I’ve owned Camaros from three generations. I am going to merge the memories all together here into one big COAL.
The second-generation GM “F” bodies ran from 1970 ½ through 1981. These corporate cousins, the Chevy Camaro and Pontiac Firebird shared a good bit of parts. As a little kid, these cars were all I had known regarding the “F” bodies. Of course, they were revised from time to time, but the platform was largely unchanged. They were large on the outside and small on the inside. Furthermore, they were heavy, and not particularly well-built. Their engines suffered from all the accumulated governmental smog regulations. This generation endured through two national gas crises.
When I was a little older (but not yet a man), the brand-new versions of GM “F” bodies debuted. Both of the new models, the Camaro and the Firebird left quite an impression on my twelve-year-old mind. These third-generation cars were sold from 1982-1992. They were complete re-designs, they carried their names over and virtually nothing else.
I viewed this new Camaro as a fantastic, futuristic, masterpiece. It had a beautiful shape, lean and taut. Some say the ’82 Camaro design was a rejected clay mockup from the Corvette development team in 1979. Wherever it came from, it was beautiful in my eyes. This was also around the time Knight Rider debuted on television. The car on that show stuck in my brain too.
These cars were better than the ones they replaced. Smaller, yet with the hatchback they were more versatile with more useable room. There was no longer a front subframe, they were 100% unit body. The reduced weight combined with the high output 305 V8 made them much better performers. As I young man, dreamed of owning a third gen.
As a teenager I got a base model ‘81 Camaro. These second-generation cars were very common in the late 70s through the 80s. Besides the model’s popularity, I can’t think of too many other redeeming qualities. Mine came with the tiny 267 c.i. V8 and was alarmingly underpowered. The computer carburetor and low compression killed any hope of performance (Remember that for ’80 and ’81 Ford did a similar thing – making their small V8 even smaller).
So gen two: 70 ½ through ’81. Then gen three ‘82 through ‘92. Then the fourth gen debuted in ’93 and ran until ‘02. After this GM produced no Camaro for a while. I’m familiar with the fourth gens because I owned a V6 Camaro of this iteration. One thing that sticks out in my mind was how steeply raked the windshields were in those cars. The rear part of the engine was deep under the cowl. The floorpan of the ‘93 and newer F body was essentially a carryover from 82-92 cars with slight changes to the front. But I digress.
Back to the third-generation cars. My neighbor had an ’86 IROC-Z that he always planned to fix up, but never did. After it sat for almost a decade, and then it was vandalized. I bought it from him after that. This particular one came with the Tuned Port motor and loaded with every option. Like the Firebird GTAs, these cars had firm suspension and quick-ratio steering and were great in the corners. This is my current COAL. It is parked in my garage right now, I drove it today. I’ve done the LS swap, and am slowly fixing the rest of it up.
GM produced a slew of these cars at multiple plants. Developmentally, the change from ’81 to ’82 was a quantum leap forward. Would I buy another? No, I think I’m finishing up my Camaro phase. I’ve owned second, third, and fourth generation Camaros. The first generations have skyrocketed in price so I probably will never have one of those, and to be honest, I don’t really like the new ones.
Agreed about the third gen. I too was coming of age at the time and I could not figure out why Chevrolet had two seemingly similar low-slung sports cars in the Camaro and Corvette. As I grew older, I came to understand the concept of price-points.
I remember sitting in an ’86 IROC-Z with the T-tops while doing a live radio broadcast from a Chevy dealer.
Honestly, it seemed as if the thing would fall apart if I shut the door hard. Cheap, cheap, cheap everywhere. I think things were rattling and creaking just while I was sitting in it with my microphone and client notes.
The 2nd-gen – at least until 1974 when the smog controls and safety bumpers took over – was arguably a better assembled car. Then again I owned a ’69 convertible for a short time in 1979-80 and remember it being pretty tight for what it was and its condition.
Hot Rod published a story after F-Body production ceased in 2002, about how GM had made a deal with the devil back in the 80’s, promising the Canadian government that so long as there were Camaros and Firebirds, they would be produced in St. Therese, Quebec.
