(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.
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).