 years & it only needed new tires & a battery in that time. Sis drove her red ‘Stang pretty gently. It was a fine investment; so glad she didn’t get that Fire-turd. She’d have been very grumpy.
There’s a reason this gen of F-Body is forever associated with mullets, Thin Lizzy cassettes & Jaegermeister: Dudes sporting the former drove them, & the latter 2 items were commonly found rolling about the floorboards in these trashy, rattly, junker-clunkers. No car built by GM deserved to die worse than these piles, except maybe the Chevette.
Some facts that are being overlooked or ignored here:
-Why do most of these CC featured vehicles and stories always seem to be either a lowly base model, or the worst offered drivetrain available? GM offered many different engine choices in the F-Body, aswell as their other models to appeal to many different buyers – it’s simple. If you wanted a performance car you got one with the top V8. If you wanted A to B transportation you got the fuel efficient 4 banger or V6. Either way you got to take home the car you wanted that fulfilled your needs/budget and basically looked the same.
-Cross fire injection was state of the art at the time it was introduced. It was also first generation Electronic Fuel Injection – remember this was 1982 and carburetors were the norm. Three years later GM made its TPI Multi port injection available on the F-bodys – it was a pioneering EFI system who’s basic design and components/functions were essentially the standard for all automakers EFI systems for decades.
-GM really had the drivetrains dailed in by 1987 when the optional 5.7 L98 was offered. Excellent, bulletproof and simple engine mated to an excellent, performance tuned 4 speed automatic with overdrive – the 700R4.
-The all new for 1982 F-body was fundamentally designed as a Handling car. Of course there are compromises that come with this, especially way back then when the trade-off for good handling was an overly firm ride, but remember that if you are in the market to buy a camaro, you are not concerned with having a firm riding suspension.
As a contrast, the fox body mustang of the era was basically a ford fairmont with sporty sheetmetal hung on it. It was not primarily designed with handling in mind. This is a fact. But it always bugged me reading comparisons between the two cars, because they were very different designs with different intentions when designed.
The F-Body has a very low C of G. You cannot “bolt on” a lower C of G to make your car handle better – it must be built into the design of the car. All you have to do is look at a 82-92 F-Body parked next to a Mustang of the same era to see this plainly.
-Ford didn’t have or offer a competitive EFI system on its 5.0 V8 until much later – 85 or 86. Before then only carburetors were used.
-Ford was using rear axles with only 4 wheel studs on their hi-performance, 5.0 V8 mustangs. I’ll repeat that – 4 WHEEL STUDS! LOL. I never understood that.
Now that is a deadly sin of epic proportions.
Yet the Mustang outlived the Camaros into the 2000s with strong and steady sales on the same basic chassis. Key word of deadly sin is DEAD, which the Camaros did for several years, due to the “other” traits not measured by stat sheets that the third and fourth gens had.
Yes the Mustang used 4 lugs, but it used an 8.8 rear end, unlike the Camaros 7.5, which is the bigger Achilles heel of the two. One actually fails, the other in reality merely limits your wheel selection and brake upgrades, plenty of very fast 4 lug Mustangs. Oh and the third gen F body never had a wheel as good looking as those 4 lug turbines!
As for crossfire, no, it was TBI on a cross ram intake, 1960s technology with tech at best impressive for the 70s. It wasn’t cutting edge for 1982, the rest of the world had vastly superior port systems, and even Chevrolet themselves did back in the 50s, they were mechanical granted but in principal were much more forward thinking than electronic TBI, which proved to be a footnote. Ford may have been late to the party somewhat (they had their own 5.0 TBI system in 1983) but they got it right in 1986 and used it across the board, unlike GM’s many less than stellar systems.
I don’t disagree about the handling(and implied styling) superiority, but it also made for a costlier to make car. Big part of what made ponycars viable despite their limited practicality was that they shared components with another high volume car, increasing profit for the company and reducing ownership costs for the buyers. The third gen Camaro broke away from this, it was a truly state of the art chassis(in the traditional SRA mold), but ultimately it ended up sealing it’s fate, creating a less profitable platform for an ever less dominating GM, costing more for the customer, limited practicality due to it’s low nature, and came with the many issues brought up in this DS article that a new unproven platform comes with(well, for GM in this period anyway). The combination of these sent a lot of would be customers into the hands of Ford and imports, the stats just couldn’t overcome the harsh realities. That’s a deadly sin of epic proportions.
