transam85dudeman

What was it a fourbanger lmao, im surprised it was a third generation camaro, first year new body style

http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...658527,00.html

Ramair21

iTrader: (3)

i just hate it when they make a new muscle car they always add a little engine to it. COME ON!!! just give it a V8 and be done with it.

MY87LT

iTrader: (2)

I would not say the worst, but maybe the slowest third gen. A co-worker had an "Iron Duke" Firebird and that thing lasted him for years. Besides, sometimes magazine staff have nothing better to do than write about things they may have never owned or base it on information that is outdated and not real world facts.

G-reg

iTrader: (3)

I'm surprised they bagged on the 4 banger.. I read a couple of the articles on other cars and it looks like the author wants everyone to hug a tree! Model T - Doesn't like it because it started mass production of cars. Explorer - Doesn't like it because it was the first really popular SUV. Excursion and H2 - Too big.

cal30_sniper

iTrader: (16)

'71 Chrysler Imperial? Silly Big 440? Sorry, I don't buy into that crap. I owned a '76 Chrysler New Yorker ('75 Imperial with Chrysler badging) with a warmed over 440 for years, and that thing was a lightning bolt of indestructible solid steel. Saved my butt a few times. I remember once some chick in a mustang hit me and did $3000 worth of body damage. Didn't do anything more than leave a paint smudge on my bumper. Now, knowing what I knew about my car, and knowing that the '71 Imperial had a WHOLE lot better build quality, I just can't put much stake in that article.

Anyways, here's a pic to accompany the story:


Oh, here's another one for the liberal pansy who wrote this thing. Me, my bro, and my dad's silly big 440:

bowtieboy42

http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...658530,00.html

I want one

yo soy el warg

It's hard to believe but in the 5 years that they were put into camaros GM produced 467,433 of these 4 bangers. With all those produced I've yet to see one on the road or in the wrecking yard!

87WS6

iTrader: (1)

I've seen one Iron Duke car on the road. A 1983 Firebird SE that a friend of mine's mother drove. It was truly a gutless piece of ****. With three adults in it the thing could manage highway speeds but took what seemed like 10 minutes to accelerate to 60MPH. Unless you put vaseline on the street a burn out was impossible in the damn thing. The car was physically made well enough and the Iron Duke is nothing if not reliable but that engine had no business being put in a car that heavy or that large. We all know it whether you want to admit it or not. It was a bad choice by GM executives and that decision does stain the reputation of the Camaro/Firebird to this day. It isn't any more "right" because Ford did the same thing with the Mustang. They put wimpy 4-bangers in their car too, but the Mustang was at least lighter than the third generation F-body cars were.

I've seen a row of no less than 7 of them side by side in the wrecking yard a few years ago. All Iron Dukes with the engines intact and complete. There were also two 305 cars there and one 350 car which I verified as a 5.7L car thanks to the VIN being intact. The 305 was stripped of its TPI hardware and everything from the manifold down was left in the car. The 350 car had no engine. This was in early 2002 as I recall. Since then I've rarely see third gens at junk yards. When I do they are normally V6 or 305 cars. The engines are usually left in them because no one wants them.

MY87LT

iTrader: (2)

Those Iron Duke engines went also into the Fiero, Oldsmobile Calais, and other GM cars. Oh yea, the Astro van got them too.

87WS6

iTrader: (1)

It was also in the Chevy S-10 for a long time. It wasn't a bad engine it just isn't going to win any contests for power under the best circumstances. It was anemic to say the least. 90HP isn't a lot and hasn't been for decades.

Twin_Turbo

iTrader: (25)

The article also mentions an 82 Calif. emissions corvette had a 3 speed, untrue. All 82 vettes had the 700R4, it was the 1st year for that transmission. The only Calif. option vette that differs from others is the 80 LG4. It was the only time a 5.0 was available in the vette and only available in Calif. (L82 and L48 not available there) Errors like that really make you wonder who the clown is that wrote all that and it makes his opinion worth as much as nothing.

madbomber824

iTrader: (2)

Hey it does say it is a 1980 corvette. http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...658522,00.html

Davidgou

iTrader: (2)

I totally agree with you! I thought the same thing. I got sick of reading his reviews. Sounds like a frustrated guy who never had a chance to own any nice cars!!!

ls six

If they didnt make base model cars then they would be shutting out 80-90% of the buyers interested in the car and assuming the thing ever got past the penny pinchers into production they would be extremely expensive.

