OK, taking my 81 as an example.

everyone says the heads are crap, the manifild is crap. the exhaust system is crap. etc.

It probably takes no more money to make good heads, etc as bad ones.

And if it makes a better car - you sell more and get a better reputation.

So why design and make crap ???

 

For 1981 those parts wewe considered good. Your 'Vette, although slow by today's standards, was one of the fastest American cars made in that year. Low to mid 15' s was not bad for the time. G.M. had to conform to the E.P.A. ***** to boot. BTW, the parts are not crap, just not as good as some aftermarket parts.

 

Well they're not really "crap." Everything in the late 70's and early 80's got choked by emissions and '81 is the most emissions equiped vette of em all. So as far as performance, the heads and exhaust do suck. The intake manifold isn't really that bad and the exhaust manifolds are ok. The car overall isn't that bad, it's just 25 years old and at the peak of the crappy car era.

 

my opinion is that overall in those years, apart to the technical contents of the engines, GM did loose the proper path to build sportcars...take my '77 in stock form for example, it's heavy, braking sistem is good for a laugh (if you get a caliper on your foot you have to run to hospital!!!), the L48 engine is not a sport engine at all, air conditioning, strangling exhaust sistem, leather seats, power windows, and all sorts of heavy surpluses, heavy like hell steel front and rear guards...when i bought her i was overall displeased as i believed i bought a sport car NOT a limousine dressed as a sportcar, so i started the long path to give my '77 back a proper driving set up, a proper engine, proper braking sistem, sent to garbage all the amenities and lighten her of at least 300/350 lbs...now it's the sportcar that she deserved to be 30 years ago, but i had to spend more then 25.000 euros to achieve that

 

The parts arent crap...they are as good as GM could make them given the constraints of the day.

 

Crap is a matter of definition, but in a nutshell, GM was dealing with federally mandated emissions and fuel mileage requirements for everything it produced, not just Corvettes, on top of which were often added emissions requirements for individual states, most notably California. All in all, they did a pretty good job working with what they had.

 

yes, those must have been very sad years...
sometimes, maybe i'm beeing more romantic then i should be, i have the feeling my '77 is thankful to me because i've freed her real sport essence
and pls dont jump on me because i go always over the lines!! (remember i'm italian)>>>i'll punish myself

 

Sort of another thing to note.

How many other cars from the late 70's and early 80's are even around any more, with the exception of the Corvette? Not many, so I'd say for its time, it was a relatively decent quality car.

 

there is thousands of small tiny sweet fiat 500 around in italy, and they come from the 60's

 

Hey they made good cars in the 60's I'll drink to that.

I'm talking late 70's and early 80's, though. How many cars from that era have survived?

 

Here we go again! Chevrolet could have done this and Chevrolet should have done that! It just makes me tired all over that people don't appreciate these cars for what they are and what they were. They just don't realize how much faster technology has advanced sense the computer revolution.

For the money these cars were as good as you could buy. I'm sure that for another ten grand Chevrolet could have built something a little more up to your standards, however, back then, if people were going to spend that kind of money they bought a Porsche. People didn't throw money at cars like that back then. This is one of the reasons that there were only two ZL1 Corvettes made.

If you wanted something like that you went to Motion Chevrolet and had them build it for you. The first car I had was a '65 Chevy II with a 230 strait six that put out 145 HP. The only aluminum parts were the pistons and maybe the distributer. Chevrolet now makes an all aluminum strait six that will do 270 HP and they put it in a TRUCK! For what this engine costs you could have bought two '65 Chevy II's or one Corvette. In 1965 the automobile industry could barely spell aluminum let alone make truck motors out of it.

The first two years that the Camaro was made you couldn't get an all aluminum engine and air conditioning was a very expensive option. The last two years the Camaro was made you couldn't get one WITHOUT an aluminum engine AND air conditioning.

I think GM did a pretty good job back then.

BigBlockk

Later.....

 

as others have stated, it was all about emissions and fuel economy. at the time, the alternative was no corvette at all.

 

GM had other engineering priorities.

 

Also remember during that period they(the big 3) were virtually bankrupt and getting their asses kicked by the Japanese!Funny how some things remain the same...

 

Definitely a sign of the times...

Compare my '82 Corvette with a federally mandated 85 MPH speedo to my '04 Z06 where I can push a button and put the traction control in "Competitive Mode"...not to mention the Z06 speedo reads more than twice what the '82 reads!



Yes, the ’81 and ’82 Corvettes are the “red-headed” step children of the C3 generation but without them GM would not have been able to transition to today’s computer controlled and fuel injected vehicles. I enjoy them for what they are - a “snap-shot” in time.

 

Well !!! I have owned my 78 SA L-82 4 speed since Feb 1979...still got it...it has been raced, made numerous long road trips (last was 7,000 miles when OD was at 100,000 miles)and presently has 130,000 miles on the original engine...hardly crap....and think the same is true of the 79-82 vettes,although don't know much about them..

 

Why are the 81 & 82 model years considered the Red headed step child? I have a 81 Im just curious?

 

The late 70's and early 80's was a tough time for US car makers. Imports were up and the Vega and Pinto was their best answer. The Vette could have easily been scraped. On the other hand, it made the 60's muscle cars a sought after item. Without this turn of events, there would be a lot less of the older cars around. It took 40 years to exceed the acceleration levels of the best BB 60's and 70's Vettes.

 

Actually there were only two ZL1s produced for sale. There is evidence that GM built several more for in-house purposes.

As far as the engineering goes, GM did the best they could at the time. Engineering and design techniques have advanced a lot since then. So yes, you can get much better parts now for great prices. What's on the car in stock form was the best when it was new.

 

IMHO the 81 and 82 are red-headed step children of the C3's because the 81 was the first year a computer was used on a Corvette...to control a carb at that. Then in 1982 GM improved the computer but dropped the carb and went with cross-fire injection...a marketing term for twin throttle bodies. The cross-fire survived two years (carried over to the 84 model year...we all know that no 83s were sold) and died when the Tuned Port Injection was introduced in 1985.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the looks and drivability of my '82and think the 80 - 82 are the best looking of the C3s - inside and out! I've said it before, I love the chrome bumpers of 68 - 73 but the love affair stops when I sit in one...dash/seats are too old school for me...again MHO!