Worst General Motors (GM) Cars of All Time: 1982-86 Four-Cylinder, Iron Duke Camaro & Firebird
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 06. 2023
- Learn more about one of the worst sporty cars in history...the 1982-86 Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird.
- Auta a dopravní prostředky
In 1984, when I was 16, I worked with a guy who was 21 and had a white 1982 Chevy Camaro with a 4cyl. He used to give me a ride home every now and then. He knew the car wasn’t a screamer, but he drove alot of miles and he liked the MPG and just the looks of the car. He didn’t care about performance. 👍😎👍🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
It's about respect for the 4 cyl & now days it's hard to find even more on CZcams I counted like maby 4
He was smart way ahead of his time!
It's a great engine, not for Horse power but for economy and reliability. It was definitely a better fit for the standard Fiero. Another sports car I love.
If your concerned about fuel economy buy a chevette. I can't handle seeing a "muscle car" with a baby motor in it. Gm or Ford, it's an absolute slap in the face to the name camaro/firebird/mustang when you put a v6 or even worse 4cyl in there.
@@matthewcortes3786every "muscle" car has always had a 6 cylinder option, the Mustang wasn't always marketed as a muscle car, it was initially marketed towards women and usually sold with a straight six, if you want a cool looking car but don't care for performance, a 4/6 cylinder pony car is the way to go, they're not "muscle" cars unless they have a V8
When I worked for a Pontiac dealer back in the 80's, we had a black Firebird with the "Iron Duke' & an automatic trans. The service department was going crazy, trying to figure out why the A/C didn't work at an idle. Finally, calling GM revealed the problem: The engine was so weak, that it couldn't idle in gear with the A/C on.
Those performance figures might be astonishing to most younger viewers, but this was an era when the average zero to sixty time for all manufacturers was about 13 seconds. Anything under 10 seconds was considered quick.
Yes, literally. I had my eyes on an 86-88 Escort GT for a few years and was excited reading in the magazines about its 9.9 second 0-60 which was a lot quicker than my 85 standard Escort!
@@cityside75 I get that. And yet, Buick Riviera from 1971 could do 0-60 in about 8 seconds whilst weighing 4500 pounds (not even a sports car). And so could another 100 models of US made cars in the 60's-70's period. I understand everything, the oil crisis, emission regulations, etc., but... I can't get over how much of a regress happened in car specs, despite technology moving forward. I just can't. 💀
What's worse is even though it was the norm, we still knew it was slow and we hated it. It gave the future a bleak outlook knowing we regressed in car performance, and movies like Mad Max reflected that.
It was a dark time I'm thankful we pulled out of.
Performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953...
@wolfspirita6931 You have to put everything in perspective to the time frame. Technology, as we know it now, was in its infancy in the early to mid 80s. So, with that in mind, manufacturers(U.S. ones) weren't going to invest in brand new technologies until the cost of such advancements could be spread across the board. Once things became more feasible(financially), and technologies got cheaper and more reliable is when performance, efficiency, and reliability improved in American made vehicles.
What to do in the interim?
Smaller engines tuned for emissions and fuel mileage were substituted, and performance wasn't a main consideration. CAFE regulations brought cars like this 4 cylinder F Bodies to the market.
Thanks for the memories. My dad liked the look of the Camaro but for whatever reason wanted a stripped down version, so he bought a new 1984 Camaro with the 2.5L. I ended up with it a couple of years later and it was so slow. Mine looked just like the red one shown in this video except it had the color matching rims with the chrome beauty rings. No ground effects on the front. I may have mentioned this in another comment but the dash cluster didn’t have a tach so they put the gas gage in that location which meant it was as big as the speedometer.
Fox-body Mustangs were never without factory tachs, regardless of trim level. So, I find it disappointing that you could get a third gen F-body without a tach. Ridiculous.
But did you ever run out of gas?🤣🤣🤣
I always thought of it as Pontiac's revenge against Chevy for being robbed of their own 400s (and even 301 turbos) and forced to use the ridiculously lame Chevy 305s in the '80s...this time, flipping the script and causing Camaros to get embarrassed to death out on the streets with the tiny "Pontiac" Duke under the hood and having everyone thinking it's Chevy's fault. 😜
As I recall, the 4 cyl. was actually optional (meaning a customer or the dealer had to order it). The standard engine was the 2.8 V6, even on boring, luxury focused models like the Camaro Berlinetta. It wasn't a very popular option...the sad thing is that 4 cylinder engines didn't have to be dogs. GM specifically developed the Iron Duke (at the same time as the Pontiac 301) to be a boring engine, so they could stuff it in the Chevrolet Monza (which was a slightly updated Vega) and claim "there, we fixed it!" 😂 A multivalve, dual overhead cam 4 (like the later Quad 4) would have created a fairly exciting, and still very fuel efficient, car. It was old school GM being old school GM.
What was even more spectacularly stupid was when GM "upgraded" the Duke to roller lifters in 1985 but kept the SAME cam specs(!) 😵. WTF!?!
You’re not talking about that 4 cylinder they had in in the 90s buick skylark are you? Those were TERRIBLE engines.
@@presmasterflash7555 you're probably talking about the Quad SOHC, the 8 valve version of the Quad 4 that GM only put in the base N bodies (Olds Achieva and Buick Skylark). Even that would have been a step up from the Iron Duke in the F-bodies...
@@brentboswell1294 maybe. I thought they were a quad cam or something funky like that. All I really remember is my sister had a 90 something Buick skylark that was at the dealership more than in our driveway. And she met others with the same problematic car.
@@presmasterflash7555 it was the Quad OHC, with OHC standing for "[single] overhead cam" (as the 16 valve Quad 4 was a dual overhead cam engine and performed a heck of a lot better, with double the number of valves...). History has mostly forgotten about that engine 😉
Back in the late eighties and early nineties when I had little money, I bought many cheap cars at auctions. I had many Iron Dukes, never a failure. I had several 2.8 V6 cars and had several internal failures. The Iron Duke cars were my favorite because we were never left stranded.
I graduated college in 1984 and considered buying a new Camaro with this engine. I thought about it overnight and decided to keep my 1979 Honda Accord a little longer. Good decision.
