History / Originality Got a question about 1982-1992 Camaro or Firebird history? Have a question about original parts, options, RPO codes, when something was available, or how to document your car? Those questions, answers, and much more!

1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 29, 2014 | 11:25 AM
  #1  
jimmy2s83's Avatar
Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
From: Winchester, IN
Car: 1992 Pontiac Firebird
Engine: 454 BBC
Transmission: TH400
Axle/Gears: 3.23
1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

I was recently told that the 1982 model F-body Firebird/Camaro had a seam welded chassis where others did not. Also that the later 91-92 models had an additional glue added to the seams but were still not welded.

I have tried to research this but without success. Either I am terrible and finding anything out about this or its another rumor/myth story floating around out there.

Any help would be appreciated.

I ask because I have an 82 that was my first car. While selling a couple of parts cars it was mentioned to me that my 82 was a better one to build for power due to the chassis being more stout. Either way I still plan on building up the 82 but thought it would be interesting if it was indeed true.

Thanks in advance TGO!
Reply
Old May 29, 2014 | 11:58 AM
  #2  
RedLeader289's Avatar
Supreme Member
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,620
Likes: 159
From: Louisville, KY
Car: 1983 Z28
Engine: 385 Fastburn
Transmission: T-5
Axle/Gears: BorgWarner 9-bolt posi, 3.27 gears
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

Hm, I don't have information on this, but I'd be interested to know the answer if in fact that's true. sub'd
Reply
Old May 29, 2014 | 05:58 PM
  #3  
ROCITUP's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
From: WILMINGTON (L.A.) ,CA
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

82 is the lightest second to a 67. thats true.
Reply
Old May 29, 2014 | 08:38 PM
  #4  
TTOP350's Avatar
Supreme Member
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 12,232
Likes: 1,166
From: Il
Car: 1989-92 FORMULA350 305 92 Hawkclone
Engine: 4++,350 & 305 CIs
Transmission: 700R4 4800 vig 18th700R4 t56 ZF6 T5
Axle/Gears: 3.70 9"ford alum chunk,dana44,9bolt
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

82 is the lightest and weakest. If you want a stiff one, use 91-2 bodies. (they do have glue)
Same stuff that's used to hold new truck beds together.
Reply
Old May 29, 2014 | 11:45 PM
  #5  
Eric-86sc's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (18)
 
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 412
Likes: 2
From: NJ
Car: 90 formula, 89 formula 350 vert
Engine: 305, 355
Transmission: T5, t56
Axle/Gears: 3:45 9 bolt, 8.8 3:73
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

I've heard that 82 bodies are stronger and it had to do with the tooling, dies, etc needed to make the body being brand new. The equipment being brand new allows for a stronger body and once the tooling became used the dies were more worn out producing weaker bodies. By 92, all the tooling was pretty wore out and required the glue to make the body strong. I first heard of the 82 strength myth on an early third gen sight and this explanation was brought up. It kind of makes sense but I have no idea if there is any truth to it.
Reply
Old May 30, 2014 | 12:14 AM
  #6  
chazman's Avatar
Supreme Member
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,947
Likes: 644
From: Chicagoland
Car: 1989 IROC-Z. Original owner
Engine: LB9. Dual Cats. Big Cam
Transmission: World Class T-5
Axle/Gears: BW 3.45
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

Originally Posted by Eric-86sc
I've heard that 82 bodies are stronger and it had to do with the tooling, dies, etc needed to make the body being brand new. The equipment being brand new allows for a stronger body and once the tooling became used the dies were more worn out producing weaker bodies. By 92, all the tooling was pretty wore out and required the glue to make the body strong. I first heard of the 82 strength myth on an early third gen sight and this explanation was brought up. It kind of makes sense but I have no idea if there is any truth to it.

That's what they were saying back in the day. By '91-'92 the tooling was getting worn and the tolerances were getting sloppy, so they started using the adhesive. As a result, the '91-'92s had the most rigid bodies.

Think about that for a minute. GM made so many 3rd gens that they wore out the tooling. Can you imagine the 5th gen wearing out tooling?
Reply
Old May 30, 2014 | 06:50 AM
  #7  
gt4373's Avatar
Supreme Member
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 367
From: CT
Car: 1984 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
Engine: 5.0 Liter 4-BBL V8 High Output
Transmission: 5-Speed Manual
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

Think about that for a minute. GM made so many 3rd gens that they wore out the tooling. Can you imagine the 5th gen wearing out tooling?[/QUOTE]