If it wasnt for the new Camaros base V6 option then the car would never have been produced, and if it were pushed through it would easily be priced at 3 to 4 times its current price.

Think of all the base model camaros, firebirds, malibus etc that have been turned into "musclecars" after the fact, imagine if we only had the factory SS's to chose from. We already know how the prices for genuine musclecars have inflated, imagine if there were no other options for the rest of us!

transam85dudeman

thats only reason Chevy didnt go broke in the 90's ive seen many 4th gens. ALL V-6. never seen a V-6 trans Am, But "Beverly Hill Cop" had a T/A.. If i had a Camaro, first thing id do is the BMW e-36 upgrade headlamps, then get the Camaro headlamp delete cover, basically the cover fills the void that the stock Camaro Headlamps. It makes it favorable and smooth like a T/A bumper. Only exception if i bought a Camaro. Somebody post a pic of what im talking bout.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

That's because they were already sitting in salvage yards in the early 90's. When I first started going out hunting for parts, the 2.5's were easy to spot. You'd have a row of mostly stripped cars, and then you'd have a pristine appearing engine compartment that just looked completely out of place. I can remember at least 85 Camaro that was in virtually mint condition, even had 30 day plates in the windows, and a presumably blown up 2.5 under the hood. One yard had about 20 thirdgens and easily 5 of them were 2.5's without a single piece missing from under the hood.

I've never owned a 2.5 Camaro, but I had a 2.5 85 Fiero and a 2.5 85 S10. Both of those cars were total nightmares. If you wanted to pull into traffic they weren't too bad, but on the interstate if you saw a big hill coming up, you had to be sure you were doing maximum speed entering the incline if you wanted to be doing a safe speed at the top. The hill on my daily grind was about a 1/4 mile long, and if I started into the climb doing 100mph (it was a valley, so the first half was downhill) I'd come out the top doing 60mph. If I started up at 75mph (the legal limit) I'd be doing 40mph or less at the top.
Ever seen Terminator 2? The scene near the end where the T1000 is chasing the hero's with a semi and they're driving a early 80's S10... John yells at the terminator to drive faster, the camera pans to the speedometer around 55mph, and the terminator replies this is the vehicles top speed, followed by John saying he could get out and walk faster... Yeah, that pretty much sums up the 2.5.

By comparison, the 88hp 2.3L 4cyl I pulled out of my 86 Mustang was a total animal. Even with the 1bbl carburetor it pulled stronger then my 2.5's and got over 30mpg. My 2.5's never even got good gas mileage. The later 2.3 with fuel injection and DIS would stomp a mud hole in a 2.5 F-body. In the 2.5's defense, the 87 or 88-up versions were better, but they weren't in the F-body anymore at that point.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

The Iron Duke Firebird was the last Pontiac powered Firebird. It was essentially one half of a Pontiac V8. Slow or not - if I found one, I'd be really tempted to restore it.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

The 2.5 was a Pontiac motor, but you're thinking of the Pontiac 195 as was installed in the 61 Tempest, which was half of a 389. The Iron Duke 2.5 isn't derived from any GM V8.

Twin_Turbo

iTrader: (25)

I didn't realize they were referring to the car in their list, so OK that one does come w/ a TH350.

TTA 1387

Always thought the iron duke was half a 4.9(301)?

Twin_Turbo

iTrader: (25)

Yes, it's a 301 chopped in half.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

I've heard the pistons and rods are borrowed from the 301, but I've never heard that it's essentially half of a 301.

Rodimus_Prime

the fact that its Pontiac does not make it any less pathetic

musclecar70sfan

iTrader: (1)

Quoting the website's take on the 1909 Ford Model T:
"A century later, the consequences of putting every living soul on gas-powered wheels are piling up, from the air over our cities to the sand under our soldiers' boots."

http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...657663,00.html

Paigesdad

My first 3rd Gen was a 82 Iron Duke Camaro.