All that edumacation didn't go to waste....
My Grandma purchased a new red Camaro in 1982. It was a great looking car but even she complained that it was dog! It was still cool to me as a kid.
lol... You know it's slow when it's too slow for Grandma!
Thanks Adam, another great show! The Iron Duke; had one in our family car at the time, 1985 Olds Cutlass Cierra sedan. Drove that thing all over the Rocky Mountains each summer vacation, my wife, me and the two kiddos. Never skipped a beat. Gutless on the mountain passes? Yes. Pedal-to-the-metal most of the time? Yes. We beat the crap out of that car for 4 years and over 70,000 miles. One thing though....it gave EXCELLENT fuel economy on the flats. No BS here; it actually got 38 MPG on the highway at a 60 MPH cruise, and around 20 MPG in town. Had throttle body fuel injection and the 4 speed automatic with lock-up converter and overdrive.
My dad worked a GM Norwood when these came out. He said that they didn't have enough power to be loaded on rail cars. And had to be loaded on the bottom rack . Couldn't be loaded on top of trucks either. Knew a couple people that had them...and they didn't have them very long...
My dad bought a 1982 Silver Firebird. T-tops and added louvers on the back trunk window. Bucket seats in the back. AM/FM radio. No frills really but it looked awesome. I was 12 when he bought it. I learned how to drive in that car and drove it almost all the time after I turned 16 in 1986. Man those times were awesome. Spoked silver hubcaps. Raised up and down front headlights. 4 cylinder yes, but that car ran like a dream to me. Good memories.
Sources actually have the base Iron Duke 1982 Camaro at 2877 LBS and 12.9 seconds 0-60 for the std 4 speed stick and 14.9 seconds with the optional 3 speed automatic which is close to the times we obtained with a few Iron Duke F-bodies we sold at our dealership during the 1990's. If they are doing 17-18 seconds they are way out of tune or have a plugged catalytic converter. The Mustang of this time period had the smaller 2.3 4 cylinder which made both less power and torque but also weighted around 200 LBS less so actual 0-60 times were pretty close between the 2 pony cars. Lets also put into perspective that just one year prior these F-body cars were some 350-400 LBS heavier with std anemic 110 HP 229/231 V6 engines that actually were slower than both the 2.3 Mustang and 2.5 Iron Duke F-body cars with their mostly automatic transmissions and terrible 2.56 rear gears which did nothing for power. The big difference of course was the crude thrashy nature of the Duke and Ford 2.3 which contrasted greatly with the smoother and quieter straight and V6 engines of the time. 13-15 second 0-60 cars were sadly the norm in the early 80's and it was pretty common your average Honda or Toyota barely made 80 HP so nothing was quick at this time in automotive history
The Iron Puke was pokey when installed in anything.
But it had 90 dogs of power! 🤮
Must realize performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953... 110 MPH in a Fiero... all the speeding tickets you want to pay...
@@Wolf-Spirit_Alpha-Sigma - Yeppers, performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953...
I had an 84 Jeep Cherokee with one of these in it. Not only could it barely get out of its own way, the damn thing stopped at every gas station on the planet.
The 2.8L V6 wasn't a whole lot better, believe me.
Truth.
@@vladimirputin7576 The 2.2 liter they replaced the Iron Duke with was not an improvement.
@@gator2813 iron duke was twice as big. At a time when most 4s were 1600 to 2200 ccs ,2500 was a big 4 popper ,good torque in small cars & trucks
@@rogerdodrill4733 I think you need a little help with your math.
No, it wasn't. I had an 85 S-15 Jimmy with the carbureted 2.8 and it was the biggest hunk of junk on 4 wheels you'd ever seen.
I don't know why, but I love those bowling ball hubcaps. They're just so cool looking
I know why: Knight Rider 😁
Ah, such a "swift four-banger", with a seemingly notorious 17-18 sec 0-60 time. Amusing, and sad at the same time. Classic Malaise, and I'm glad I never experienced any of this GM bottom end neck snapping performance since we were already driving a Saab 900 Turbo by this time. Adam keep up with your great videos, they are consistently superb with great commentary. Cheers.
Well performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953...
If I had billions of dollars to waste Id swap an iron duke into a modern shevy cruze/trax for 💩's & 😄's. Brand new crate motors in the postal serv variant!
I have an 86 Turbo 9000 with 5 speed. It goes and gets great gas mileage. Also have a Ninja 1000 so I know what "it goes" means. The Saab gets better mileage than the bike.
Well, BuzzLOLOL, just mere years earlier the performance of the 1969 Camaro SS396 was quite stellar in comparison, thus indicating what was then facing us in the Malaise Era when performance became a mere wistful memory of the then recently concluded past. For example: 1969 Chevrolet Camaro SS-396 Sport Coupe 375-hp 4-speed (man. ... 0-100 km/h in 6.3 sec, 0-200 km/h in 25.7 sec and a quarter mile time is 14.4 sec. The four banger Iron Duke 3rd generation Camaro 0-60 mph time of 17-18 seconds was quite the let-down in comparison to the performance that could be had in the first generation Camaro's. Just saying. Thanks for giving me a few laughs while making me consider the '53 Ford vs the Iron Duke 3rd generation Camaro. I'd rather take the charismatic flat-head Ford instead. Cheers
I had this engine in both an 85 Calais and 84 Fiero. It wasn't bad in those cars though it certainly still wasn't sporty. It did have a good first gear take off. In the Fiero, if you got it with the 4 spd manual (3 spd w/overdrive gear) it came with a 4.10 final drive gear ratio and was downright quick in 1st gear.
Yeah, 4 banger Fiero would do 100-110 MPH... mine has 5 speed... performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953...
What a travesty with those engines! And to think in a very short time we went from the 4 cyls, to 5.7 Tuned Port V8's and then the 1989 TTA with it's 3.8 V6 Turbo. What a save!!
Don't think Camaros were ever without a V8 option...
Performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953...
the 305 HO was actually a blast. my stepfather had one, had a shift kit and would chirp the tires shifting into 2nd all day long. it sounded mean and was fairly quick.
it was all upon what engine the car was offered with. the iron duke really didnt belong in an f-body but it wasnt a BAD engine or unreliable but just very anemic for a "sports coupe". up until a couple of years ago my neighbor had a prestine 1984 firebird 2.5 iron duke with a manual transmission..... weird it survived all of these years and in it's stock form LOL
@@andrewdonohue1853 305 is ,was ,forever ,a Giant Turd of a engine!!
@@doncnunez6231 the h.o. had a better cam, better heads, better exhaust... for a 305 they were strong for that era. I believe it also had 3.42 or 3.73 gears. L69. Base 305 was a turd. The 305 is ok with the right heads, cam, exhaust but 300 hp is probably the limit.
@@andrewdonohue1853 I did a little research on the subject. You can build a higher that 300 HP 305 but the experts that chimed in on the subject recommend starting off with a 350 4 bolt main block if you're looking for more power.
Wow. 17 seconds to sixty, 3-speed slush box, and white wall tires. Sad
So you buy the 1982 4 speed manual and get 15 seconds 0 to 60 mph, 24 combined mpg; 36 mph highway; 576 mile range highway with 16 gallon tank.
In California in 1982 the manual was only for the 4 cylinder. If you paid extra you got the 2.9L V6 and 10 to 12 more HP and gained 0.5 seconds to sixty
. If you got the 5.0 L V8 in California in 1982 you got 50 percent more HP than the 4 cylinder. So you double the displacement and that extra 2.5L gave you 45 HP more. The V8 added 273 more Lbs in weight and again you have to have an automatic in California. PLUS the V8 is a muscle car high risk insurance rates so your premium is 50 to 65 percent more. Interest rates in 1982 were double todays rates for cars; houses etc so it is hard to compare eras.
The slowest Camaro made in California was a straight 6 model in the 1977 to 1979 era that had the same HP as the iron duke but the car weighed 600 lbs more.
Hey! What's wrong with white-wall tires?! I love the white-letter look, myself; but white-wall is cool, too.
@@philojudaeusofalexandria9556 On a Camaro? 😂
@@bobcoats2708 To each his own!
Fun fact: in Tokyo Xtreme Racer 3, this is the only trim level of firebird available in the game.
One of my weirdest goals is to track down one of these, and either make it actually have power or keep it stock. An early Iron Duke Firebird is probably one of the rarest third gens you can find now (I wonder why lol)
These are definitely rare cars. Third gens were already at "hoopty" status in the late 90's, and then they all just disappeared. There's always 5.0 Mustangs at Cars and Coffee, but no f-body cars of this generation.
@@Gr8thxAlot I own a 88 2.8 Firebird over in europe. Heard many americans say they became really rare. A lot of people told me they're all in junkyards now or they were shipped to other countries and stuff like that
I had a 82 firebird with the 2.5l 4cyl. Mine had the 4spd. manual so with a simple bell housing swap a 327 fit right in nicely.
That's a weird goal alright, lol ..at least it'll (probably) outrun an old VW Bus...maybe...?
The iron duke will be known as one of the most important engines in automotive history many of them still on the road today bringing millions of people mail
I live on a street that is on a modest incline, and I always know when the mail is on its way even sitting in my living room…. The coarseness of that engine sound is unmistakable and unrivaled today.
Imagine being a carrier and still daily driving an iron duke in 2023! My local PO recently switched to all vans/minivans. I guess their last LLV finally bit the dust.
Friend of mine has an Iron Duke in an S10,close to 300,00 miles with no major work done to it.
A larger version of the Iron Duke was a popular engine for inboard/outboard boats. Very versatile powerplant.
Friend of mine had a red one with manual and the iron duke, driving it from Muncie to Indy every day fr work. He thought it was reliable but his prior ride was a Fiat X/19
I had an '84 Camaro, base coupe, 2.8 V6, 5 speed. What a gorgeous car and pretty quick. Unfortunately it had the build quality of a high school shop project
I remember a co-worker of mine bought a 1982 Firebird with the 2.5 Iron Duke, with auto transmission, a/c, power steering and power brakes. It was a one year old ex rental car. She kept if less that one year! Slow as molasses, especially with the a/c on in the summer! I can't remember what she replaced it with.
Looked fast, though! I remember as a kid in the early eighties I'd look inside cars at the speedometer to see how high it went (which I thought indicated how fast the car was)... Plus, the Trans Am was the Knight Rider car! Doesn't get any cooler than that for the 80s!!!
You know a car is underpowered when it has a lower power to weight ratio than a Geo Metro 3 cylinder!
I've long been a huge fan of the Firebird lineup and knowing that these four cylinder travesties were ever produced actually hurts.
@@motorheadmike1477 Definitely. And I probably would've been there with them myself if the finances dictated so.
I would always drive by the GM plant in the San Fernando Valley going to and from work each day in the 60's and 70's. It became the main plant where the Camarro's were built. You would always see hundreds of Chevrolets and Camero's on the lot around the factory. Now it's a shopping center !
The old Norwood plant is now a shopping center as well. One parking garage remains standing from the GM days. The train tracks running past the place are still in use too.
The same can be said about the Sainte Thérèse GM plant in Québec.
The GM plant in Framingham, MA had to be extended around 1982 to accommodate the switch from the rear-drive G-bodies to the front-drive A-bodies; apparently, the assembly line had parallel paths for the body and frame of the old models, but had to be a single path for the unitized new ones. I don't know what's in there now, but the Assembly-Square mall in Somerville, MA is in the building that housed one of the factories that produced Edsels.
Woke California and woke Australia chased all their good paying auto manufacturing jobs away...
Ford in Edison/Metuchen/ Edgewater, N.J. are now shopping malls also. Same for G.M. Linden, N.J. is a Walmart.
The Duke was a solid OHV 4CYL, but that cam gear was scary
As soon as you put a metal cam gear on, you had the best 4 banger ever made...
@@BuzzLOLOL In terms of what?
I was 10 when this came out. I saw a Trans Am and remember where I was when I saw it, my jaw dropped. Then...my neighbors' aunt bought a 4 cylinder Firebird. Talk about confused. I knew it had 90-ish hp. Its looks and power didn't line up. And, even at that age, I knew GM was slapping their customers in the face with that offering.
