For those of you following the thread about my car not starting, I threw out a little side comparison between my '76 Malibu and my '92 Camaro.

The 76 has a 305sbc, and was rated 140HP, 220FT/LBs of torque from the factory.

The '92 Camaro has a 3.1 and was rated 140HP, 180 FT/LBS of torque from the factory.

When driving them though, the Camaro just plain cruises. It is so much fun to drive.

The Chevelle seems tired even though it has far less miles on it than the Camaro (25k vs. 96k) and isn't near as fun to drive.

Now while I realize the Chevelle is a tank, the Camaro has some pretty hefty weight on it as well, and the Chevelle has a bigger engine going for it.

What makes the big difference here? Is it a weight difference, design difference? Should I look into my rear gears?

I'd really love to know what makes my Camaro zoom. Seriously, I've never driven a v8 version of the third gen, but it's seriously fun to drive. I'm gonna be looking into motor options for my Malibu, as well as a future third gen (I hope to find a nice '82 after I sell my truck and get some things in order). I'm really interested in how I can duplicate this kind of performance and even improve on it in a future vehicle.

(please forgive my ignorance)

Mathius

that chevelle is going to weight alot more. It does sound like gears would make quite a bit of difference also.

You also have to look at the technology though also. The camaro is 15 years newer. Suspension design is going to be better along with several other things.

Go hop into a brand new car, and it will make the camaro feel "old".

Hell, I drive a 91 and 99. The 99 was way more refined. Although nothing beats the grab of that camaro thru a cornor :rockon:

Yes, weight of the vehicle & most definately gears. My 76 Bonnie ws blessed w/either 2.56 or 2.73 grears. That & the weight of the car made it a 17 sec car. Same engine, 4sp & 3.23 gears inmy 77 T/A (1000 lb less weight 3700) made a 15 sec car. Just think if you lighten your Camaro even more. Also, the 92 cars, being the last yr made of that design, are the best built/performing cars.

I have to reccomend against the '82... they're closer in the chevelle to driving feel than the mpfi v6.. TPI or TBI is where you want to be with a V8 (both have pros/cons, but are superior to anything available in '82)

The easiest way to say what's up with the Malibu... '76 is in the heart of the dark ages of the gas crisis/EPA inquisition... the motor is choked to the point of uselessness... these dark ages didn't really end until the advent of electronic fuel injection.

Dale: As far as the suspension goes, I'm not super familiar with the physics behind our rear suspensions, but the Chevelle does have a factory 4-link, which is supposed to be a great racing application from everything I've heard and really improve traction.

Dale & Project85: You both mentioned gearing, and the fact that the Malibu weighs more. I can lighten up the Malibu some with a fiberglass hood, trunk, fenders, etc. but lets face it, it's got a full frame and a big chassis, it's probably never going to be as light as the Camaro without going full tube chassis. What would you guys say would be the relationship between weight and gearing, or is there none? What I mean is, the more weight the higher the gearing, or the less? I can remember driving my friend's stepdad's F-150 with 4.11 gears and a 302 under the hood. You could really feel the torque when you floored it with that thing, but it didn't have the "zoom" feel of the Camaro. What could you guys add on this subject?

Techsmurf: I'm looking for an '82 in terms of chassis only. In a couple more years that '82 will be emissions exempt and yet it's the same basic chassis. I can upgrade the rest of the components.

Thanks for the quick replies, keep'm coming.

Mathius

**From my understandings**, if you want some top end zoom, you need to have around 3.42, 3.23, or even into the 2.xx. They are more for speed, where a lower 4.11 is for short grunt work which will tap your engine out faster. This will also depend on the trans gearing also.

Also, engine wise, you will want something with large bore, but short crank throw. Crank throw seems to give torque, where bore gives you hp/top end. Will need to turn some major revs. Attempt to lighten up the rotating mass, it will help with revs. Proper cam will give torque or rpm also.

Of course, you need to find a happy medium of both, not enough torque, it will be dog from the line, but to much, and you wont have the top end "zoom" that you want.

Is that beast full frame? Well, you can do all them things you listed, but yes, its gonna stay heavy.

Suspension, I was refuring to the design partly, but also alighnment specs, and general wear.

Techsurf is also right, thats around the beginning of epa regulations, and they choked them in about half for power. Replace exhaust with no cat, and re-do the heads, with an average intake, and see the surprise

**again, this is from my understandings, if I'm wrong, someone politely correct me**

As has been mentioned, that Malibu is a tank and probably has REALLY tall gears like 2.56 to go along with the TH350.

