Years ago, it seemed Chevrolet kept rehashing the same old, same old Corvette they had going back to 1968. Oh, they claimed such and such year was different, and that the car was significantly updated but outward appearances being everything, c'mon, who was kidding who; it was the same car. That would all eventually change, of course, be careful what you wish for too, and the last of the third-generation or what are now known (annoyingly) as "C3's" rolled out of Bowling Green, Kentucky at the end of model year 1982.
I found this 60,000-mile 1982 Corvette on Facebook Marketplace recently with "lots of new parts" and an asking price of $7,000. Wow, such a deal as seven-grand might not buy a 1968 "roller". Best is she's red. As the saying goes, "all Corvettes are red, the rest are mistakes".
I break third-generation Corvette's into three subgroups: the 1968-1973 chrome bumper models, the 1974-1977 rubber bumpers and the 1978-1982 "fastbacks". Thank me later under the auspice of "too much of a good thing" as I spare you the minute details of cataloging the subtle and not so subtle year-by-by changes or subdividing the subdivisions. 1982, however, was not an insignificant year for Corvette changes and updates and for more reasons than they were the last of the, ahem, C3's.
That table set, and numbers don't lie, '82 Corvettes are the least desirable and consequently least valuable of the C3's and are a close second in terms of undesirability to 1984 and 1985 models. Hence this one's more than fair asking price. By the way, the third generation sliding scale of Corvette values is 1968-1973's are the most valuable followed by the 1974-1977's and then the 1978-1982's. Inside those bubbles or brackets, the less old the car, the less valuable. Why? Again, I'll spare you the details. Just assume for now that it is what it is. For certain there are reasons but they're akin to splitting grains of sand.
With regards to '82's being the least valuable of the third gens, there are several reasons for their poor showing on the auction block. First of all, they're part of the "fastbacks", they only came with automatic transmissions, albeit a four-speed, 700R4, and most importantly, they're saddled with the infamous "Crossfire-Injection", 350 cubic-inch Chevrolet V-8 engines, without question the worst engine Chevrolet ever put in a Corvette regardless of generation or model year.
It ain't all bad, though. For 1982, the glass fastback actually opened begging the question, "why didn't it open going back to 1978 in the first place?" 1982 Corvettes were the first Corvette's to have a power adjustable driver's seat standard and the '82's benefited wholesale from the reengineered independent "bat wing" rear suspension first introduced on Corvette in 1980. It'll still handle like a motorhome compared to most any car today, but it stays glued to the road in ways no 1968-1979 Corvette would or could. Shoot, make that going back to 1953 while we're at it.
The biggest problem with the '82's, however, again, was its engine. With ever stricter government mandated fuel economy and emissions standards, Chevrolet had no choice but to add fuel injection to their largest engine; computer-controlled carburetors could only do so much. Problem was, GM didn't have a throttle body fuel injection system large enough to adequately feed an engine as large as the Corvette's. So, they improvised putting two throttle body units similar to the ones found on Pontiac's 2.5-liter, inline four-cylinder engine on the good old 350. The catchy "Crossfire" phrase stemming from the units feeding the opposite banks of the engine they're on top of. Chevrolet claimed a flow of 750 CFM, about what a good performance four-barrel carburetor would provide. So far, so good.
Things got dicey because the intake manifold, a flat "Trans Am" (racing) manifold that gave poor cylinder-to-cylinder air flow at low RPM. To compensate, they added extra fuel negating any fuel economy gains. The flat intake manifold slowed intake charge, not a problem at high RPM's where race car engines thrive, but around town, the charge got choked up. To reduce the bunching, they made the manifold intake ports almost 2/3 smaller than the intakes on the heads, restricting flow to just 475 CFM. While that increased air flow at low RPM, think of it as the head of garden hose constricting water flow, torque peaked at just 2,800 RPM but was toast north of 4,000. Quite the conundrum as the engine's rated 200-horsepowered tapped out at 4,200 RPM. Just as well as early 700R4's weren't able to rev very high.
Reliability wise, the Crossfires were fine until they wore out, hopefully within warranty or when parts for them were still aplenty. These days, good luck finding parts not to mention a mechanic or tech who can work on them. Tough enough to find someone who's at least willing to work on a carburetor.
So, what to do? Cost effectively, ask yourself, "how fast do I want to go?". Compression on Crossfires was an admirable 9.0:1, they're four-bolt main blocks too so the bones are good. I'd go with a Holley Sniper FI set up, parts and labor couldn't be more than $2,000 and that's estimating high. Heck of a lot cheaper and simpler than an LS swap or dropping in a crate engine.
There are some who claim their Crossfire Corvette runs great but I've yet to run into anyone who claims that. Chevrolet also used the Crossfire on 1984 and early 1985's, 1982 and 1983 Camaro Z28's and Pontiac Firebird Trans Am's have a 5-liter version of it.
I thought this more than fairly priced at $7,000 and someone knew a bargain too as this pretty thang is gone. I'd want the "Crossfire" plumbing yanked already, but someone's got a blank canvas to make this into whatever they want.
No comments:
Post a Comment