In 1998, due to a car accident, I needed a car NOW. The 18yr old kid at the yard said he had a nearly perfect white 1982 Trans Am and he needed to sell it due to getting his gf pregnant. In my mind "perfect" from the mouth of a desperate kid meant it had 4 tires that could hold air. I agreed to take a look at it the next day. And...it was a nearly perfect Trans Am! Kid wasn't lying. I told him BRB, and paid for it. It was a CrossFire and had that crappy automatic. That meant I had to drive it carefully. And I did. Unfortunately, at 70,000 miles, several years later, it let go. I had it repaired, and sold it.
Not really, performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953...
The iron duke in stock form was already very prone to detonation so I wouldn’t add any timing! Those engines often blew pistons because of that pre detonation.
Thanks for chiming in Einstein
it didn't get the name iron duke from blowing pistons
Those 4 cylinder cars will be the best condition examples anymore as they were never thrashed. Same as the 60's Mustangs with the 170 and 200 six. Lots of nice cars out there and affordable.
The 2.8l V6 had a habit of dropping in their tracks at surprisingly low mileage - I used to work at an independent shop and these & S10’s would come in with blown motors/blow by. Thanks for another awesome video!
The lower end was fragile. They’d drop oil pressure in a quick minute
@@dmandman9 Yep but for a V6 they had a cool exhaust note
@@Whatchamawhozit Yes, they sounded good. But they were generally fragile, at least during the early years. It eventually became a good engine, but not the early years
yep, had s 1982 s10 with 2.8. It spun rod bearings twice under 75k miles. In 85-86 they put larger journals and I saw those motors go 200k miles.
@@JohnSmith-fi2ck I wasn’t sure what they’d done. But I did notice that they went from fragile, low mileage engines to being a great engine as far as durability.
Well, back then, if a 4-holer Camaro or Firebird were my first new car, it would have been fine by me, especially with the 4 or 5 speed manual. I actually was cheap for many years in picking my new transportation, including a 92 Ford Tempo coupe, standard wheel covers and 5 speed.
Also, performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953...
In 1982 I purchased a new 4 cyl sky blue Camaro. It had AT but no other options. Cost was $8K. Was a daily driver -- very reliable over 20 years of ownership. Did have recurring issues with the exhaust system.
Every time I see a picture of a new 1982 black and gold Trans-Am, my heart skips a beat. It was way ahead of its time and no wonder Universal and Glen Larson chose this for a spaceship on wheels. I was only 11 when it came out so I sometimes wish I was 7 years older and could have owned one of these brand new. From the turbo cast rims, bowling ball caps, to the PMD seats and pop-up headlights….what an adrenaline rush thinking of going back in time just to see and drive one brand new off the assembly line.
I first seen one of these while working at a big used car dealer in Flint Michigan in the late 1980's Could not beleve my eyes! Then we got a Chevrolet Astro van in with a 2.5 and a 5 speed manual.
Hey Adam, you think you could do a video on the Dodge Spirit R/T sometime? It’s an interesting forgotten sleeper sport sedan. Zero-to-sixty in something like 6 seconds, which was fast as hell for ‘91. Made about 230HP from a 2.2L I4 with a turbocharger.
Bill over a curious cars did an excellent video of a spirit rt not too long ago
@@williamsinger4124 Yes, I saw it. I’d like to see Adam’s take. Bill is one of my favourite CZcams channels on cars. he’s hilarious.
The AA-body cars generally have always been oddly attractive to me. It's the boxy thing, and roomy, and not pretending to be much more than it is. Good solid cars.
THAT was a quick car!
From a europeean perspective here. There is just something about a third gen. The styling, the dimensions, the lack of power, and all of the squeeks and rattles. But GM really figured out the design. The cars are great looking. And even as a Ford guy and mustang owner, I just had to have a 88 Trans Am GTA. Thanks for the video!
I love my 88 GTA. It's the car I first learned to drive a manual in.
Love the styling of the 3rd gen camaro’s. It’s unfortunate that gm is dropping the current camaro. I would love to see them come out with a new model based on the 2nd gen camaro, and when that ran it’s course base it on the 3rd gen. It also would’ve been nice if gm offered an ss model powered by the 5.3 V8 rather that solely the 6.2. But i don’t think gm is run by car people anymore.
Chevy should have stuck with 1st Gen Camaro/Firebird forever...
It's DEFINITELY NOT run by car people anymore; it's currently run by a ridiculous diversity hire who actually believes that the glorified golf carts known as electric "cars" are the f...f...giggle..snort .f...future! 🤣🤣
I consider myself a lucky man with an 83 Z28, rust free T top car however, Mine has a modern 500 HP drive-line in it, so now the car not only looks amazing, but comes to life with real horse power.
That sounds like a real nice car brother, those were very good looking cars
Of course the most famous Firebird... KITT. What drove me nuts 20+ years ago when it was time for me to reunite with my old pal at the time, Dad gum, every one I looked at between 82-89, they were rust buckets!!!
I remember back then a neighbor's wife had a 4 cylinder firebird and you never got use to when he would open the hood of it
Still have nightmares to this day
man I don't even know how they sound. I'd pay to see a review of these or a POV drive to see how they accelerate ,how they sound ,how they idle ....to get an idea you can find Firehawks Firebirds on youtube but not iron dukes...there were 12 Firehawks made ffs.
@@Adrian-mq5ld she worked locally so acceleration was never an issue but when they went on vacation he would definitely complain about the lack of power plus it was an automatic
The car sounded pretty quiet and you would never think it had a 4 cylinder hence the shock with the hood open. A friend of mine and I would just crack up over it.
I had the iron duke in a 80 sunbird, it had a 4 speed so it was ok on acceleration but handling was awful since it was a heavy car with no sway bars, ate tires like crazy
Nightmares? Performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953... and 3 times the MPG...
@@BuzzLOLOL got to admit that the 4 cylinder was way more reliable than the v-6
That 2.8 was always good for rod knock at 60,000
When I was a kid I had a toy Camaro Iroc-z, and always thought that it was the best looking car of all my toy car collection. Wouldn't imagine it in my worst nightmares sporting an anaemic four pot engine.
Anemic? Performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953...