Over 1.5 Million Camaro's,That's A Lot Of Camaro's,And That Doesn't Include The Firebird Production Totals.
Reply
Old May 30, 2014 | 07:31 AM
  #8  
TTOP350's Avatar
Supreme Member
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 12,232
Likes: 1,166
From: Il
Car: 1989-92 FORMULA350 305 92 Hawkclone
Engine: 4++,350 & 305 CIs
Transmission: 700R4 4800 vig 18th700R4 t56 ZF6 T5
Axle/Gears: 3.70 9"ford alum chunk,dana44,9bolt
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

There were changes made to the design through the years, added spot welds, bracing (and weight) that made the cars stronger and better. 1 example is the steering box bracing and internal frame structure to stiffen that area, door bracing is another.
Some redesigns are because the 1st designs are weak and fail others are for increased crash protection/laws.
Tooling wearing out will really only cause tolerances to be off a very little bit, not make the spot welds or car weaker.
Reply
Old May 30, 2014 | 12:10 PM
  #9  
navy02ws6's Avatar
Supreme Member
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 68
From: Atlanta
Car: '02 T/A WS6, '91 T/A, '91 Camaro RS
Engine: LS1, LB9, L03
Transmission: T56, 700R4, 700R4
Axle/Gears: 4.10 10 bolt, 2.73 10 bolts
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

I've heard that the '92 models had the "better seam sealer" that was supposed to help a lot of the squeaks and rattles.

If anything, I'd expect the '82s to be the weakest as they're the first model year, and hadn't had all the real world testing from customers and sorted out problems yet.
Reply
Old May 30, 2014 | 12:26 PM
  #10  
okfoz's Avatar
Moderator
25 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,298
Likes: 197
From: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Car: 87 Formula T-Top, 87 Formula HT
Engine: 5.1L TPI, 5.0L TPI
Transmission: 700R4, M5
Axle/Gears: Sag 3.73, B&W 3.45
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

Is the person that told you this about an 82, also trying to sell an 82.

I do know that there are build quality differences between Van Nuys and Norwood. If you know where to look it can be obvious, other things are not so much.

For example, every Norwood car I have ever seen, the rear hatch does not line up with the rear quarters. The hatch always seems to extend further back by about 1/4" - 3/8".

However I would prefer the Norwood car just because they used better paint and better painting processes that stave off some rust that the Van Nuys cars seemed to be more prone to.

Also FYI, the same machines that made our Norwood cars, were used to make the Chevy HHR and the Buick Rendezvous in Mexico...
Reply
Old May 30, 2014 | 12:50 PM
  #11  
RedLeader289's Avatar
Supreme Member
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,620
Likes: 159
From: Louisville, KY
Car: 1983 Z28
Engine: 385 Fastburn
Transmission: T-5
Axle/Gears: BorgWarner 9-bolt posi, 3.27 gears
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

Originally Posted by okfoz
For example, every Norwood car I have ever seen, the rear hatch does not line up with the rear quarters. The hatch always seems to extend further back by about 1/4" - 3/8".
YES. mine is a Norwood car, that is my only complaint!
Reply
Old May 30, 2014 | 06:10 PM
  #12  
TTOP350's Avatar
Supreme Member
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 12,232
Likes: 1,166
From: Il
Car: 1989-92 FORMULA350 305 92 Hawkclone
Engine: 4++,350 & 305 CIs
Transmission: 700R4 4800 vig 18th700R4 t56 ZF6 T5
Axle/Gears: 3.70 9"ford alum chunk,dana44,9bolt
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

One side of these cars is a little longer than the other also.

The decklid and quarters not lining up can be fixed fairly easy.
Reply
Old Jun 2, 2014 | 05:18 PM
  #13  
jimmy2s83's Avatar
Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
From: Winchester, IN
Car: 1992 Pontiac Firebird
Engine: 454 BBC
Transmission: TH400
Axle/Gears: 3.23
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

Originally Posted by okfoz
Is the person that told you this about an 82, also trying to sell an 82.

I do know that there are build quality differences between Van Nuys and Norwood. If you know where to look it can be obvious, other things are not so much.

For example, every Norwood car I have ever seen, the rear hatch does not line up with the rear quarters. The hatch always seems to extend further back by about 1/4" - 3/8".

However I would prefer the Norwood car just because they used better paint and better painting processes that stave off some rust that the Van Nuys cars seemed to be more prone to.

Also FYI, the same machines that made our Norwood cars, were used to make the Chevy HHR and the Buick Rendezvous in Mexico...
No he was buying an 89 Formula and a parts car 88 GTA from me. I mentioned I had an 82 that was my first car that is stored away for a future project. (likely a late model drive-train)
He said it was a good one to build because of better chassis rigidity. I had never heard such so I wanted to confirm. Hadn't had any luck searching on these forums or any other site for that matter.

More of a inquiry to see what the story was.

Seems like its a rumor/myth.