You may recall the F’s had gained a “mullet on wheels” status by the late 90s despite their arguable superiority to any Mustang built during that period. Sales tanked and GM had no choice but to kill them, production costs at St. Therese were apparently too high anyway.
I’ve read the new ones are like a small BMW for a bargain price. If only they didn’t look so much like a cartoon. I’d REALLY like them to get off the 1st-gen derived styling – that you can’t see out of anyway – and use the ’70 1/2 Z28 as inspiration for the next generation models. I had a chance to buy a ’70 1/2 Z28 20 years ago for $5500…solid and driveable too. Passed. Could neither afford nor justify. Can’t buy every one we want, right?
What I’d like to see is for Chevy to get into the hot-hatch game by putting the 2.0 turbo from the base Camaro into a Cruze, Sonic or even, if it’ll fit physically (how much bigger externally is it from a 1.4T?) a Spark.
More of a Ford than a Chevy fan, but agree with your idea. HOWEVER, I’m sure you must realize how small the market would be for the type of car you are asking for. The hatchback Cruse was a part of the model lineup in Europe almost from the beginning a few years ago, yet even with so many successful hatchbacks in the U.S. Chevy waited until the 2nd generation to introduce it here. I’ve seen only 1 or 2 so far here in north Florida.
The Spark and Sonic are (apparently) seen as being entry level only vehicles. Ford had several generations of performance Fiesta and Focus to draw on for their current offerings…Chevy doesn’t have that with the Sonic or Spark.
“Honestly, it seemed as if the thing would fall apart if I shut the door hard. Cheap, cheap, cheap everywhere. I think things were rattling and creaking just while I was sitting in it with my microphone and client notes.”
This was the deal with all the first generation of those long frameless doors in the cheaper GM vehicles ~ they rattled and squeaked horribly from new, if you wanted better, you had to move up the Sloan Ladder .
I still like the looks of the first generation Camaros, I briefly had a 1967 RS in 1978 or so, it was hard to sell at $300 .
-Nate
When the 2nd & 3rd gen were fairly new, a t-top Camero or TransAm was the car of choice for the cool guys with the cheerleader girlfriend parents with money. That wasn’t me or any of my friends. Watching them cruise buy on Friday & Saturday nights, we used to console ourselves with speculation of how surprised they’d be when one of our old beaters surprised their smog choked chick-magnet at a stoplight drag. Our hero was a guy who did it once with his beat up 66 Pontiac 421. It took 2 people to drive that crate. The vacuum secondaries no longer worked unless the passenger pulled a coat hanger connected to a wire to manually activate them. Properly crewed, it smoked the Camero and whatever pathetic engine it had for power. Alas, the guys girl friend wouldn’t even look at the car when they hit the next stoplight – or so the story was told to the rest of us.
A friend of ours owns Camaros. That’s how I came to enjoy a Sunday morning drive in a ’78 Camaro. That was about 10 years ago. It was in outstanding original condition and still is. However it is only outstanding in comparison with Camaros of the same generation. The plastic was oozing some sticky component, phthalate maybe, and the jalopy creaked and groaned in any corner and over any unevenness of the road. I think that is just part of the F-body experience. It was a beautiful ride and I never had as many thumbs up encounters on such a short trip ever.
She followed that one up with a ’96 Camaro and kept the ’78 for Sunday rides and price appreciation. I drove the ’96 as well but only a short distance.
She traded the ’96 in for an ’05-ish Camaro and kept the ’78 even though she is getting offers for it. It’s not for sale. I drove this ’05 also a short distance and I did not like the view out of it. It looks glorious and you may look glorious in it. It’s got gobs of power which goes well with it’s looks. But I found that Camaros are more form than function. I am happy to see them on the road and therefore I am thankful for the people who put up with their lack of functionality. This seems to go along with James’s observations.
My mother-in-law had a 1983 Berlinetta with the horribly slow 2.8 V-6. She loved that car and kept it well over 100k miles, and would have still driven it if she didn’t get in a horrific head on collision with it. That car actually saved her life as it took the hit remarkably well. It really showed me how these cars were built. Trying to find a replacement for that car was difficult. She didn’t want a Cutlass or Regal, and liked the sportiness of her old Camaro. Eventually I found her a low-mileage 1988 Firebird, also with the 2.8, except it had multi-port fuel injection which made a world of difference in that car. Of course it had the fake GM growl that made it seem a lot faster than it actually was. She liked that car and drove it well over 100k too. The engine blew at around 120k miles and she had a rebuilt one installed, but she said it never felt the same to her after that.
