When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
History / OriginalityGot 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!
Of course it's nice, but I don't get how this happened. Someone bought this car new with no intention of driving it, yet paid $500 (or whatever) for an auto transmission. If the purpose was to preserve and sell 35 years later, why pay extra to reduce it's future value?
Of course it's nice, but I don't get how this happened. Someone bought this car new with no intention of driving it, yet paid $500 (or whatever) for an auto transmission. If the purpose was to preserve and sell 35 years later, why pay extra to reduce it's future value?
Automatic transmission = anyone can actually drive it. Bigger market. I like the automatic because anyone in the family can drive them but agree that a manual is more fun but does limit the resale market slightly.
Back in the day, I preferred an automatic. No drink holders & too "busy" to drive on a daily bases for in town commutes. Stick was still more fun, but not as practical for a driver imo. Now, most of these cars are being collected & driven for a different purpose & a stick is no doubt preferred in most cases.
If I was ordering a brand new HO & it was 1984 I am not sure what one I would have ordered. I know I would be beating my head against the wall though if I would have ordered the auto & still had the car today. That one is easy....
The color is a love it hate it color. I really like the brown/gold in the 1979 2nd gens.
Of course it's nice, but I don't get how this happened. Someone bought this car new with no intention of driving it, yet paid $500 (or whatever) for an auto transmission. If the purpose was to preserve and sell 35 years later, why pay extra to reduce it's future value?
My dad had a car just like this except with the LG4. Thats the car that got me into thirdgens. I wish he had kept the car and it was in wear near the condition this car is in.
Regardless of the transmission thats easy enough to change. As others have said the L69/T-5/3.73 drivetrain is a nice setup. Signaled that performance was back and set the stage for the TPI cars that followed. The right gears matched to the rest of the drivetrain will change the personality of the car. These cars should have came with 3.23 or 3.42 gears with posi at a minimum.
Its getting increasingly difficult to find the early '82-'84 thirdgens. I'm finding that they are either nice like this car or in really poor condition. There isn't a lot in between anymore.
Window stickers crack me up. Prices for optional items obviously have nothing to do with cost, and are created by the marketing department.
Cost of manufacturing LG4 vs. L69 is zero, yet price difference is $530. There is likely some other included equipment, as well as a higher potential for warranty factored in, but still.
Cost of manufacturing on an optional radio would be minimal at most, yet sticker charges consumer $367.
Cost of manufacturing automatic transmission over manual would be significant, yet can be had for only $295. Good value, but negative net effect on a sports car.
And my favorite, although not shown on this sticker, is when manufacturer charges extra for a different axle ratio. Zero extra cost.
what was the cost difference between the 5.0 & 5.7 TPI in 1987-88? I used to think about the same thing about those engines. I figured it had something to do with emissions, or was a way to control how many people would order the optional engines? For sure was a money maker tho.
Price difference for ALOT of things might not appear to have anything to do with "cost". However there are costs a buyer doesn't see: CAFE, emissions compliance, liability insurance, etc., in a case like this.
But beyond that, a desirable feature like the L69 was, replacing a highly undesirable one such as the LG4, is a sure-fire opportunity to increase the profit margin while generating some brand excitement in the market.
Given the production volumes involved, and the sources of the 2 transmissions, it wouldn't surprise me if the auto actually cost GM LESS than the T-5. But it would have been impossible to price them according to "cost".
This Car Has The Clearest,Cleanest Glass Iv'e Seen On A Third Gen,Looks Like It Just Came Off The Assembly Line,You Can Tell It's Had Very Little Road Use.
I seem to recall reading in the "White Book" about a brown color that was discontinued after a dozen or so cars were so painted.
That was for the 1986 model year. It was light brown #60 and according to one Camaro book through GM records (which aren't always accurate), 4 left the line with that color.
The brown '84s do look better in person than photos. And in person it depends on what other cars are in the vicinity. Alone, in 2017, they really pop IMO with great styling that still looks good today. Up close the tan interiors are a pleasant place to be.
I generally find the 82-84 thirdgen Zs look better in person than photos. On the web the 85+ Z28z/IROCs seem to look better IMO, but in person many are not as interesting due to heavy [bloating, expanding] race inspired cosmetic enhancements.
One of the few things to me where GM dropped the ball was the lack of proper heat extraction from under the hood on the 1982-1992 F-Bodies. They also should have continued on the hood cold air intake function throughout the generation.