Yeah... I had a matchbox Iroc-Z. It was cool looking, but I think I liked it best because of the name. Sounds so metal. IROC! Z!
The 2.5 was a dog in most applications -- I had a 1988 Chevy Celebrity station wagon that had this engine -- it was fine for the most part, but getting any kind of adrenaline out of it was like asking a five-year old kid not to stick peas up his nose.
After I bought my new Camaro V8 5 speed manual transmission convertible in 1990 an employee from the GM Camaro plant in the San Fernando valley asked me if I was satisfied with it. I sure was and still am. It’s still in showroom condition and has has plenty of mechanical upgrades to make it worthy to have the Camaro nameplate.
In Europe we also have had "sporty looking" coupes with just 50-60 hp engines. (Ford Capri, Opel Manta, VW Scirocco)
The real laugh is when Chevrolet Engineering throw together a Chevette with the 3rd-gen F-body's V-6/4-spd, using mostly off-the-shelf parts, it made mincemeat out of ALL trim levels of both the Camaro and Firebird--Trans-Am included--in all respects... including fuel mileage. And that was with a feedback loop carburetor fuel management system... so imagine how it would've done with any form of EFI, and backed by the 5-speed slated for installation the following year?🤔
I worked at a Pontiac dealership in 1984, we had a firebird come in that was customer ordered . I went to start cleaning it up for delivery and when I sat down in the drivers seat I noticed the whole dash cluster had these bizarre round idiot light pods. It was the only 4-cylinder firebird that ever came through our dealership the whole time I worked there (1983-1988). Very uncommon car .
I’ve always found it interesting that the Camaro/Firebird are roundly criticized for the availability of that 4-cylinder engine, while generally, the Mustang isn’t criticized for the 2.3 liter 4-cylinder that were found in far more of their cars. I had the misfortune of owning a 4-cylinder Fox body…dreadful.
Thank you, I pointed out the same thing. Not too mention Chryslers practically all 4 cylinder line up during the same time.....
Back in '03 I bought an all original 1982 4 cyl Camaro with 67,000 miles for $500. It sat in a garage for a long time and I jumped at the chance to buy it. The guy selling it wanted it gone, and he thought that it wasn't worth anything since it was a 4 cyl. I brought that thing back to new. All matching numbers. However, that thing was horrible when you pushed the gas. It didn't want to go at all. Anyway, I was driving in Monroeville to go and get some parts for another car and it stalled and caught the thermal blanket on the underside of the hood on fire and ended up engulfed totally in flames. Yep, the fire dept came and put it out on the side of the road. Total loss.
Hey Adam, to me, the 4 cylinder iron duke had no place in the sporty Camaro & Firebird!!! The result was disastrous & a low point for General Motors!!! Thanks for sharing this interesting look at the iron duke in the otherwise sporty Camaros & Firebirds!!! 👍👍🙂
But you could get a manual transmission. I'm sure that mitigated the uncool factor a bit, if not the poor performance.
@@MisterMikeTexas 92 S10 2.5L 5speed. Nah...
@@MisterMikeTexas Mine actually needs a 4.11 gear ratio at least to get any jump on first gear being so poor in just the driveway. Given that, you basically make your truck a 65 mph redline. Don't want to hold her open for that long at a time at 4000+. The 92 2.5 5 speed s10's came with 3.73.
The gearing is still too tall to get a good bite hauling anything including itself.
Same could be said if you put 4 people in one of these Camaros.
It had about as much place in them as the non-turbo 2.3 had a place in Mustangs
Nopers, performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953...
Oh those were the days. I ordered a new 1982 T/A and loved that car. Great looks and lots of fun. MSRP was $12,200. That car got all kinds of looks and it ran fairly well for the times with a Chevy 305 V8 - Not a super car but decent for the day. Kept that car 10 years. Needed a transmission rebuild at 32K miles...GM refunded all the expenses which was great. Seemed they had tons of engineering issues - as with many vehicles, the first year model I'd never ever purchase again for any GM vehicle. Thanks for the video and memories...keep up your great work!
Worth noting: the base engine for F-bodies were never powerhouses. First and second gen Camaros (and second gen Firebirds) cars had a Chevy straight six which had in the neighbourhood of 90 - 110 hp net in an even heavier car (at least from 1974 on).
My roommate in the late 80s owned a 1983 Camaro 2.5L Iron Duke. It was a 4-speed manual. To say it was slow would be a complement. LOL
It was lucky to do 0-60 in 20 seconds. I owned a 1974 Capri 2800 V6, and it felt like a race car in comparison! I think my Capri was good for low 9 seconds 0-60 and could hit 115 mph(that top speed, I verified one night 😃). Heck, I gave 1982 Z28s a run for their money!
I had to borrow my roommate's Camaro one day(my Capri was getting serviced), and boy, for being a newer car, etc. it was a true disappointment.
It drove smoother and was a bit quieter at highway speeds, but the ergonomics were horrific. The shifter was an exercise in patience, and the performance was city bus-like. 🙁
Notice though the performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953...
During early 1990s when the Berlin Wall has came down, plenty of Iron Duke 4 cylinder GM cars came in via private imports. I saw more or less all of these in Hungary. Until now they slowly disappeared from these roads till the early and mid '00s.
Never had the displeasure of driving/riding in an Iron Duke 3rd gen. My friends’s father bought a new 85 Camaro base model with the then new multi-port injected 2.8 V6, 4-speed auto O/D (believe it was a 700-r4), t-tops, and no other options. Manual windows, locks, fm radio, no a/c or cruise. Compared to the trash 2nd hand malaise cars we were saddled with then as young drivers that car was a revelation. It had a freakishly strong running engine and crisp shifting transmission. I rode in and drove numerous other 2.8 powered GM cars including an 87 Z-24 Cavalier with a 5-speed and nothing ran close to that Camaro. It would smoke the open diff right rear on command. 85 mph was about 3 o’clock on the speedo, and we wrapped it around to 7 or 8 o’clock way more often than we should have. My friend got very good at spinning the car around with the hand brake, such that our high school shop teacher and driving instructor heard it from enough people and started calling him Captain E-brake. Great times, wish we still had that car. Just a fun, good handling car that you could hammer all evening on a hot summer night with the T-tops off on $5 of gas, and look good doing it.