I remember driving those cars and thinking how cool yet awkward they were – long hood, sitting low to the ground, everything rattling around you…there was a certain feel in them that no other car had.
My uncle is somewhat of a car collector. Back in the early 90’s, he had a pristine 1978 Camaro Z28 with 18,000 miles. The car was a time capsule, it looked, smelled, and drove like it was new.
One of my cousins (not his son), always wanted that car since he was a boy, he pined for it. When he was old enough to drive, he made my uncle a deal and the car became his.
He loved the car, took care of it, however, the car did not sit like in its previous life, he drove it daily and drove it fast.
He was a young guy at the time and had a job at the mall. He drove the car to work and parked it right outside of the store where he worked. One day, he came out and the car was gone despite a club on the steering wheel and a car alarm. The car was never recovered and he cried like a baby for a long time. With the insurance money, he bought an 87 Trans Am also with low miles but it was not the same. The Firebird plauged him with mechanical problems for as long as he owned it.
When you bought an IROC-Z back in the day, you knew the deal with the rattles, leaky T-tops, etc and you didn’t give a rip. If you did, well, you just bought the wrong damn car. You didn’t hear the rattles because you had your equalizer powered cassette deck cranked up and you were soaking up admiring glances from envious drones driving their mom’s quiet, well-built Toyotas. You didn’t need a mega-output engine, because you were enjoying life, slowly making your way from stoplight to stoplight on the main drag in your home town. What irritates us in these cars today didn’t matter at all when they were new, or even second or third hand.
Why is the word “Camaro” so often and easily incorrectly spelled as “Camero”? It is really not such a hard word, just six letters.
For the same reason we see so many call it a car a “Galaxy” or a “Grenada” or a “Studabaker”. Not everyone can spell.
How about “TorqueFlight” instead of “TorqueFlite”–wrong, but right!
Awful cars. There, I said it. 1967-81s had GMs compromised front end geometry and bad camber curves. 82-92 had odd driving positions, bizarre inerior layouts, cramped, hot cockpits, weak gearboxes, toothpick axles, mismatched wheel offsets, and wet-noodle rigidity. They also had a huge hatch, with minuscule cargo space. 93-2002 could have been great…but kept the Playskool interior quality, Revell Snaptite dashboard, leaky T-tops, crowded footwells, and swizzle-stick axles. Bonus:they didn’t market them, so they didn’t sell.
I am not sure why you grouped the first generation and second generation cars together. The suspension geometry was not very good on first generation cars, but the camber curve on second generation cars was vastly improved. These cars had some of the better front suspension geometry and handling for the era.
Because it was never truly fixed. The tires still roll badly in hard cornering-honestly, this is a problem on ALL of GMs RWD cars-A bodies, G bodies, F-bodies to 1981, and B-bodies.
Bad camber curves was a problem with all domestic cars of the era, regardless of make. However, for the times the 1970-81 Camaro’s had some of the best suspension geometry from Detroit. Name another car built in the US other than maybe the Corvette that had handling on par with a 70’s F-body? The suspension wasn’t the downfall, it was the lack of body rigidity.
Calling out the poor suspension geometry on the first generation cars is fair. But the second generation cars were very good handlers for their time, partially due to the improvement in suspension geometry introduced in 1970. Sure it wasn’t perfect geometry, but it was an improvement and the real world results was the decent handling.
Very simple: Chrysler A-body. No geometry changes needed for spectacular handling…just ask anyone Ehrenberg’s Green Brick has dusted. That car used 100% factory Chrysler suspension geometry, and a vast number of factory parts, down to the wheel bearing grease! Only trick part in the whole car was a 70s Direct Connection aluminum transmission housing.