I bought a rusted (could see the ground under your feet in the driver's seat) '74 Malibu to get the running but smoking tree fiddy to build for my S10- paid $350 and after yanking the engine and trans I sold the rolling shell for $150, it has gone on to a glory on the dirt track near my home- they love those old Malibus and Monte Carlos (the REALLY big ones) as they have that perimiter frame that makes them tanks in the Pure Stock class.

Back in the early 80's when I was in high school (and Knight Rider was on the air) Malibus were the car to have, but you had to have High Jacker air shocks in the back pumped up has high as possible with Cragar SS or Keystone Klassic "mags" with L60's on the rear. Spraypaint the brake drums orange, and run glasspacks with dumps in front of the rear wheels. Yuck!

Sure am glad times have changed....

Eric

Funny how you metion you're glad times changed... Now they paint the rims yellow, have 5 inch tips and always gotta have that extra downforce......

Thanks for the good replies guys. I don't want this to turn into a Malibu thread though and get it locked, I'm more interested in finding out just what aspects of my Camaro give it the "feel" it has, and how I can apply that to another project later.

Mathius

Suspension-wise, the Malibu is a whole different animal than the Camaro is. If I'm correct, the Malibu has front and rear suspensions similar to the Impala/Caprice of the late 70's.

Front suspension: the Malibu utilizes an upper-and lower- control arm design, with shock absorbers and coil springs. Being a 70's car, the sway bar may be thin compared the the bulk of the vehicle. The Camaro, by contrast, utilizes a lower control arm and strut suspension: the strut acts as the upper control arm as well as the shock absorber. The sway bars on the V6 Camaros are better suited to handle the bulk of the cars than some of the 70's heavyweights were. To upgrade, you might want to get a thicker sway bar and some high-performance shocks.

Rear suspension: the Malibu, as you said, has the 4-link hookup and coil springs (if I'm correct), with regular shocks. The Camaro has control arms (2) with a panhard rod and coil springs with standard style shocks. I assume that your Camaro has the rear anti-sway bar, which definitely stiffens that back end up. If your Malibu does not have one, getting one for it wouldn't hurt. Otherwise, high performance shocks would be an upgrade for the back end as well.

Tires also make a difference. If the Malibu is running passenger tires or something else with a taller sidewall, then the tires are going to flex a lot around corners. My previous Camaro had cheapo passenger tires on it, and the handling suffered--real lack of stability around curves. The Camaro is probably lower as well. Lower to the ground usually makes for better handling.

As far as the motor goes: as TechSmurf said above, your Malibu was built during the gas crisis and probably suffers from power-strangulation. A higher CFM carburetor with a high-flow intake and a good aftermarket camshaft may help you there, along with lower gears as Dale mentioned above.

Sorry for the length here, but I hope it's of some help. As for the '82, I might want to side with TechSmurf...I don't know why, but it seems that some people feel that the frames in '82 were flimsier and weaker than the rest of the years. Double check that with other people here, in case that's a false fact; but if that's true, then I'd recommend going with something newer than 82 for structural reasons. '82 was the 1st year that 3rd Gens came out, so some of them are pretty unrefined in terms of equipment....plus they've got a few more years of wear.....

Again, I have no fear at all of going with an '82. I'm a certified welder, and I have fabrication skills. With my parts diagrams, I'm sure I can upgrade the '82 Chassis to make it perform better. Welding up body seams, subframe connectors, strut tower brace will go a long way among other ideas I have.

I wanna focus for a moment on the front suspension of our Camaro's. I understand basically how the front struts keep the coil springs in place, and the struts are basically held in place by the strut mounts and engine bay sheet metal.

Is this design more efficient? It seems to me that we'd have a lot more room in our engine bay if the inner fenders could be trimmed back a bit away from the motor and manifolds. Changing the spark plugs on my 6 is already a pain, and I've seen photos of a 502 stuffed under a stock hood, and it just plain makes me shake my head.

Mathius

Cutting the inner fenders back is going to limit your turning radius; you'll probably need to weld in some stops to keep the tires from rubbing into the inside of the body if you push it away from the motor.

Is a strut and lower control arm setup more efficient? I think that's what the guys at GM were thinking when they built the Camaro/Firebird, as well as an array of front-wheel-drives. That setup, I believe, is stiffer than the lower and upper-control arm setup. Space might be a factor, too....as you said, there's already not much room for easy access in the engine bay, and upper control arms might take up more room than struts. I think this because I notice that the 2nd Generation Camaros were said to be a little bit wider than the 3rd Gens (Check that on the history part of this forum), and the 2nd Gen's had upper and lower control arms. Also, you'll notice that aside from trucks, the only vehicles put out by GM throughout the 80's with that setup seem to be the Caprice(and counterparts) and Monte Carlo(and counterparts)...both bigger cars than the Camaro.