Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn
Sold for $23,500 on Friday the 13th. The buyer said it best: "Not fast but still a cool car."
I have driven a couple of these back in the day, and they just felt like such slugs. There are lots of cars I don't MIND being slow. I know my 69 Opel GT 1.1 is slow. My 49 Studebaker farm truck is slow. Even Sherri's plug in hybrid is slow, and we use it as a commuter car.
But this is a freakin PACE CAR. I don't care if it is low mileage, I would have to put a proper mill in it to be able to enjoy it. Really, all the GM cars from 76 until Buick came out with the GNX are just turds. I realize some are climbing in value because guys that were in HS in 1983 or 84 really wanted (XXX car, fill in the blank) when they first came out. I just don't see them ever competing with real muscle cars. And yes, I know that the "real muscle cars" can't do jack chit compared with the modern stuff.
This car is 39 years old. Think about what a 69 Z/28, L78, or COPO was worth at the same age (2008). Okay, maybe go back to 2007. Other than the appearance, the only thing this car has over a 69 is that it would handle better; which is why I would have to put a real motor in it.
|
Point above noted. The intention from the designers tasked with 1982 drivetrain development was to comply with the emission rules placed in effect by the Carter administration and maintain performance parity with the 1980-1981 Z28's -- but as required by CAFE, the majority of these cars were further hobbled by factory 2.73 rear end ratios.
RPO G-92 was added just prior to the 1982 model release providing a 3.23 ratio which really helped quite a bit.
In context a 1982 Z28 with CFI (and G-92) typically ran only a few tenths slower than the same recorded ET Range of the original 1967 SS-350 Camaro equipped when with a standard base axle ratio.
Yes they were slow. They are all slow compared to virtually any standard mini van sold today.