John, I think you are missing the point. The Ehrenberg’s Green Brick ’69 Dart you mentioned may use factory parts, but it is not stock. No A-body left the factory anything like the setup on that car. Further from what I read about this car it did use eccentric upper control arm bushings, which alters the suspension geometry from stock. This is along the same idea as the Gulstrand mod for 1st Gen Camaro’s or the Shelby mod for Mustangs. The relocation of the upper arm improves the geometry.
I still contend that the 70-81 F-body was one of if not the best handling car from Detroit in this era when comparing stock vehicles. For a more direct comparison how about the 9C1 Nova, which shared the F-body suspension, with the A38 Dart? The LASD tested the two in 1974, and the Nova trounced the Dart in the lane change handling test. In fact the Nova even beat the Volvo that LASD also tested that year.
The Brick uses offset bushings (a FSM recommendation) for alignment reasons-without them, the caster is limited, and Ehrenberg likes to run more than most. The suspension geometry is, aside from that, 100% factory. Parts are also factory: big-block Dart torsion bars, C-body tie rods, 340 Duster swaybar, big police B-body front brakes (with Mopar Value Line pads!) on later spindles, fast-ratio manual steering box, and de-arched Super Stock rear springs (no swaybar!) with the front of both clamped tightly to prevent wheelhop-a few years ago, it got a set of Rancho quad shocks, to eliminate wheelhop under hard braking. First engine was a 1969-cast 340 with a welded(!) stroker crank, now has an EFI R-block stroker. Trans is a mid-70s Direct Connection aluminum case A833, with slant six internals. Rear is an 8.75″ with 2.94 gears…had a Mickey Thompson magnesium centersection, now runs a fairly-nasty stocker from a junkyard. 15×7 Weld wheels, with little 225/50R15 tires. No tubular suspension parts, ceramic brakes, or other exotic parts.
The list of what they DIDN’T do to make a Valiant into a racer is amazing.
There was no A38 Dart in 1974-while dealers built them (with varying results) before, the only factory police A-body was 1976.
No doubt the Green Brick is an impressive car, but the fact remains it’s a one off car that does have altered suspension geometry, albeit minor. It does not relflect the A-body’s Mopar produced at the factory.
You’re right, I made a mistake on calling the 1974 Dart tested by the LASD an A38 car. I was going by memory and made a mistake calling it an A38. It however was a car that the Chrysler corportation (not a dealer) optioned specficially to be submitted for LASD police testing. And like I said the Nova was a better handler.
That said, I went and pulled the old LASD tests, and found the 1976 test. Here LASD tested an actual A38 Dart and an A38 Valiant, along with other police cars. The 9C1 Nova still had better handling numbers. The Nova pretty much dominated the test, having the highest score by a large margin. Compared to the A38 cars, the Nova also had better braking, better acceleration, and better fuel economy.
Is that LASD test online anywhere?
I only have a print copy. I haven’t come across any of these old tests online.
FWIW, the 1974 test I cited, the Nova tested was a “prototype” car, as Chevrolet did’t release the 9C1 Nova unitl 1975.
Since they aren’t online, the 1976 LASD test results for Nova 9C1 vs Dart A38 are as follows (there were a total of six cars tested, I just included the two we discussed):
Ye gods…a 3700lb A-body! That looks like the Kali motor…the Federal E58 360 was 225HP. I wonder exactly how the chassis on both cars were spec’d. (Mostly: I wonder if the Nova had radials and the Dart did not.)
Yes, they are both CA emission cars since this was for a CA police department. The 1974 Dart that was tested had the non-CA emissions 245 hp 360. While the Nova had better handling, braking and fuel economy, in 1974, the Dart was far quicker than the CA emissions 350 Nova.
I believe they weighed the cars as tested, so these were real world weights of the cars as tested. Don’t forget in this era, Mopar had way more experience than Chevrolet at putting together a decent Police package. I’d say their cars had better police packages on average than a Chevrolet Police package. Since I had already dug it out, I will share some of the details on the 1976 Dart A38.
According to Mopar literature the A38 Dart came with “wide 70 series police special radials”. It also included a special handling package with “heavy duty suspension components matched for pursuit requirements.” This included a heavy duty “front sway bar, torsion bars, a rear sway bar and heavy duty leaf springs with lowered front eye attachment, heavy duty lower control arms, upper control arm pivot reinforcement sleeves, and larger 1 3/16 front and 1/ 3/8 rear shocks.”