46 trips to the dealer in the first year? That’s *damn* unforgivable. No car company is perfect, but this is bullshit. You’d think that for all the money they make, they’d be able to afford to provide a better quality product than they do.
I wonder how much the Norwood assembly plant’s issues contributed to the car’s abysmal quality. For starters, there was a big labor strike in 1972 that wiped-out a lot of that year’s F-body production. Aside from that, though, second generation F-bodies didn’t seem to have any more than normal quality problems.
But many of the third generation F-bodies were also built at the troubled facility, where absenteeism had by then become a major problem. It’s worth noting that the plant was shuttered in 1986 after an obstinate UAW local declined any meaningful negotiations to keep it open.
The story of the Van Nuys plant is very interesting as well, and has a backstory as to why the F-bodies out of that plant were built like crap. GM wanted to implement some of the lessons they learned at NUMMI, but were met with fierce resistance by the staff within the plant. Many people intentionally sabotaged GM’s efforts, and those that did attempt to go with the changes turned on one another. Subsequently, GM shuttered Van Nuys in 1992. This American Life’s NUMMI episode goes into detail about what was going on there:
https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi
I knew Van Nuys built the F-body, but had no idea there were Norwood-level issues in that plant, too. You really have to wonder about the impact labor strife has on vehicle quality, particularly since the fourth generation F-bodies that were built at Sainte-Therese seemed to be fine. I can actually speak from personal experience, having owned a new 1994 Formula. Evidently, there were some issues (like a poorly located magneto underneath the water pump on the LT1) but I can’t recall having to take my car into the shop for anything even remotely close to the horror stories of the third generation cars.
Really, when an assembly plant has poor leadership in either labor or management (and GM had both in spades for the third gen F-body), I can’t imagine it not having a serious impact on even the best engineered vehicles.
ive owned 5 3rd gens,what you are hearing doesn’t reflect reality.1st i owned a 4cylinder 1982,4 speed camaro(stolen),an 83 v6 camaro(ex-wife totaled it), a 1984 berlinetta camaro(drove for 6-7 yrs) and just recently purchased a 1986 trans am.there are no horror stories in my experience and these cars were owned over the last 30 years,all used cars.they just need regular maintenance,like any car.
there were problems with port injectors clogging in the early days (the Cadillac Seville probably, but even the FWD 3800 that I had needed cleaned at something like 60,000 miles I think). Throttle body injectors were less likely to clog.
The 84 throttle body Corvette could do 0-60 in 7 seconds, but was slowing by the end of the quarter mile.
I had to rent a car in New Orleans back in the mid 1980’s. I said, “Give me your smallest and cheapest car.” I assumed I’d get a Chevette. The agent said “They are not the same. Most companies want their employees to get the smallest car, so we jack their prices up.” I said, “My company only cares about price.” Because of that I got the cheapest car a red Camaro.
I don’t care – this is my favorite F-body, period! Still
looks new, never dated, and you can see out of it,
unlike the current Camaro.
Looking back, I’m actually fairly surprised I don’t have more experience with these F-bodies, because when I was in high school, these and the Fox Mustang were the car to have in my Midwestern city. I’ve always loved the looks, and to this day, I don’t think they have aged badly whatsoever.
It’s too bad they really were junk, however. It’s fitting that the only time I’ve ever been in one it broke down. One of the girls in the high school Journalism department had a white Z28, 1986 or so. We went to Mcdonald’s for lunch one day, so we hopped into the Camaro. As we were off, I distinctly remember my impression of the dashboard “shelf”; very different in design to what I was used to, and brittle. I also remember thinking to myself how rough and uneven the car seemed to run. Hindsight is 20/20 however, because looking back, it was obvious that something was amiss under the hood. After lunch, we go back to the car. Nothing. Won’t start. After several minutes it became clear we would have to wait for the next batch of kids from school to hopefully come thru and hope we could hitch a ride back. That was also the day that we managed to cram 8 people into a Corsica…
Later in life I had a boss who enthusiastically relayed her hatred of a new ’82 Z28 she bought fresh out of college. So unreliable was that car, it was replaced with a new S-10 Blazer the following year. Which was equally bad. She ended her story with the words “I really don’t miss the 80’s.” LOL.
It’s interesting that you mention the expansive plastic dash. I vaguely recall that these didn’t have a glove compartment, instead, having some sort of pouch attached to the flat dash. I guess they went this route because I think a center console with a storage compartment under the armrest was standard in all models. Of course, it didn’t take long for either the pouch or armrest lid to come apart.
