Were the 1982-92 Chevy Camaro's/Pontiac Firebird's good vehicles? (brake, Corvette, buy)

[las vegas drunk]

Originally Posted by GTOlover

the 91 had the aero nose which looked pretty good over the squared off version the 91-92 GTA's were pretty rare even more so with the 5.7 under the hood

That looks EXACTLY like the one I was going to buy. It was even the same emerald green with the gold wheels. It had 130,000 miles on it and it was completely stock. The guy told me it still was pretty fast though. I was working the day I called him, so the next day of course it was sold. Regardless of what anyone says, I loved that body style (the looks of it at least).

[1985camaro]

i have a 1985 camaro with a 2.5 5 speed.and i love it it looks like it has a v-8.i laugh at these hot rod kids with rice burners wanting to race,they take off like a bat at of hell,and i just putt right along.and i want to know just how many more of these are really out there? its a 2.5 5 speed,smoke grey with black stripes and 16'' irock rims looks awsome

[Deez Nuttz]

Originally Posted by 1985camaro

i have a 1985 camaro with a 2.5 5 speed.and i love it it looks like it has a v-8.i laugh at these hot rod kids with rice burners wanting to race,they take off like a bat at of hell,and i just putt right along.and i want to know just how many more of these are really out there? its a 2.5 5 speed,smoke grey with black stripes and 16'' irock rims looks awsome

They only made the "iron duke" 2.5 Camaros from 1982 thru 1985. GM then realized what an underpowered gutless mistake that was and discontinued them. They should have also pulled the 2.8 liter as well; neither engine was ever designed for use in a Camaro, they were for Citations. The 4.3 liter would have been a better choice as a base engine for the Camaro.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

The early ones in particular where great looking cars in need of a decent motor and driveline.

[GTOlover]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

The early ones in particular where great looking cars in need of a decent motor and driveline.

my first "muslce" car was a 1985 Iroc Camaro with the L69 HO 305 that had a whopping 190HP
it was fun that it look good just it had 230,000 mile when I got it and was beat up bad and the T-tops leaked and everywhere the clutch was gone too but it was $2200 and I sold it for $2800 after a set of shocks, a set of BFG radial T/A's off my friends old regal and a cheap paint job and a engine dress up kit.

it look decent from a distance but man it was a POs the guy that bought it wanted to put a 350 in it but it was not worth the money to fix up IMO

[The Continental]

These are good looking cars for sure, but the mechanicals suffered. Minus a convertible or a GTA or Turbo T/A, I'd much rather an early 2nd gen or one with t-tops.

[Eastern Roamer]

My first car was an '89 Camero V6. It had a quirky problem with stalling out and not starting sometimes but it wound up being just the fuel pump. Instead of just going dead, it slowly crapped out and drove me crazy in the process because I didn't know what was wrong until I finally killed it off by running it out of gas like a dumb-a$$ 16-year old. It was about 10 years old when I had it and ran great other than that. There was also the time I got it airborn and smashed the oil-pan, but I can't blame the car for that. I miss it, come to think of it.

[RedNC]

My wife had an 87 Z/28, 305tpi when I met her. In 110k miles I replaced, an alternator, an intake manifold, brakes, battery, tires(couple of times), fuel pump, and a valve for the heater. I thought it was a fairly reliable car and fun to drive.

Sold it to her father and he says he gets 10 years younger every time he drives it. He just started talking and walking. When he gets old enough to get a license and start driving again I will ask him if he still likes the car.

[AlfredB1979]

Originally Posted by Deez Nuttz

They only made the "iron duke" 2.5 Camaros from 1982 thru 1985. GM then realized what an underpowered gutless mistake that was and discontinued them. They should have also pulled the 2.8 liter as well; neither engine was ever designed for use in a Camaro, they were for Citations. The 4.3 liter would have been a better choice as a base engine for the Camaro.

I don't know about the 4.3L...until the later 90s, that wheezer only knocked out 160 hp at the most. Sure, the 2.hate was no better, but at least that later 3.8L was a decent revving engine.

Mom's first new car was a 91 3.1L RS. Had about 300 miles on it as it was driven down from Dallas. No power options, hardtop, and quite reliable.

If I could tolerate a groundhugger like that these days, I'd still skip to a 4th Gen. Then again, as stupid hard as those are to work on..

[Deez Nuttz]

Originally Posted by AlfredB1979

I don't know about the 4.3L...until the later 90s, that wheezer only knocked out 160 hp at the most. Sure, the 2.hate was no better, but at least that later 3.8L was a decent revving engine.

Yeah but I'm pretty sure the 4.3 made 100 more ft lbs of torque did the 2.8 did, and torque is what moves you...as mentioned the 2.8 was designed for a lighter FWD Citation and other FWD cars, and did quite well too on the Citation. The 4.3 was designed to replace the retired 4.1 liter inline 6, which was a good engine that actually was last used in the Camaro in 1979.