The third gen Camaro (I can spell) re-wrote the very definitions of “rattletrap” and “cowl shake”
Fun COAL. From the write-up: “Both of the new models, the Camaro and the Firebird left quite an impression on my twelve-year-old mind.”
FWIW, it wasn’t just 12 year olds that these cars left an impression on. I remember big crowds of all types of people around the ’82 Camaro pace car display Chevy had at the Indy 500 that year.
I was graduating college about that time, and one of my friends who was graduating as well, and who had accepted a good job, bought an ’82 Firebird. He showed it to us and a professor, a distinguished and well off older gentleman who had an old Porsche. I remember that prof’s amazed reaction to that Firebird, with it’s steeply raked windshield and complex glass rear hatch and saying that’s something America does best, democratizing exotic things like style and power, and giving it to the masses.
My wife had an ’82 Camaro, and she will tell you it was the best car she ever had. Drove that car for well over 100K miles before selling it to help finance a new and much more family and kid friendly Taurus. The Taurus actually turned out to be a great car, but you just didn’t feel the same driving or riding in it; the trip was never quite as much fun, at least in the same ways. Always wished I could have kept her Camaro and restored it for her, can’t say that about the Taurus.
What some may not understand, and what is perhaps impossible to explain, is that cars like these are not about build quality or practicality, they’re about style and power and how it makes you feel. Its about the fun. It’s about enjoying the ride, the journey; not just the destination. Not a big fan of the latest generation of Camaro, but they’re getting that part right again. Cars like these are certainly not for everyone, but neither is a Honda or Prius or the latest EV or crossover or big truck. Choices are great, to each their own.
You are absolutely correct, ME, but some commenters simply cannot get past the fact that many of the writers loved their cars despite their faults. They’ll just list a litany of reasons why the car is/was no good.
“They’ll just list a litany of reasons why the car is/was no good.”.
Thank you for this common sense comment .
-Nate
I had a ’95 Z28 Convertible, great car, 208,000 miles, I put a radiator in it, otherwise no problems. Regular maintenance, Mobil1, all fluids flushed at 50k intervals, it ran as good when I sold it as it did new. It was really quiet for a convertible.
I owned a second gen, a somewhat rare 1977.5 (mid-year introduction) Z28. It handled, maneuvered, and braked beautifully; even the ride was pretty compliant. Power? Not so much so considering it was a Z28. The 185 net horsepower 350 C.I. engine sounded great but even with a Borg Warner Super T-10 4 speed manual transmission and 3.73 rear gears it wasn’t much to write home about.
The workmanship was pathetic and the quality of materials only slightly better. A whole lot of stuff went wrong with it in only three years – many trips back to the dealership while in warranty. After three years I was sick of it and sold it at at the wrong time (1980 – real high fuel prices and real low gas mileage), nobody wanted it.
That car, and the passage of time (read age), killed any desire to ever own another Camaro.
Back in 1988, when I was dating my eventual second ex-wife, she had a 1981 T-Top Camaro with the 267-V8. It looked like, but was not, a Berlinetta; Dark Blue with a Tan Interior and matching pinstripes (thus why I thought it was a Berlinetta). It was slow. It rattled over every bump. It had the color keyed rims with the beauty rings and popcorn caps. Those things were constantly stolen. Despite ALL of these flaws, you just couldn’t beat driving it around on a nice day with the t-tops off and some tunes cued up… As stated by MEngineer above, it was FUN. I loved driving it.
A couple of years prior, an EEngineer I worked with bought a brand new ’86 IROC-Z in blue with a tan interior, and even brand new, those t-tops rattled. But that 305 was still an awful lot of fun when you kicked it out into the passing lane.
I do prefer a Mustang, but these were still cool cars in their own way. My ride back at this time was an ’83 Aero Bird with the Essex engine. Loved it, but either of these Camaros had the FUN factor going for them compared to my car (which was nice).