I never owned a Camaro, but I did own an ’80 X-Car-a Buick Skylark to be exact, and my troubles almost as bad as the poor gentlemen and his Firebird; after this POS I swore off GM cars forever. Starting in the ’70’s, the beancounters started taking over General Motors; their strategy was to rush cars through development and testing while the accountants tried to get every nickel out of the products they could. They were usually released to relatively good reviews until a year or two down the road all the built in defects and shortcuts starting coming out. By the time management became aware of the problems, they would institute a crash program to fix the problems except by the time the fixes-or some of them were in-the vehicles had such a bad reputation no one would touch them. By then, about the only strategy was to cancel the vehicle(s) and move on to the next vehicle and as likely as not, repeat the entire process with the same outcome. Am GM continued to do this until the company went bankrupt in 2008.
Some things never change at GM.
GM’s deadliest sin was never the cars. It was the fact that in the end, every worker had to “pay” for 9 non-workers. Jobs-bank, health care, “30 years and out” and other agreements between UAW and the poor leadership of many leaders like Smith, Rick Wagoneer and so on, lead to the GM bankrupcy. Yes, some of the cars where bad, but they had to cheapen some of them out (especially in the 90s) because of the payments to the non-working staff.
GM, state of the art? Sometimes. TBi is actually very reliable, simple og efficient fuel injection (not for performance thoug). Here in Europe most everyman car still had carbs and no cathalytic converter until 1989. Even some of the luxury cars used carbs, my VW Golf 1.6 had a carb, and unlike the eminent Quadrajets choke and fast idle who always fires right up, and always works, the carbs in most of the European cars was hard startin, poor idling and driveability when it was cold outside.
So yeah, when you Americans could buy a car with cruise control and AC in even the a cheap Chevrolet, here in Europe we would brag about our power steering in our new Opel Senator or BMW 5-series. Cruise control or AC was something most of the people didn’t know what it was.
In ’86 I was traveling quite a bit, in my mid-twenties and would often rent these cars (V-6/auto). I did (and do) find them good looking and liked the low down seating position. One thing I remember is that these cars almost begged you to flog them and they were entertaining if driven like that. I also rented a few similarly equipped Mustangs and while I agree the fit and finish (especially the interior) was much better, they just weren’t as fun to flog. The softer sprung contemporary T-Birds had a neat feature: Hold the brakes while giving it throttle and the engine torque would twist up the chassis enough to unload the rear wheel so it would spin while you stayed put. It enabled incredible clouds of tire smoke and it wasn’t obvious where it was coming from. Every one else at a light would be looking around to see where the burning smell was coming from…. Aah rental cars….
That’s an interesting take and may apply only to the V6 cars (the Fox Mustang V6 was a notorious slug) since the majority of magazine comparisons between this generation V8 Camaro and Mustang would usually conclude that while the Camaro would beat the Mustang in most performance metrics, it was a car that was “all numbers and not much fun”. The Mustang would invariably be described as substantially more ‘flingable’ and more enjoyable on a day-to-day basis.
I think it’s a not accurate to say that the Camaro put down better numbers but was not as fun as the Mustang. These cars evolved quite a bit over this time and most comparos of that era went back and forth between the cars. But during this era not only did the Camaro usually put down better handling numbers, it was more often than not also rated as a subjectively better handling car. That said, I do agree that the Mustang was much easier to live with day to day and I believe this was an important factor in it’s ultimate success.
There was actually one area where the third gen F-body dominated, and that was on short, local circle tracks throughout the country. There’d be the odd Fox Mustang, but they were rare and were never contenders. I haven’t been to one of those races in years but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that they’re still the most prevalent vehicle.
Funny you mention that. This summer I went to the dirt track in my hometown for the first time since I moved away a decade ago. My favourite class was always the “Pure Stocks” dominated by 70’s Camaros, Malibus and Chevelles. Lo and behold a ’96 Mustang was the lone non-GM entrant and it dominated. Won the feature by about half a lap. I’ve always wondered why (aside from cost) that I never saw any Mustangs compete.
A potential subject for a CC article might be reading how circle-track racers are able to keep running third generation F-bodies, nearly a quarter century after the last one rolled off the line. Sure, the 3rd generation gets as much love from Chevrolet fans as the Mustang II gets from Ford people, but you’d think that, sooner or later, the supply of beaters is going to run out. Are there still enough of them in junkyards for parts, or are they able to, somehow, endlessly rebuild them for track use?
