This Car and Driver test has always puzzled me, because the performance figures seem fast for a 1975 Corvette L48 350 automatic with 2.73 diff ratio and a/c, weight was 3,690 lbs. 165 hp @ 3,800 rpm, 255 lb/ft @ 2,400 rpm

0-60 mph 7.7 seconds 1/4 mile 16.1 seconds 129 mph top speed

Road & Track and Motor Week tested the 1982 Crossfire Trans Am automatic with 165 hp @ 4,200 rpm, 240 lb/ft @ 2,400 rpm, 3.23 rear axle, a/c and 3,385 lbs. Both magazine and TV show got 17 seconds flat for the 1/4 mile.

Road & Track 0-60 mph 9.2 seconds and 106 mph top speed

Corvette versus Bricklin

The 1982 Trans Am had a much lower drag factor than the C3 Corvette and weighed 300lbs less, I would have thought both cars should have the same performance. Car and Driver's 1975 Corvette seems to perform like early chrome bumper Corvette 350s, and it was almost 2 seconds quicker to 100 mph than the 1982 Corvette, which weighed much less and had more power/torque and higher comp ratio. Perhaps a specially prepared coupe from Chevrolet Engineering?

 

Sounds like another case of GM cooking the numbers in favor of the Corvette.

Physics cant lie. A car with the same power, weighing less, being more aerodynamic, and having a steeper rear gear cant be out run by a car that is heavier, less aerodynamic, and a horrible rear gear.

 

I say much depends on the driver.

 

I was gonna mention driver ability, but they'd have to be one awful driver to lose 1 second in the quarter and almost 2 in the 0-60.

Then again, we are talking about Car and Driver.

 

Advertising money- made the Corvette faster...

 

MotorWeek measured the 82 at 16.0 seconds at 84 mph, and stated that this was 2 seconds faster than the 78.

Video may be queued up, otherwise it is at 2:50.

 

Mine wasnt very fast, but I loved it anyway.

 

A lot of missing variables here. Where were these two cars tested? Altitude is important as is air temperature and humidity. Peak HP comes in at different RPMs. The Vette has 15 more ft-lbs of torque. What transmission was in the Trans Am? Rear gear is not the only ratio that is important. The weight on the Vette seems heavy to me and the weight on the Trans AM seems light. I had a buddy with an '82 Trans Am and his car weighed over 3700 lbs with a full tank of gas. My '73 weighs less than 3690 lbs. Only way to make a definitive statement about these two cars is if they raced head to head or were at least tested on the same track under the same conditions.

DC

 

The Motor Week report is worth watching, because it shows first hand how things were in the malaise era, which a lot of people either didn't experience or don't wish to remember. John Davis stands next to his personal 1978 Corvette, which he had owned for 4 years to that point, and said it was an 18 second flat car. I would say an automatic L48 350 coupe with a/c and power accessories in the 1975-81 era was a 17 second car. This was the car most people bought, and it was a nice practical coupe. You have to remember the average family car of the era had a 1/4 mile time of 20 seconds, so the Corvette was fast for the time.

A 1975 L82 4 speed car was down as 3,510 lbs, according to manufacturer figures. When magazines tested the post 1974 cars a 4 speed was usually 3,600 lbs and a loaded automatic 3,700 lbs. In the 1980-82 era they got the weight down a lot, using the plastic rear spring and other refinements, the C3 was down to 3,400 lbs generally.

Crossfire cars were very consistent, R&T's 1982 CE Vette did 15.9, MotorWeek got 16.0. Both got 17 flat out of the Crossfire Trans Am and Motor Trend got 16.75 seconds. Didn't matter whether it was the THM 200C or 700R4. The 3rd gen GM F body was a downsized model that used high strength steel to cut weight, and was around 400 lbs lighter than the physically larger 2nd gen coupes.

There were quite a few ringers submitted to magazines for testing, and it's odd how these later cars were getting the same times as earlier chrome bumpered 350 powered C3s, which didn't have to meet tighter smog law. With respect there is just no way a near 3,700 pound 165 bhp coupe with a/c and 2.73 rear end is going to reach 130 mph, even if Juan Manuel Fangio was driving.