Manual tranny, manual windows,base radio, no a/c, hardtop.

A true stripper.

Although, it did have the optional rally wheels.

ls six

Because without Henry's work the industrial revolution would have ground to a halt and we would live in a pure wonderland of pixies and fairies

Well atleast we wouldnt have idiotic blogs!

musclecar70sfan

iTrader: (1)

Mark in Maine

You know, I'd still like to see an Iron Duke thirdgen at a cruise night or a show, though - in original shape - I've never seen one . . .

Mark in Maine

I just went back to the link at the top, and read the whole article - it read like a hit piece against personal transportation in general - another reason not to read TIME . . .

Tootie Pang

iTrader: (2)

INSTANT COLLECTIBLE!

MY87LT

iTrader: (2)

I understand that there was an over the parts counter (GM) performance upgrade to the Iron Duke engines.

Now if that engine came with headers and a tuned port like injection system, it would have been a nice alternative to the six.

whatever84

---

Drew

iTrader: (58)

Sort of... The over the counter performance version was the Super Duty 4cyl. By all accounts with a carburetor it was a nice alternative to anything thirdgens came with stock. It increased the displacement and made 300+hp, but again it cost about the same as a couple 400hp V8's.

pontiacguy1

The Iron Duke wasn't quite as pathetic as it might seem at first... The upgrade engine, a carbureted 2.8 liter V6 was about as anemic, at only 8 HP more than the four cylinder. It also didn't get as low of a rear gear as the Iron Duke, which means that the acceleration was probably pretty close to the same. The early V6 engines were also not nearly as reliable, and had very weak bottom ends in them.

In those years, the mighty 305 V8 was only about 165 HP! Everything is relative... what was considered acceptable performance back then is not considered acceptable anymore. Back in the 60's you could get a 4000+ pound full size car like a byscane with a 230 cubic inch inline six making about 120 HP (old rating system). I think that they had a 0-60 time of around 20 seconds or more!

I own and like the 60 degree V6, but until they upgraded them with larger journals and the MPFI, they were pretty bad too.

I would love to get an original Iron Duke, and put the later fuel injection and then a turbo on there. That would definitely be unique, and pretty cool. It would be a lot easier to turbo the 4 than the v6.

Dr.NickRiviera

Those power levels weren't "acceptable" that was all they could really do and keep them emissions compliant and somewhat fuel efficient.

pontiacguy1

It was obviously 'acceptable' to the people who purchased them new! Just because we would never buy one of them that way now, does not mean that the cars were not 'acceptable' during their day. That was almost 30 years ago, and the big-block cars had gone the way of the dinosaur a few years earlier. Pontiac's own anemic 301 turbo motor had been yanked, so that left the Chevy 305 as the 'power motor'. Dark days, they were. Nowdays, even the 'base model' Camaro has 304 Horsepower! Most passenger cars will run 15 second 1/4 mile times easily, with the AC blasting. I'm just saying that we've gotten used to cars with more performance.

The byscane example I sighted earlier is another example of a car with a way-too-small engine in it from the factory. It would get you wherever you wanted to go, but don't expect to get there quickly.

We had an S10 with the 2.5 liter Iron Duke in it, a 5 speed transmission, and a 3.73 geared rear (same as the F-body). It wasn't too bad, and was a good running vehicle. We had a GMC Sonoma with the 2.8 liter V6, a 5 speed, and a 3.43 gear rear end. The trucks were almost identical in performance (or lack thereof). I can't see that the 2.8 V6 was much of an upgrade over the 4-banger, especially back in the early '80s.

87WS6

iTrader: (1)

Not necessarily. Sometimes it was a simple matter of getting the best for what they could afford at the time. Many people who bought V6 cars would have preferred to get V8 cars but couldn't afford to for various reasons. For others the performance was acceptable, but I've only known one person to actually be happy with an Iron Duke, and one person who was happy with a V6 car.