Good point, but I was seeing 2nd gen F bodies, I’ve never seen any 3rd gens racing. Not sure why that is either, although I’m sure there’s a big variation depending on location. The old F bodies were getting rarer but the 80’s G bodies were most popular.
I think they can more or less endlessly rebuild them due to the aftermarket support for most racing parts. If you flip your race car and twist the frame obviously you’re screwed. A buddy of mine raced a 2nd gen Camaro and that car been racing at that track for probably near 20 years when you include the guys who had it before and after his ownership.
I’m surprised there aren’t more articles here on dirt track racing and demo derbies. Surely there’s someone here who’s done some racing.
In 82 CR tested a Duke/4-speed Camaro and 2.3/5-speed Mustang. The Camaro was exactly 3 seconds slower to 60 (17.3 vs 14.3). I have never seen a Duke Camaro in person, so seeing the photo above was interesting. Thanks.
While I understand that these cars had some serious flaws, performance was never an issue with these cars. They were very good for their time. Yes, the Cross-Fire 305 was not a good performance engine, and it was a poor concept overall, but for 1982 it made decent power. This engine only stuck around for 1982 and 1983, and was replaced in the 1983 model year with the much more potent 190 hp L69 HO 305. This engine was capable of mid to high 15 second 1/4 mile times. Furthermore, the handling of the 3rd generation F-body was very highly praised, despite its body structure. Car and Driver declared it the best handling car in America in 1984, only ultimately loose to the Porsche 944 in the finals in a 5 to 2 vote. Here is what C/D said:
“The clear preference is for the 944 is misleading in one sense: the net difference in fun-to-drive and overall handling competence between the cars is far smaller than the five-to-two ratio suggests.”
Brock Yates summed up the car as follows: “The Camaro Z28 is the fat-tired, torque laden, modern idiom muscle car. It’s a wonderful improvement over any past Z28, and still the best there is in made-in-America machinery, but it’s packing plenty of hardship in its portfolio: a quarter ton too much weight, a floor pan that’s ten-percent oversized , and brakes that won’t operate in sync with the rest of the car.”
While the Cross-Fire 305 was no rocket, the article Paul quote did produce the worst numbers of any I have in my archives. Car and Driver got 0-60 in 7.9 secs and 16.0 in the quarter, while their long tern test car with the same drivetrain did 0-60 in 8.6 s, and 16.4 s in the 1/4 mile. In fact Car and Driver tested Camaro Berlinetta with a lo-po LG4 305 (same as a Chev Caprice) that turned a 0-60 time of 9.3 secs and 17.0 in the quarter mile, faster than the MT times with the more potent Cross-Fire. Further, in the C/D test of the 1982 Camaro, they in fact had numerous complaints about the car, one of which was the stodgy response for the 305 Cross-Fire.
That said, there is no doubt that these 3rd generation F-bodies, like the Firebird above that was at the dealer 46 times, had some quality control issues right off the hop. I have the long term C/D test of the 1982 Camaro, was titled “A 25,000 mile tale of woe” for a reason. This car had MANY issues, and they in fact quote an irate readers letter who suffered from similar maladies. Interestingly, I also have two long term tests of 4Th generation Camaros (one C/D one R&T) and both cars were virtually flawless. This lack of quality control and reliability was the biggest issue with the 3rd generation. Although it eventually got better, it was too late as typical of GM for this era.
Then there was the body structure on these cars. They were notoriously loose which lead to the many squeaks and rattles, and the very stiff suspension to make the Z28/Iroc Z’s good handlers. And GM did nothing to improve structure until 1992! This is when they used additional structural adhesives in new locations to tighten the structure. It’s not like the 1982 Camaro chassis was a bad design, it was just poorly implement and underwent the 1980’s GM penny pinching. The gen 4 cars use largely the same body structure and they were noted to be drastically improved in body integrity, in fact GM’s stiffest car in 1993. The gen 4 cars rode better, and handled better as a result.
The funny thing is, even with all these issues these cars still have their diehard fans. I have one friend who has probably owned about 7 or 8 3rd Gen F-bodies since they were new (he just sold his last one this year, but plans to buy another). And I have a co-worker who had been shopping to buy a 3rd Gen Camaro or Firebird (he made a deal on a 1989 GTA that fell through).
Would it be possible to post the C&D article of the long-term 1982 Camaro that was so bad? IIRC, it was a great read.
The highlight was that because of all of the issues, C/D and Chevrolet agreed to end the test ended after only 25,000 miles instead of the usual 40,000.
I believe they were supposed to be 30,000 mile test. I didn’t think the 40,000 mile tests came until later.
