When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Why is the L-82 overlooked/ignored by enthusiasts? Is it because they are comparing them to engine offerings from the 60's? For their time, The Malaise Era, these were fantastic powerplants. I have to admit, my 1973 Corvette is about the newest classic car I have owned. And while it is not as wild as some 60's machines it is really a fun little motor. And I don't have to mess with mechanical lifters! And maybe that is part of the answer...I am 57 now and don't wrench nearly as much as I used to. Is it possible I have grown up? And that the L-82 Four Speed combination is a grown up choice? Good Lord.
My son likes his. I noticed it has enough power to get down the road which is nice. My corvette has a comp cam NL79+. I like not having to keep up on the lashing. Just get in and drive... I think the L82 are considered collectible but what do I know???
I'd love to have found an L-82 w. 4 speed. I wasn't willing to wait so I bought the first decent car I found.
Now I get to build my own motor, I'd have modded an L-82 anyway.
The plus is the auto frames have the removable cross member.
I've got a '75 L82 4 speed, which is arguably the worst year Corvette ever, so says Hagerty. After putting headers and exhaust, carb and intake, I have enough fun to feel dangerous, but not enough to be considered a terror by the cops. Plus, I can do dumb stuff to it and no one really cares. That's the best of both worlds.
I'm 55...I sure hope you're wrong about growing up.
It is 60 degrees here today...I just popped off the T-Tops and took it for a drive. That engine pulls for the redline hard; it loves to rev. I have only had this car a few months, but the more I drive it the more I like it.
I really don't think the L82 is overlooked.
just that most of us mod them and they don't look like a L82 anymore.
The L82 is a great bottom end with a less than great top end. A set of decent heads, a cam, a bit of ign. curve work, a nice intake and you have a really nice, dependable small block.
I really don't think the L82 is overlooked.
just that most of us mod them and they don't look like a L82 anymore.
The L82 is a great bottom end with a less than great top end. A set of decent heads, a cam, a bit of ign. curve work, a nice intake and you have a really nice, dependable small block.
Amen to this. I have a 1973 4-speed convertible with an L-82, but mine has aftermarket Edelbrock heads, aluminum intake, and Holley four barrel carburetor. Plenty of power for me with those mods, and lighter than the 454 big block that was an option that year. The stock big blocks were rated only 20 hp more than the small block L-82, which handles better.
I had a 1978 with an L82 and I was not impressed. NONE of the old mid 70s factory smog engines with low compression are anything to compete with earlier engine before these factory problems. The factory was just trying to meet smog specification before the figured out how to do it and still provide performance. I consider the 73-82 Corvettes to be boulevard cruisers and NOT performance cars. This said most people that want performance out of these cars today just build a 383 out of what they have which makes any thoughts of the L82 having any real value go out the window.
As a side note years ago I had a standard engine 1973 Corvette at the same time I had a 1972 long bed H.D. 1/2 ton pick up that was not required to have the smog equipment that the Corvette had. The truck would beat the Corvette in both 1/4 mile and top end. The Corvette ran out of steam at 116 mph by its speedo and the truck just kept pulling even though it had the aerodynamics of a brick.
I agree that the mid-1970s small blocks suffered in horsepower, but the 1973 L-82 (its first year) was factory rated at 250 hp. The prior year, which I believe was the first year for net as opposed to gross hp ratings, had the highest hp small block at 255 hp. I would subjectively put both of these small block years (1972 and 1973) in the performance category, especially given their weight savings over a big block.
Just my thoughts. Correct me in any errors as to hp ratings or reporting standards.
I disagree that a L82 has no value. A 4 bolt main block, top quality crank, rods and pistons is not at all a bad start. Remove all the smog junk and the performance jumps right up. Add a set of heads. A decent street cam and intake with a decent exhaust system and 350 HP is very, very easy.
I've got a '75 L82 4 speed, which is arguably the worst year Corvette ever, so says Hagerty. After putting headers and exhaust, carb and intake, I have enough fun to feel dangerous, but not enough to be considered a terror by the cops. Plus, I can do dumb stuff to it and no one really cares. That's the best of both worlds.
I'm 55...I sure hope you're wrong about growing up.
Aww geez, I've seen so many stupid articles like that over the years. At the end of the day it's the opinion of the author.
And more often than not they have never owned one.
and the next one will flame a 81. And then a 77, and on and on. Trash journalism.
I confess my car is not stock...FI-Tech Fuel Injection, side exhaust so it breathes a little better than the factory L-82. She is not a big block, or a stroker motor by any means but it certainly
makes enough power to pull a Boy Scout off your Granny. I was not looking for a drag car, but a grand touring machine.
Big blocks make more torque for sure, but I dislike the handling qualities of big block muscle cars. Blame my British Sports Car roots I suppose, but I want a car to handle and I put much more value in that over straight line performance. Which is why the Corvette was available with either, depending on the intended use.
L-82 so often overlooked