MY87LT

iTrader: (2)

My old 1986 Fiero 2M4 was pretty quick. Then again, it did help having a manual transmission and being a strip model except for a radio. A better flowing air filter did help a small bit.

buffaloman

iTrader: (5)

I'll say it again. My daily driver is a 1984 firebird 4 cyl. I purchased out of South Bends, IN 4 years ago for $400.00 and I love it. 28 miles a galion and gets around in the snow just mine. If you check the weather you will see what I have been driving around in the week. Central Ohio big snow.
I have no problems driving at high speeds and it's cheap to drive.

MY87LT

iTrader: (2)

Man you are getting better mileage than I did in my Fiero. Then again, I drove that poor car with a lead foot.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

"Time Magazine"

They have no credibility on anything as far as I'm concerned.

K-slice

iTrader: (2)

why is that? Time is one of the few places left to get FACTS in journalism rather than just a bunch of ignorant opinion.

Ya the Iron Duke may have been the worst F-body engine ever, but GM really tried with the name I think. 1982 conversation:
"Hey, just bought a new IRON DUKE Camaro!"
"that sounds sweet, how fast she go?"
silence...

pontiacguy1

You must not know many v6 owners, then. Most are pretty happy with their V6 cars, and realize that they are not power cars, but cruisers. Do most people want more power from their V6... Yes. So do almost all of the V8 owners I've ever met. Tell me someone with an LG4 305 doesn't want more power too!

Some people bought the V6 and 4 cyl cars for their kids to have as well. A lot of parents wouldn't want to turn their 16 year old kids loose with a V8 F-body. The V6 cars, and also the 4 cylinder as well, filled a definite need... a low cost base model that could be had for very few dollars, which was reliable, and which would help keep production numbers up.

Someone else said it earlier... Without the base model cars, the Big Bad V8 cars that everyone loves to brag on would cost 3 time as much at least. Most likely none of them would have ever been produced in the first place. The fact that GM made millions of 4 cylinder and V6 powered 3rd gens allowed them to get the costs in line so that the performance versions could be built.

backgammon7

I glanced through the article and from what i got out of it, this guy didn't do any research on actual bad vehicles, he just looked up problems and picked a car that he could make sound like the cause of that problem. Then, he looked up any innovative or creative design and called it crap. i don't even think he did any research on the pinto, because if he did, it would have lead him to the bronco ii which was notorious for rolling over (even though i've done some pretty stupid stuff in mine and it has never felt unstable) and the predecessor to the explorer. then the big bronco imo is the beginning of the suv craze and it wasn't on the list. several of the cars on the list weren't bad, just mis represented or misunderstood e.g. the 2.5l camaro. BUT!!!! most of all i want to know of anyone who is going to bash a 440 chrystler, a ford truck, an aston martin, a ferrari, a corvette, and most of all says that a car gave communism a bad name that isn't a Russian/Chinese spy. someone call the Department of Defense.

JT

iTrader: (1)

I'm not sure how much life this thread has left, but please keep the political discussion and beliefs out of this thread (and for that matter, the entire website as there is a specific rule about keeping political topics out).

Thanks.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

Anyone ever see a magazine test of an Iron Duke 3rd gen?

I used to follow that stuff very closely, and can't ever remember seeing one.

Ward

iTrader: (1)

Well, one good thing came out of the iron duke cars - non A/C blower boxes

MY87LT

iTrader: (2)

Now that you mention it, neither have I. Only that they got good gas mileage and that's pretty much it.

87WS6

iTrader: (1)

Everyone I've ever known with a V6 or 4 banger car that had an option for a V8 wishes they had the V8. This is almost without exception. This doesn't mean that they don't like their cars, but they damn sure would have the V8 if things had worked out the way they wanted. The only people who want the worse engine usually only does so because they don't understand that typically with GM vehicles, the smaller engine usually doesn't get significantly better fuel mileage. They think that the same car with the V6 equals better gas mileage than the V8 equipped car.

K-slice

iTrader: (2)

I take offence to the V6 being called the worse engine. I bought a 3.1 car and have no regrets about doing so. Some of the things I like about my v6 is it's easy to work on, alot more room under the hood, mods are cheaper, more reliable, better mpg's to name a few.

Spend any time in the V6 forum and you'll see there's many people over their who are happy with their choice of a V6 over an 8, me being one of them.