Scanned as requested. Paul feel free to add these scans to the article if you wish.
Page two.
Thanks. That was one messed-up automatic transmission!
The weird thing is, I see these Third Gen Camaros from time to time. Hell, someone where I work has one as their daily driver. Granted, most of the ones I’ve seen are worse for wear, but you still see Third gen F-bodies here soldiering on. Which is doubly ironic when you consider that the number of Fox Body Mustangs I’ve seen here, is pretty much non existent. So, the superior car is no where to be found, but the lesser car is the one that you still see. Weird huh?
I know these things have their problems, but I can’t help but like them. While I much prefer the Firebird to the Camaro, I still think these look good, much better than the Fox Mustangs IMO. It’s kind of strange, GM made the better looking car, but Ford definitely made the better built and more mechanically sound car. If only there was a way to meet somewhere in the middle…
“the superior car is no where to be found, but the lesser car is the one that you still see”
That is certainly not the case here in Chicago. I cannot even recall the last time I’ve seen a 3rd gen F-body, in any condition. Fox Mustangs aren’t common, but they aren’t unicorns yet, either. I feel like I remember that the F-bodies were crazy easy to steal, though, so that may have something to do with it.
What’s double ironic is that I was scouring oldcarbrochures.org earlier just to revisit these GM coupes, and in the 1988 Pontiac brochure, the Firebird section has a Trans Am scouring downtown Chicago and Michigan Avenue. It eventually visits Rush street for “deep dish”.
here is my 86 trans am,im in the salt belt (ontario,canada)and i see them like this all the time.
the poor build quality and bad luck has never happened to me,this is my fifth 3rd gen and i love them,and will own as many as i can.the 3rd gen cars
are about 5 to 1 with fox mustangs in the amount you see a nice clean example.fox bodies are fun but beat to hell.
i think the Quebec built cars were much better than the usa cars for some reason.Canadians take extreme pride in workmanship and it seems to show.
and having been in unionized US facilities,im surprised any work ever got done.
that’s were i coined the term:”you guys are really seducing the canine”
Obviously I’m biased because I own the ’84 Z28 pictured. For all it’s purported bad points, I simply like this car. I’ve always preferred F-body GM cars better than any Mustang. I respectfully disagree with the DS status – and I don’t think the build quality was any better on the 2nd gen or 4th gen F-body.
It is a LG4 quadrajet 305, and it takes very little to wake these up to respectable performance.
I bought a new 84 Firebird with an Iron Duke/5sp manual. Since the car had, new to me, fuel injection, I spent the extra money for the extended warranty, fearing a potential breakdown that I might not be able to fix. As it turned out, the fuel injection was about the only system that did not break on the car in my four years of ownership. The frustrating part was that the items that were failing were things like the differential, clutch, seat belt retractors, simple relays, locks etc. Things that should have been tried and true designs.
I had a friend with an 81 Z-28, which was pretty quick and fast, it is sad to think that one year later, the equivalent model could be bested by a midsize family sedan. Granted, the W124 is one hell of a midsize family sedan. I have owned mine for ten years, and enjoy it more with each passing day.
GMs focus on the money, to the detriment of the product is a sad story with a predictable ending. Back in 1980, or so,I was lured back to the GM Fremont plant to enroll in the supervisor’s training program. I remember one day when the Plant Manager came in to address our class. “What business is General Motors involved in?” That was the question that was put to us. The first reply, of course, was the car business. Wrong. How about general manufacturing, cars, appliances, Hughes helicopters etc. Wrong. How about manufacturing and technology? Wrong again. “General Motors is in the business of making money!” I knew right then that this was the wrong focus, and history has borne this out! Of course the company has to make money, but selling a good product, seen as a good value by the customer is the only way to build a dedicated customer base. Back in the beginning of the Model T, Henry Ford built his cars very simply, using superior quality materials such,as Vanadium steel.
This increased sales and led to greater production and lower prices.
This gen F body was quite a looker and was later refined and improved. I rode in a 4 cylinder four manual transmission car that a co worker bought. He said that it was bog slow and the fuel economy wasn’t even very good. It’s no wonder so many buyers turned to imports in the 80s. Customer loyalty is something that died out years ago, but all of my six current cars are Blue Oval built, or related. My two Jags were built under Ford ownership.
Reminds me of the idiotic Pentagon obsession with body counts during the Vietnam War. This fallacious linear thinking seems common in the American leadership class.
Killing the enemy is inevitable & necessary in war, but not its ultimate purpose.