Thanks for all the replies!
Reply
Old Jun 2, 2014 | 06:23 PM
  #14  
8t2 z-chev's Avatar
Supreme Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,317
Likes: 116
From: belle fourche,s.d.
Car: '82 z28
Engine: L83 5.7
Transmission: 700r4-1985
Axle/Gears: 3.42 posi
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

I have not noticed anything about an '82 chassis that would make them more or less rigid than '83-91 chassis (82 is not "seam welded")'82 does have the stoutest front bumpers though-good for 5 MPH impact,standard relaxed to 2.5 MPH for '83-up and the later bumpers quite a bit weaker than '82
Reply
Old Jun 2, 2014 | 09:53 PM
  #15  
okfoz's Avatar
Moderator
25 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,298
Likes: 197
From: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Car: 87 Formula T-Top, 87 Formula HT
Engine: 5.1L TPI, 5.0L TPI
Transmission: 700R4, M5
Axle/Gears: Sag 3.73, B&W 3.45
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

There is one difference between the early 1982 & possibly 1983 and the 84+ Camaros that no one probably notices... The rear quarter panel wheel flair is different for the early cars, IIRC the crease has a sharper line where it meets the quarter panel, more like the front fenders. It is very subtle, and an easy way to tell if a rear quarter has been replaced on the early cars.

If you have a hard top, one thing you can do to stiffen it up is but the T-top door wedges on the car...

John
Reply
Old Jun 13, 2014 | 06:23 PM
  #16  
ROCITUP's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
From: WILMINGTON (L.A.) ,CA
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

so are 82's the year to stay away from? i dont like the 91-92 body too much, just not MY thing.
Reply
Old Jun 13, 2014 | 06:32 PM
  #17  
TTOP350's Avatar
Supreme Member
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 12,232
Likes: 1,166
From: Il
Car: 1989-92 FORMULA350 305 92 Hawkclone
Engine: 4++,350 & 305 CIs
Transmission: 700R4 4800 vig 18th700R4 t56 ZF6 T5
Axle/Gears: 3.70 9"ford alum chunk,dana44,9bolt
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

88 through 92 are your best bets with 91-92s being the best
Reply
Old Jul 7, 2014 | 12:23 AM
  #18  
Gibson's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 149
Likes: 1
From: Pittsburgh PA
Car: 1989 Camaro IROC-Z
Engine: LB9
Transmission: T-5
Axle/Gears: 3.08 G80
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

Originally Posted by okfoz
If you have a hard top, one thing you can do to stiffen it up is but the T-top door wedges on the car...
t-top door wedges? please tell me more! i would love to stiffen my car up.
Reply
Old Jul 7, 2014 | 09:12 AM
  #19  
okfoz's Avatar
Moderator
25 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 14,298
Likes: 197
From: Doghouse ······································ Car: 1989 Formula 350 Vert Engine: 350 L98 Transmission: 700R4 Axle/Gears: B&W 3.27
Car: 87 Formula T-Top, 87 Formula HT
Engine: 5.1L TPI, 5.0L TPI
Transmission: 700R4, M5
Axle/Gears: Sag 3.73, B&W 3.45
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

Go to a junkyard and look for T-top cars, in the door jamb you will find wedges at the top of the rear part of the door. IIRC you need a T15 or T20 Torx bit to remove them.

The T-top cars would twist and flex, in essence beat the crap out of the door jambs. To rectify this they put wedges at the top of the door to move some of the loads from the T-top structure, which was not really strong, to the doors. I would not know why it would hurt anything on a hard top, I have not tried it, but it should help take some of the load off of the top of the car.

I know one time I did not have my door closed all the way on a T-top car and I went up this driveway that had a curb approach, I swear the top moved an inch. I cannot imagine how much flexing of the T-top cars would have without those.

It will not be like installing SFCs

John
Reply
Old Jul 7, 2014 | 10:38 AM
  #20  
Scorpner's Avatar
Supreme Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 5
From: MN
Car: 85 SC, 86 Berlinetta
Engine: V6, V8
Transmission: 700r4, 700r4
Re: 1982 Chassis more ridgid that later models?

Here is a pic of one in the door jam and another plastic one. IIRC it's a t15 or phillips depending on the car and/or if someone replaced them. lol





Thread I found in the process...

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/body...-top-door.html

Last edited by okfoz; Jul 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM. Reason: Edited to show pictures
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
darwinprice
Organized Drag Racing and Autocross
17
Oct 11, 2015 11:51 PM
paul_huryk
Miscellaneous Third Gen Items!
1
Oct 1, 2015 04:27 PM
aaron7
Interior
1
Sep 30, 2015 09:15 AM
rusty vango
History / Originality
3
Sep 29, 2015 02:44 PM
indygene
Camaros for Sale
0
Sep 26, 2015 11:21 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 PM.