 

Could always drive it off a cliff. I would guess terminal velocity for a later Vette is up there.

 

Didnt realize they were that heavy, damn. My camino is hundreds lighter.

 

Road & Track tested a 1980 Corvette L48 350 4 speed with 3.07 diff ratio. They weighed the car (by now Corvettes had standard a/c) and it was only 3,345 lbs. This car didn't have the handling pack, so it only had a front swaybar, and since it didn't have the handling pack it came with the plastic rear spring, so it was a light coupe. By now the C3 was getting back to what it weighed in the late '60s.

This coupe did 0-60 mph in 7.7 seconds and could hit redline in 4th, 5,200 rpm, which gave 130 mph. I believe these figures.

By now the L48 350 was rated at 190 hp on an 8.2:1 comp ratio, the 1975 L48 350 had 8.5:1 comp. I would say the 1980 car's genuine performance improvement came from being over 300lbs lighter.

 

Double floor mat on the TA maybe ? lol

 

GM slipped them a ringer.......quite common actually. A properly tuned 75' with an L-82 cam would run those numbers......but fat chance with the L-48 cam.....no way.
GM could have easily done this in one day and shipped it....hell, they could have had it put in on the line! Executive order!

It should also be known that I have an 47,000 mile 82' Z/28 ex-CFI car here with an 200C auto in it converted to carb with headers, 1.6 rockers and and curve in the HEI.....it will run 15.30's all day long with the stock camshaft 305. There was something terribly wrong with the F-Body CFI tuning.......the exact same engine in 1983 was the L-69 4bbl Q-Jet and it made 190hp vs.165/175hp with the same cam.

Jebby

 

Dear LU8

I actually OWNED a 1982.5 Trans Am WS6...NEW. I also own now a 82 CE

1. The LG4 engine was not a cross-fire....it only had ONE TBI (not 2).
2. The transmission was a 700R4
3. The 3.23 rear did not correspond to the 2.87 in the CE...this is because the T/A was only 165 hp. The CE is 200hp, as well as the torque discrepancy of 255 vs 285.
4. I drove the T/A across country twice....I left TX at 129 mph indicated....the CE has a lower top speed.
5. The T/A was VASTLY more aerodynamic. .29 vs .443 CD...this of course, only becomes a factor in excess of 60 mph.
6. The cars weighed about the same. to within 50 lbs. The CE is 3400lbs. Dave McClellan said in writing..0-60 7.0 FLAT. I concur.

So the CE was quicker 0-60& 0-100, the T/A was faster top end. (and better lateral G's at .83G)

The Bricklin was a rolling POS.

Thanks for the memories!

Unkahal

 

I think CAFE was the reason, they tuned the CFI motors for economy because GM wanted to balance the fleet average and avoid the gas guzzler tax. You could get more performance out of the Crossfire cars, but with a gas mileage and pollution penalty. TPI allowed for more performance with better economy.

Mecham with their MR MSE coupes also got into the 15s with their Git kit for the 305 V8, using a Holley 4 barrel. They had to deliver the engine kit in the trunk for customers to fit, because of pollution law.

 

I never said the LG4 was a Crossfire motor. The LG4 305 had a Q-jet, the LU5 305 was the Crossfire motor.

The 106 mph top speed I mentioned was the speed Road & Track got. Right or wrong, that's what they got. When Road & Track tested the 1982 Crossfire Trans Am it had a THM200C, when Motor Week tested the 1983 Crossfire Trans Am it had the 700R4, in both cases the 1/4 mile time was 17 seconds flat.

I know Dave McClellan said the 1982 Corvette L83 350 got 7 seconds flat, or close to that, when they were developing the car, but magazines found closer to 8 seconds. The 1984 Corvette with the L83 V8 and automatic, weighing 3,200 lbs, got 7 seconds flat when tested by Road & Track and a UK magazine called Motor (now defunct).

 

I actually OWNED 2 Bricklin SV-1s.

It was not a rolling POS.