The interesting thing is that for such a crappy quality car as this was reported as being during the 80’s I still seem many examples floating around in the Summer months and at car cruise in shows. Even 1982’s with the odd pace car now and then.
the article is mainly hype and bullshit,ive owned 7 of them now and still have one,my friends have owned dozens of them.some are beaten and some are mint(mine is anyway)
Bleating about the rear seat size & low driving postition is like complaining that you can’t fit a 8′ x 4′ sheet of plywood in a Ferrari. These were marketed and bought as
a sport coupe. If you wanted to haul 4 people a regular basis, buy a sedan!
On the quality control front- I can only speculate that as is often the custom here, all the worst examples are highlighted, while it is left to us posters to offer some positive example.
I freely admit my experience with the ’88 Camaro is limited to a four day rental in Tucson in that year. Since I was a solo traveller, the back seat space was not an issue. I did find the trunk space disapointing. As for the car, I found it to be well built. I was a regular C&D and R&T reader back then so I remember some of the road tests.
My rental was the V6 version. Handled well, I didn’t find the ride too harsh, and overall I’d have been happy to bring it home to Australia. No experiece of water leaks, this was Tucson after all. Seats were comfortable, ditto the driving postion.
The V6 was smooth, ditto the TH700, and it offered effortless cruising on I-5 & 10.
I didn’t need to rent a Camaro, I picked it because I wanted the experience. Everything worked. It could have used more power, but I say that about almost all ‘my’cars. I also suspect slighter shorter rear gears would have helped.
As a counterpoint I offer this example from barnfinds.com
http://barnfinds.com/5000-miles-1985-chevy-camaro/
If you are going to deliberately showcase the worst 3rd generation Camaro you could find, I reserve the right to showcase the best.
The linking of executive compensation to stock price is what killed everything that was good about American manufacturing.
A very interesting chronicle of F-body pain. 🙁
I purchased my ’88 IROC-Z 350 @ 7-8 years ago. The car is somewhat entertaining to drive on curvy back roads in southern, MI. The F-41 suspension with modern radials, plus the BURBULE of the 350 provides enjoyable driving on blue sky days!
The weakest part, for me, are the camel colored cloth and vinyl seats: the interior still looks all but showroom new, but provides the same ;ack of support so typical of GM seats of yore. NOT a good thing for a pony car… 🙁
Depending on the source of specs that one chooses my 350 has either 230 or 235 hp, but all seem to agree on 330 #’ of torque which is quite noticeable. This version of the IROC-Z supposedly will turn @ a 15 second 1/4. Plus the shape of the Camaro has held up very well, per my humble opinion as a retired Industrial Designer.
OTOH my ’21 Civic EX 1.5L turbo 4 is only about .2-.3 seconds slower thru a qtr., and handles very well for a FWD sedan. There is simply no comparison in fuel economy. The Civic runs 35-40 mpg while my IROC struggles to get 14, on Premium.
Not being a daily driver no doubt helps my “perception” of the Camaro!!! DFO
I’ve been burned by a few GM products back in the day. Not as badly as 46 trips, that is awful. And the service depts back then were brutal. They had become quite skilled at dodging problems. I’m not sure why GM didn’t go bankrupt sooner than 2009.
I finally made it to Honda in 2001. My first brand new car that never went back to the dealer. Not “other than 2 little things” or “just that one time”. It was precisely never.
Rented one of these in Honolulu back in ’83, Thought it was the worst POS I ever drove.
The third generation f-body might not have been the deadliest of sins, but seeing the extensive maladies in print surely didn’t help sales any. Eighties’ GM cars might have been bad but, with the well-known exceptions, they weren’t any worse than the domestic competition. And those exceptions were typically brand-new engineering efforts (like the FWD X-body Citation, the Olds Diesel, the V8-6-4 Cadillac engine, etc.).
With the 3rd gen f-body, it was a tried-and-true, traditional car that GM couldn’t get right. If GM was now incapable of making the same car they had always made, well, as others have said, what’s really astonishing is that they were able to last until 2009 before going belly-up.
Interestingly, all of the bad press surrounded just the Camaro. Even though the Firebird was built alongside it, I don’t recall any similar horrendous experiences with that one. Well, except for often seeing the ‘winking eye’ of one of the hidden headlights open with the other closed.
And just as The Rockford Files and Smokey and the Bandit gave the 2G Firebird a hefty boost in sales, Knight Rider helped increase 3G Firebird sales (albeit not nearly as much).