I had a 1982 Z-28 with a 305 4 barrel brand new when in high school and college. It was a great car. I had no squeaks and rattles although the rear window hatch was a bit wonky compared to my 1992 . I thought the performance was great. I loved that car. My only complaint was the carb with the electronics in it. There were NO books or third party info on troubleshooting that carb back then, the shop manual was useless. Now, with youtube and internet, so much more info out their, now I know more about the mixture control solenoid and throttle sensor. I had problems with that carb and no one, not even the Chevy dealer knew how to fix or rebuild it properly as they tried many times and never could get it to work correctly. It was rare to find people/business that third party rebuilt swaps like today. The dealer ended up giving up and just replacing the carb with a brand new one and then it worked well. I end up buying a brand new 1992 Camaro and that had the fuel injected 305 and that car was perfect in every way - GM had really "polished" up that car iteration by 1992.
So why was it a great car if it gave you that much trouble?
@@Andyface79 maybe the tranny or other drivetrain never went south
Meanwhile my then wife had a 1986 Mustang 5.0 coupe with a 5 speed manual and it had 225 hp. (I special ordered it for her) I chose the rear gears best for highway and regularly got 27-30 mpg on the highway. It easily got 18 in town. The only thing that visibly distinguished it from a Highway Patrol cop cars was we had brushed aluminum wheels instead of the blackout wheels. This was not only the single new car I was ever involved with, but also the only car from a dealership of my 85 cars owned to date.
My rare '77 Pontiac Astre Formula Safari (kammback) Station Wagon with Iron Duke 4 is rated 28 MPG city, 34 MPG hiway! Unheard of mileage in mid 1970's when 8s got 10, 6s got 12, and 4s got 14 MPG... ...
I was in the middle of my career as a mechanic in those days. This was 1981. I spent a year working at a Pontiac dealership. I remember one day they gave me a custom Trans Am to do the new car prep, they didn't want a common person doing that with this car, they wanted a real mechanic on it. That was the last year the Trans Am was a real Trans Am. This particular one had custom interior with Recaro bucket seats. Custom paint job with special decals. High horsepower engine, I forget which one. I gave it a thorough going over, took it out and put it through it's paces . I mean I really thrashed it around and it was a lot of fun. I left that dealership sometime after and the next year saw the terrible decline in power, handling etc of the Trans Am. It was never the same after that.
I wonder how many dealers quietly tweaked the timing and mixtures of the cars of this era to get around the government-imposed emissions and CAFE requirements. That would have been one way to keep customers coming back.
@pcno2832 Actually there was very little that could be done in that respect. Changing the ignition timing only made them spark knock like crazy
And fuel mixture changes would not have helped much either. The main culprit here was the compression ratios, which got lowered dramatically because of nitrous oxide emissions. Nothing short of a complete engine rebuild with high compression pistons would do any real good. And this would have gotten the dealer disenfranchised.
A television show of a trans am that talked had to come out so that the public could be impressed with that new generation trans am.
I don't think 1981 was the last year a Trans Am was a real Trans Am. I own an '88 GTA and it's an awesome car.
@@pcno2832 Our Cutlass Cierra with the Iron Duke was 100% computer controlled. No adjustments to timing or fuel mix (fuel injected).
Both are great looking cars, specially the Camaro. The subject of the tricks made by the brands to enhance performance in the tests (like advanced timing) is very interesting, specially in the golden era of muscle cars (60s and early 70s), you should do a video about that. Hey, they were awesome and super fast but sometimes received some extra help under the hood. Also a video about the performance of the old 4 cylinder turbo mustang would be great. Fantastic channel..
A friend in high school had a 1986 Firebird with the 4cyl Iron Duke.
I painted it black with gold aero blades. Put a spoiler on it. A " Screaming Chicken " on the hood. Smoked Trans Am taillights & Trans Am wheels.
And on the rear bumper, I stenciled " Looks Fast " in gold, matching the flares. 😂😂😂😂
And nobody realizes the 2.5 Iron Duke Camaro & Firebird had antilock brakes as an option in emergency situations. Just turn on the air-conditioning.
Props to the Grumman LLV!!!
Lol! I remember a phrase used at the time those cars were offered: “ All show, no go!”
Adam, perhaps you could let us know how mercifully few 4 cylinder F bodies were actually sold? I seem to remember the number being very small.
Of course, how could we forget that the mustang of the time was sold in high numbers with an 88 hp 4 cylinder? Even worse!
"Worst" "Bad" "Sucks" is a subjective statement. If you were poor, "Best" is the option you would describe as the cheaper more economical 4 cylinder Camaro. In fact, that is what my neighbor got and made me absolutely start a long term love for all 3rd gens that endures to this day. Those engines lasted for 200+ k miles
One technique magazines like Car & Driver would use on automatic-transmission cars to get better 0-60 times than, say, Consumer Reports, was torque braking, in which the engine was revved with the brake applied, to take advantage to the torque multiplication of the torque converter. The difference could be quite stunning with some engines, especially turbos , but the Iron Duke was one engine on which this made almost no difference; there was simply no top end. I do remember a constant subtle pinging on my father's Citation, and that the owner's manual actually stated that this was to be expected, and that the amount of ping allowed by the engine computer would maximize the fuel economy without harming the engine. Whatever the truth of that, the car was sold at 120,000 miles and the engine was still running well.
Even so, [erformance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953... plus 3 times the MPG...
I remember more than a few vehicles sporting the Iron Dud! What always amazed me was how terrible all GM 4 cylinder engines where and probably still are. It really seems like the folks in Detroit just have no interest in working on such a project. No wonder we loved our GTi s, Accords, Saabs, Volvos and Capri.
C'mon, performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953... give 100-110 MPH... change the nylon timing gear to metal and you have the most dependable 4 bangers ever made... no 40K miles timing belts or 125K miles timing chains...
I have yet to see a video with a running 4 cylinder camaro/firebird from that era. Those things are more rare than Firehawks which are like 12 made .
NAw, millions of 4 banger F-bodies made... you just didn't realize they were all around you... and performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953... plus 3 times the MPG...
