GM Inside News Forum banner

Looking Back: Chevrolet's 1983 Camaro Z28, an engineering story

42K views 121 replies 51 participants last post by  z28Diavolikis 
#1 ·


If anyone doubted the impact of the Z28 upon Camaro history, his or her walk through the valley of automotive ignorance ended after a single turn behind the wheel of any 1983 Camaro, whether it be the base Sport Coupe model or the upscale Berlinetta and Z28 models. Wheras the original and second generation Z28s had been conceived as “tack-on” options to the base model, the first of the third generation Camaros to be developed had been the Z28; all other Camaros were derived from this base. Starting from the lofty parameters established for the Z28 meant that all Camaros were embedded with a healthy dose of Z28 genes...
1983 Camaro Z28 Engineering Story Promo

http://www.facebook.com/testdrivejunkie
 
See less See more
3
#6 ·
I LOVE me some 3rd gens, BUT yeah, structural rigidity was never a strong point. And I shudder when I think of the ultra cheap plastic interiors, and the cracked dash pads (coffee table), the ripped side bolsters on the drivers side seat, the cheap speakers, fading interior materials, and falling headliners...LOL it certainly was a bowl full of cost cutting rattles and squeaks.

There was some great underlying tech there though. but it was implemented badly at first. Later with the TPI motors and better electronic engine controls, it was OK.

And with frame ties, and a strut tower brace, and 1LE sway bars they are magical!
 
#7 ·
Still a timeless design after nearly 30 years.

Yes, they were flawed, especially the first few model years (Iron Duke, anyone?) but no car had made such a quantum leap from one generation to the next (exception being C3 to C4 vette) either before or since.

These cars were a hoot to drive, and even today, still offer an outstanding example of pure handling without electronic nannies.
 
#19 ·
These (and the Firebirds) were/are just great looking cars. And you're right about the handling. Live axle and all, these cars could carve up a road and really were fun to drive.
 
#15 ·
Once you learn it's tricks it works fairly well. I have and '83 with CFI and it ran horribly when I got it. It took me a bit to get it's gremlins tracked down. Thank goodness for the internet and ThirdGen.org.

BTW, CFI was on Corvette in '82 and '84 only.
 
#14 ·
1982 was when the third gen was introduced not 1983.

1984 was the year that the z won car and drivers best handling car in America.

1982-83 the cars had a super stiff suspension with progressive rate rear springs. 1984 the suspension was softened and the progressive rate springs taken out. The car actually handled better.
The 84 was a significantly nicer car to own,and drive than the 82-83.
 
#17 ·
I understand that 82 was the initial year for this gen, but the video footage came off a 1983 Canadian Laserdisc. :)
 
#23 ·
Boy that Camaro-mullet think just never stops being funny. Stand by for some comment about Camaro buying and ***** size.
 
#29 ·
I had 4 3rd gens and 1 2nd gen. The first thing I did to both of my IROCs was take a blow dryer to the stripes and decals. They were awesome looking cars. My bright blue metallic IROC was apparently so well known locally that I had a bus driver a few months ago ask me if I was the guy who used to own the blue IROC. I sold it six years ago and it was not on the road much after 2003.
 
#30 ·
I had a '83 z28 for 3.5 months and put 6000 miles on it before I sold it to go back to college.
It rode so hard that there were several roads in my city that I would avoid like the plague.
At around 2500 miles it started squeaking and creaking.
My 84 wAs significantly nicer, was an HO with 3.73 gears and was a lot of fun. It was in the shop 17 times in 11 months and the dealer bought it back.
 
#31 ·
I think the last 2 years or maybe 3 years of production all camaros had structural adhesives to stiffen things up.the convertibles had additional bracing between the subframes. If you want to stiffen up a 3rd gen do the triangulated sub frame connectors. They do wonders.
 
#49 ·
I remember reading that Pontiac did not build a convertible 3rd gen Firebird until 1991 because they didn't like the squeaks and rattles from the 3rd gen Camaro convertibles. They (and I guess Chevy too) used a lot of adhesives when they finally produced their convertible for the 1991 or 1992 model year. I rented one of those in San Diego in 1992 with 35,000 miles on it. The adhesives worked; that car was quiet and solid.

I know that a lot of people will write chapter and verse about how bad these car were. Maybe I was just lucky. I put a combined 300K miles on my two 1990 Firebird Formulas and they were totally reliable. I simply had no mechanical issues with them at all. Ever. The t-tops didn't leak. The interiors were nothing special, but they didn't crack or warp (IMO, the Pontiac interior was much nicer than the Chevy). I really enjoyed those cars and still think they are just great looking.
 
#32 · (Edited)
The convertibles had the so called "****tail shaker" oil filled weights on each corner of the unibody right? Or is that a myth of sorts.

Ford did a lot better with the 4 cyl Fox body Mustang than GM did with the Iron Duke. Was the 2.3L Lima that much better?

Oh and was structural integrity so bad that stock IROC Z's would visibly show a twist in their bodies when drag racing?
 
#40 ·
I've always loved the third gen IROC-Z body style. It's one of the few 80's cars that I would intentionally own (Fox body Mustang and Porsche 944 being the others). The C4 Vette is starting to grow on me though....

I owned a 1989 Camaro IROC-Z28 back in 2003 and loved the car (picked it up for $1500 from the dealer). It wasn't very fast but got me some speeding tickets anyway. Handling was nice and I was surprised to learn about it's low curb weight. But the 305 was a dog, especially down low and on the big end it seemed to want to fly apart. But I was young and I owned a Camaro, out right. I remember almost loosing to a Saturn SC2 in my Camaro. Ugh.

The torque arm is down right stupid, how many people went through tranny mounts because of such a poor design? They should've mounted it to the cross member....



Speaking of this. I just recently started to price out a used (no motor or trans) Gen 3 F-Body. Something beyond the 20 year Emission law point. I was thinking a Carbed up LM7 bored .010 over with a nice cam and a T56 from a Gen 4.2 Camaro... That would be a nice little runner there..... I could find the car for $500, engine for another $500-600, trans for $1200, mods, welding etc. I coud probably build one for around $5-7K total..... Maybe one day I'll have that kind of scratch laying around....
 
#34 ·
When ford started doing the mustang 5.0 cop cars around '82-83 the CHp discovered that many of the unibodies were cracking at the floorpan under the seats and ford had to do a rush fix and possibly a recall. I don't remember.

The camaros and firebirds that were raced I'm SCCA had a lot of development work done on them (everybody knows about the 1Le cars) but what happened to a lot of race teams was that they actually had to go softer on their racing springs because the body was twisting so much that they had reached a point of no return.

My '87 IROC which I specifically ordered with no ttops for extra structurally rigidity had to have the bpillar and roof joint rewelded and brazed at 50,000 miles because there was a noticeable 45 degree crack.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top