Thank you for all the great responses. I got a great deal on the 17 Camaro LT convertible. I’ve had it three days, and I’m amazed by the comfort, build quality, power, and drive feel. It has so many perks I did not expect too. I’m really happy with this car.
Thank you again!
4 Likes
What motor is in camaro
The V6 engine
Sounds like a great car. Enjoy, especially with warm weather coming soon. What colors?
I got a Mustang convertible as a rental about 10 years ago in January while in LA. It was in the 60s for highs. I swore I was going to keep the top down every time I drove it. It was a bit cool at night, so I ran the heater on high and kept the windows up. Toasty warm and the wind in my hair. Perfect.
I have unsolicited advice . Do not tell anyone how much you paid for the vehicle because they will all say you paid to much even if they don’t have a clue .
3 Likes
Thank you!
Nightfall Grey Metallic
Yrs ago girlfriend bought a new 82 camaro with the 2.8 v6. Car was so slow. But it was pretty slick looking. Compared to the 79-80 body style. 125hp? Maybe less? She had a new 79 camaro with 3.8/ manual trans that got hit by drunk driver at 8months. Totaled. Got a new replacement with the 305. Still very slow. Than she got the 82.
I had a 12 with the V6. It was quick. Plenty of power. This 17 is just as quick.
Edmunds says the 2017 came with either the V8 (SS) or a turbocharged 4-cyl. Still the 2 L I-4 has 275 hp and 295 ft-lb torque. Nothing to sneeze at.
The Camaro with the 305 was slow?
Was it paralyzed by a low compression engine, combined with tons of emissions equipment? I know it wasn’t easy in those days to have both good power and low emissions at the same time
Carb’d 79-80 305 was quick? That’s too funny. Seems to me you could get a z-28 with a 305 in Cali or a 350 in the other 49 states? 305, 2 bbl, single exhaust, 2.41 rear. Or was it 2.71?
But wasn’t the 305 Camaro at least more powerful and faster than the one with the 2.8 V6 . . . ?!
And you still didn’t answer my questions about the compression ratio and the emissions equipment
I seem to remember in those days, the California El Camino had the 305, whereas the 49 state El Camino got the 350 . . .
Great choice. Enjoy your new Camaro OP!
If you want to read a fun Camaro related story, check out the current issue of Roadkill magazine. There’s an article about the director of the Mt Wilson observatory in LA, who’s still daily driving the same Camaro he bought new in the early 1970’s, up and down the mountain to/from work every day. Needless to say, he loves his Camaro.
@db4690, one of my sons had a Camaro with tthe 305 and while it wasn’t a speed demon it had plenty enough power to cruise at 80 effortlessly all day long and get 27-28 MPG while doing it.
One of the main features back in the detuned era of the 70s and 80s (and this applies to all cars, not just the 305 Chevy) was that the cam timing had been backed off quite a bit.
The compression was lowered a bit but the cam retard was the main reason for lack of power.
1 Like
Those are the kind of details that I find to be useful
Being able to cruise at 80 all day . . . that’s important because 80 is often the “going rate” on many freeways
And 27-28mpg doesn’t sound half-bad, considering the era and the technology
I got a 79 305 camaro in 95 or so. Compression was 8.5 but the 2 bbl intake and single exh was main cause of low power. I would say it had little emission stuff. Hot rod built up same motor and it had 85 hp at wheels. They put on headers,dual exh and made 6hp more. Haha. Than they replaced heads with TFS heads since they fit on small bore motor. And new cam, intake, carb and made 250hp at wheels. Which is 310 or so at crank. I put 3.73 rear on my car. My car had turbo 350 trans so it spun pretty high on hwy. maybe an OD trans might have helped mileage.
305 engine (basically a small bore 350) was rated at 160 or 190 hp in the 82-86 Camaro years. 8.5:1 compression ratio for the TBI injected 160 and 9.3 (I think) for the 190 hp H.O with an electronically controlled Quadrajet. The cam timing wasn’t so much retarded as it was very low lift and very low duration. You could advance the stock cam all day and get nothing in return. 0 to 60 times could be beaten by today’s V6 Camry!
The heads were nothing to write home about either but would support about 330 hp with 1.84 intake and 1.6 exhaust valves. That’s the kind of numbers we got prepping them for road racing. Edelbrock RPM manifold, on un-ported heads, 600 Holley carb, 1 5/8 inch headers and cam lift limited to 0.480 at the valve but unlimited duration. 246 at 0.50 lift with 106 degree lobe centers worked pretty well.
We owned an '83 Firebird with the H.O. 2.8 V6 and 3.73:1 rear gears. It was actually pretty quick and would spin the tires with a posi rear on a hard launch. Got 26 mpg at 75 mph with a 5 speed.
An early mid 80’s 305 Camaro (145 HP for the early 4bbl, 165HP for the Crossfire, 190-215 HP for the H.O. and Tuned Port) would get it’s doors blown off by a V6 Camry, and depending on the year of the Camaro, the 4 cylinder Camry as well.
1 Like
76-80 LG3 motor. 2bbl intake. 1.3" exh valves 125-130hp
LG4 was same motor with 4 bbl iron intake 145hp
In 1983, Chevrolet replaced the cast iron intake with an aluminum version and utilized either 14014416 (“416”) or 14022601(“601”) heads with int: 1.84/ exh: 1.50 valves, 58cc chambers, 178cc runners. For 1985, the 4-valve-relief, flat top pistons from the L69 were added to the LG4 which resulted in an increase in compression.
1 Like