@@BuzzLOLOL if millions were made show me a video review with one. There are videos with the 12 Firehawks or the 1555 89 Turbo Trans Ams ....
When I was looking at cars in 1986-7, a Chevy salesman suggested I get a Camaro 2.8L. I said, but it's a V-6. He said, "No one will know." Replied, "But _I_ will know." So I bought a Cavalier CS 2.0 sedan and had it for 125,000 miles.
I almost bought a 4cyl firebird for $800. I didn't think the guy knew what he was talking about when he said 4cyl. I didn't think they existed in camaros and firebirds. I knew 6cyl did. I figured that's what he meant. My friend tried to convince me to buy it cuz he loved Pontiacs, but I was used to V8s. Plus putting anything smaller than a V8 in these cars was criminal. Lol. I ended up buying an 85 Delta 88 with the 307 V8 that woulda destroyed that firebird in a race. Lol.
The 82 Firebird was a really good looking car.
How to get a little bit more power? In the case of that Iron Duke and the cars it was put in. The only real valid question is "Can I put a small block in it? And maybe a full size transmission? You got this one nailed Adam
Performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953... gave 100-110 MPH in a Fiero...
@@BuzzLOLOL and then you realise, that a 1989 Honda CRX made 158 HP out of a 1,6 liter engine 😂
@@AndrasMihalyi - Timing belt engines don't last long...
@@BuzzLOLOL based on what ? Belt or chain has nothing to do with engine durability...
Point is: 90HP from 2,5 liter is a joke even for 1982.
Another huge problem with these (and Firebirds) was the awkward location of the fuel tank over the axle, resulting in a multi-level rear deck where nothing seemed to fit.
Even worse is pump in tank over axel in later f cars take out axle then tank& finally pump, or cut hole in body to get pump out top
Amazing...Although I don't follow modern cars too much, I recently read that the modern four cylinder Mustang - or some variation of it - makes over 300 horsepower. Very impressive by any standards. I'm guessing the Iron Duke Camaro was marketed to grandmas who wanted to impress their friends with how "sporty" they were. Anyone who test drove these cars at a dealership certainly had to know how slow they were, and had no illusions of getting good performance out of them when they bought them.
The 1973 oil crisis,and the late 70s/early 80s far out emissions and fuel economy standards, really made for some good looking yet poor performing cars in the 80s. Compared to the Iron Duke I-4 of that day, GM's new L3B 2.7L turbo four make more than three times the power, and is just as fuel efficient. I love this generation Firebird and Camaro, and if I had the cash, I'd get a Firebird, swap in an L3B and a Tremec six speed, and see how it would have been back then, today. Just a thought.
Don't think Camaros ever without a V8 option... performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953...
@@BuzzLOLOL Really?
My uncle had an 85 Camaro Sport Coupe with the 2.5. Just driving around town it felt responsive and it could do a burn out in reverse lol..... never tried in forward. We had a 91 Grand AM with the 2.5 and it was the best car we owned. Drove it over 200K miles and it would lay scratch from a stop. Passin gear was potent and would kick back up into 3rd at 80 MPH.
That assymetric hood scoop on the ‘82 Cross Fire Trans Am was functional but also known to let water into the engine in heavy rain. To its credit Pontiac paid for an engine replacement out of warranty.
The Iron Duke in these was a compliance engine to help meet CAFE standards. I remember when these models came out the excitement the larger displacement engines generated. One friend of mine picked up the non-crossfire 305 in his Camaro just to get the stick. My dentist went for the crossfire version, confident to let the THM200 work the gears for him.
The video is good ... I just want to mention the "top of the line" Firebird 82' Recaro T/A with the T-Top, 4 wheel disc and cross fire injection motor that could easily be swapped for the 383 Stroker solid lifter cam V-8 which would surpass 13 seconds in the quarter at 105 mph!!
My good friend wanted an 82 Camaro as soon as he saw the press releases on the new Camaro body style. He was at the dealer the first day they could take orders but to our surprise he ordered it with the 4 cylinder Iron Duke. He had a long work commute and being thrift minded (cheap) he wanted gas savings but wrapped in a cool body. He ordered it in red, gray interior with a/c, 5 speed manual with the biggest shift knob ever, upgraded stereo and wheels. It was sharp looking in its new body style and the red really popped! In the first month he was backing out of his girlfriend’s driveway and stuck out about a foot into the right of way and another driver ran into the passenger quarter panel…hard! Of course he claimed the other driver should have seen him even if he was sticking out a little and avoided him. But since the driveway was about 75 feet from the intersection and the other driver was attempting to turn right, the cops ruled the other driver had right of way from curb to curb on the road. Needless to say the taillight and rear fascia were gone, plastic rear bumper ripped off, and lots of crinkling of the quarter panel metal including inside the hatch area. He was heartbroken about the damage to his new car but to add fuel to the fire, being he got his very early in the run and a new body style, GM was behind in getting repair parts out like the quarter panel. It took several extra weeks for the body shop to even get the parts to start the repairs. As you know it’s only new once and even though it was a good repair he never looked at it the same way.
I rented one of these "back in the day". Immediately brought it back to the rental desk convinced the engine was messed up, until they showed me it only had a 4cylinder. Exchanged it for a different car.
I DO ABSOLUTELY ENJOY YOUR VIDEOS ADAM-GREAT JOB BRO.
Learn something new everyday. I knew that there were V6’s but never ever knew that there were any with a mail truck 🛻 engine !
Absolutely hated the 2.5 Iron Duke... also known as the "Tech 4". Had it in my 1986 Olds Calais and it was rough, unrefined, and so slow. It also blew a head gasket at 57,000 miles. Bought a '91 Regal with a 3800 V6 soon after and it was the complete opposite... Peppy and silky smooth. Never bought a GM (or American made) 4 cylinder again.
On the crossfire engine when it would rain and the car was parked on slope, the water would run down thru the hood scoop, drain into the air cleaner and sometimes hydro-lock the engine. Usually bent a connecting rod. GM’s fix was to put rubber grommets under the hold down nuts on the air cleaner housing. Didn’t fix the problem because the water went down the opening in the center and thru the paper filters. Worked heavy line at a Chevrolet back then. Bad times
I had a coworker back in the day. A pretty young girl. She bought a new '82 Firebird in Red with tan cloth seats, T-tops, A/C & the iron duke 2.5 litre four. It looked good. When the other girls at the office asked how she like it, she'd answer very bluntly, "It's alright." From time to time they'd ask again, hoping for a better answer?