I have a very nice ’88 IROC-Z with the 350 ci, 700R4 and a pristine interior + the all important F-41 suspension. The long doors MUST be slammed to close properly, and sound like parts are about to break off…so far all there!!
As a retired Industrial Designer I consider her to still be a fine looking, clean design, unlike either version of the new “retro” Camaro. The V6 now in a Camaro will easily “smoke” my 350, but the “feel” and sound from my ’88’s exhaust is enjoyable….not so in the new ones. Heck my ’17 Maxima will take my IROC thru a 1/4 and is a very good handling FWD sedan, but the total driving and visual impression, from the IROC-Z, keeps a smile on my face!! DFO
Ah the F-Body. I have always been a fan of the Firebird (due to knight Rider and the Rockford Files) but do like the 1st through 4th Camaros (I hate the looks of the current one)
I like the 3rd Gen F-Body the best. The firebird was slick looking with those pop up headlights. I also like how GM was able to add just a few small things to the Camaro and Firebird so that they did not look the same. Nobody would mistake a 3rd gen Camaro for a 3rd Gen Firebird.
I had a 4th gen Firebird for over 2 years. However the car was so damned uncomfortable that I only put 3000 or so miles on it in the 2 years I owned it. I had no issues with the interior size or the seats but that damn seatbelt kept me from driving it. It would ether rub the @#$& out of my collarbone or press down on it. None of those foam things helped nor did anything else I tried. I wound up selling it after having to drive home from my job(35miles away) with the seatbelt off because it was rubbing my collarbone raw. The next day i sold it to carmax
My brother bought a new ’72 Camaro Model LT, which was supposed to mean Luxury Touring. Black with a black vinyl top, and a blue cloth interior. Buckets seats with column shift, kind of odd I thought. That was a beautiful car and great to ride around in as a passenger. He added a set of glass packs and put 80,000 miles on it in under four years. He took it all across the country, no problems that I remember. He traded that it on a used ’76 Trans Am, and that was even a better car! These things were just fun, and made you feel great. Maybe its just age, but it’s hard to get that feeling again. Here’s a picture of a similar ’72. The design got more tarted up as the decade passed but I still like most model years. And I like these better than the first gen.
My mother received a base model ’81 Camaro new as a gift from my father. Talk about very basic transportation…am radio, automatic and nothing else. It had the 267 in it. When my mother decided to get a new Monte Carlo in the spring of 1995, instead of selling the Camaro she gave joint ownership of it to my brother and I. We drove that car for another 4 and a half years before selling it because we were both in university and it needed more in repairs than we were willing to spend. 1 car, 1 family, 18 years of transportation and it stood up very well…so why everybody says these cars weren’t very good is beyond me. I still miss that car a great deal to this day…so many wonderful memories.
As for when the all new 3rd generation Camaro debuted, I remember hearing about a Car and Driver review years later that called the 1982 “Emily Post polite…at a 4 way stop, everybody else goes first” because the ’82 was soooo slow.
The 69 Camaro is quite possibly the most overrated old car on the planet!
Great read, James. Thank you. I’ve lusted over Gen3 Camaros ever since they first came out. That love has not faded one bit.
DFO, beautiful car, sir, especially the colour.
I owned three Camaros all were Z28’s. They were a 73, 81 and a 97. While they all had their own personality they shared a lot of the same DNA. Of course the 97 with the LT1 engine and the 6 speed manual transmission was the best of the lot in regards to flat out performance. The 81 was perhaps the most comfortable and the most over the top regarding graphics and paint. The 73 was the most mechanical and the most fun to drive on a mountain road. I enjoyed owning all three of them but I think of the new pony car’s the Mustang beat’s the new Camaro.
I found this on Google, someone had done a great job in making a Camaro Family Tree from 1967 through the current design.
Great write-up James. I would love to see a more detailed post on your ’86 with the LS swap.
You mentioned you haven’t driven the latest generation Camaro yet? I’d suggest if you have the opportunity to do so jump on it. They are a phenomenal driver’s car, just amazing chassis dynamics. My brother has a ’17 SS 6-speed with all the performance goodies that I have been lucky enough to get a good amount of wheel time. The only flaw, is the poor visibility. This latest generation Camaro is the performance buy of the decade in my opinion.