Go Back   The Supercar Registry > Classified Section > Ebay & other seen ads section

Please note


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-15-2021, 01:48 PM
70 copo 70 copo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: chillicothe Ohio 45601
Posts: 3,834
Thanks: 219
Thanked 1,231 Times in 576 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

O Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.