I test drove an example with automatic transmission. First of all it sounded dreadful as if I was riding under the hood with the engine! It was painfully slow & coarse like you could feel those cylinders working. The salesman's comment was, "well it's NOT a Corvette!" I thought "yeah, no sh_t 💩 Sherlock!!"
But then performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953... and 3 times the MPG...
I did not know a 4 cyl was ever offered in one of those cars. How sad! True malaise!
Talk about malaise, the performance wasn't that bad when you realize these 4 bangers had more power than Ford V8's up to 1953... and 3 times the MPG..
I would be curious to see what the production numbers are on this 4 cyl. model compared to the V8.
My father used to help push these 4cyl automatics up on the car hauler at GM in the 80's when these came out. They were so gutless, they couldn't even move up a ramp.
I had a red '82 Trans-Am and loved that car. Bought it used for my 18th birthday, and it was 18 years old itself lol. It had the finned wheels but the lug covers were missing and they were impossible to find anywhere. It also had something I've never seen before or since, a carburetor that was computer controlled. Most of the wiring was already missing so I ended up replacing it with an Edelbrock instead. Between that and a better cam the little 5.0 did pretty good work, but kept junking the three speed automatic. Finally replaced it with a 700R4 using a kit that replaced the torque arm and rear mount.
I’m going to have to disagree with your assessment of the 4cyl 3rd gen F-bodies. I’ve owned a couple of them and they were good, reliable and very economical transportation. The iron duke was a solid, reliable powerplant. A lot of the 4-cyl cars had 5-speeds and a 3.73 gear. The one I had would get 33-35mpg on a regular basis. Add the Z28 steering box, springs and sway bars and then they were fantastic. I loved mine.
I only remember ever seeing one Iron Duke Firebird back in the day, and couldn't believe GM actually built these. My only other memory was the guy that owned it was a bit weird...
Yep. I had a nearly new 60,000 mile 82 Cutlass Ciera with this powerhouse powerplant.🤗 Not. Throttle body 'computer' injected and gave constant electrical problems. Finally traced it to the ECM. And one of them was definitely hard to find in Germany in 1987 at the time, where I was stationed in the Army. I finally did solve that pinging problem by adding a bottle of that Chevron Techroline additive at every fill-up. And that stuff wasn't cheap even back then.
Yes, the Iron Duke was sad excuse of an engine but I'd blame CAFE regulations before I'd blame the engine. Also remember that the "Iron Puke" 🤮 replaced the Vega I-4 (If I recall correctly...) engine and GM didn't have any other I-4's to fall back on. You could cast the net even wider and declare that the early I-4 Fiero's were the worst GM sporty car of all time because they had sport car styling but also had the Iron Duke, a Chevette front suspension and an X-car drive train. How hard do you want to come down on GM for trying to boost their corporate fuel economy figures?
I took drivers' ed in 1984 and the two cars my school had were the Firebird and a Cutlass Cierra. The Firebird was such a POS we students actually preferred driving the Cutlass.
I owned an 82 Firebird with a 4 cylinder for a few years. Since it was my daily driver, I appreciated the 4 cyl. I loved the look of the Firebird but liked the mpg.
My friend had one of these with an automatic trans. It wouldn't squeal or even squeak the tires on dry or wet pavement, in sand it would just spin the wheel slightly. He took the Muffler off to try to gain more power and it was hilarious to hear a car making all that noise and going nowhere!
To be fair it was a nice looking car in its day and it handled really well with that lighter engine up front. Camaros and Firebirds were always known for their unexpectedly good handling.
I remember a friend of mine buying a new four-cylinder Camaro sometime in the 1990's. It looked great, but it was incredibly underpowered. The performance was a joke to be honest, and seemed to deteriorate even further when the air conditioning was on.
How did my dad NOT buy one of these turkeys! Dad specialized in "Turkeys" when I was growing up with regard to his cars. He bought a '77 Cadillac Coupe de Ville d'elegance edition in Bimini beige, which means it was PINK. He bought it because he was able to buy it one year old from a Cadillac executive, who had parked it in the mud lot at the corner of the free bridge to Grosse Ile, Michigan. I was twelve at the time, and when I rode in that car, I made sure that my head was behind the C pillar since I didn't want kids from school to see me riding around in it! And when I was 17 and had my drivers license, I took it up rural Crabb Road in Temperance Michigan and it took 16 seconds for the 7.0 liter four barrel V8 engine to push the ugly car to 60 mph. Hello?
Then, dad decides to replace his 7 year old completely rusted out '72 Ford LTD. The '81 Ford Escort was out, and Volkswagen sold an excellent Rabbit product, both of which were modern FWD designs, but what does dad buy? A fucking Chevette! With an automatic transmission that was rebuilt TWICE under warranty, and burned valves on two occasion, necessitating a head removal, again under warranty.
But the coup de gras? Dad was driving the Chevette up I-75 at it's top speed of 60 mph [I'm not kidding.....] and suddenly, when the car was one year old/14,000 miles....The front pulley fell RIGHT OFF THE ENGINE.
I'm not kidding, it FELL OFF! Hello? "Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chever-LAY!" Anyway, I went to school and mom went and picked him up and took him to work. The pile of shit got towed to the Chever-Lay dealer for the first of five times. "No, I don't want an Escort, it's a first year product" Mmm Hmm~
I've never owned a GM product and I doubt I ever will!
So when I see this red pile of shit with four cylinders and cheap K mart wire wheel covers [Did I mention that my dad put the exact same ones on the '77 Cadillac? And my friends were following me and watched two of them on the outside of the turn depart the wheels and head into the ditch; We went back and picked them up and put them back on] I am instantly reminded of my father and his innate inability to understand the word "VALUE". He only understood price.
That and pussy, he got around a bit. I'm actually proud of him for that one....
Great video!
You have made my day. I laughed harder than I have in many months. thanks for posting. And thumbs up to your Dad for giving you these memories even if they are not great ones.