ws6transam

I ran across this tonight and it's like time warping back to 1981. The cars, the hair-dos, the music. Perfect retro, only then it wasnt retro.

It appears to be a GM promotional video for the 1982 Firebird lineup and it also appears to have been shot in and around the General Motors Milford Proving grounds, in Milford, Michigan.

Click here to see Video

ws6transam

Yeah, 34 MPG. Who would have thunk it? Methinks I see a project brewing somewhere here.... Now we need to find an old '82 Firebird with those bowling ball hubcaps.

respectirocz

a whoping 34 mpg with a measly 4 banger, can someone say ls1 swap?

Kwiksilverz28

That was not measley. It had like 92hp. I had a 82 v-6 and it's 0 to 60 was.........wait I am almost there........................ up to 30 now.........................................

ws6transam

You know, we're making fun of that four cylinder, but please remember that a lowly Chevette or X-body like a Skylark or Citation only got 35 MPG, and usually only got about 25 MPG. So, imagine this, you got compact car mileage with that F-body back then. Which one would YOU want to be caught driving? A Shuvvit or a Firebird?

I once found one of those four cylinder '82 Firebirds in 1992 and I almost bought it to use as a winter beater. I should have bought it! It was in good shape but the fuel injected engine didnt run due to a harness hack attack. Nowdays I bet they are more rare than even a 15th anniversary Trans Am...

So I wonder, what kind of mileage could we coax out of a lightweight early eighties F-body with a drag coefficient of only .342 by using modern technology?

First we slap a big, fat overdrive T56 manual transmission in there. Then again, weight is an issue so maybe we ought to use a WC T5 transmission. Then we back it up with some 2.73 gears in the rear and some lightweight touring T/A tires & wheels.

We'll put some good brakes on all four corners ala the 1LE braking package. Since it doesnt hurt mileage, let's put a WS6 suspension under there with hollow 36 mm front swaybar.

No subframe connectors or strut tower brace, since they add weight. However, we'll clean out all seam sealer and MIG weld up all body seams to increase rigidity. Then we'll put the car on a diet by putting in lightweight carpet and some lightweight aftermarket seats. We'll keep the radio simple with some standard 6 x 9's in the pillars and a moderate stereo in front.

Next we'll turn to the engine compartment where we will install an efficient SEFI four cylinder engine, but with a TURBO for those times when we need to pass someone. Now, which particular engine should we choose?

3rdgenfan

..the Iron Dukes were Fuel injected?

Kwiksilverz28

Yes. 2.5 liter throttle body. I had a 84 Fiero with one. That was ok for a daily driver speedwise. That is until you drive some thing faster, then it tops out too quick. They geared the daylights out of them to make them go a little off the line.

3rdgenfan

I did not know that. Why didnt they TBI the 2.8s in the early thirdgen years?

I had an 84 Firebird with a carbed 2.8 lol

Kwiksilverz28

I have no idea. probably parts bin rumaging. Hence the Cross Fire Injection ala the vette on the 82 and 83 f-body. The 2.8 sucked. Had one. The 3.1 was the first step in the right direction. Highest hp from 82 and 83 was 165hp in the CFI. What was the lowest in 2002?

3rdgenfan

Yeah, notice i said "had" haha... Now I've got my misfiring IROC to deal with.



Damn mystery vacuum leaks...

Kwiksilverz28

I have the shop manual online if you need diagnotic charts.... They are for my 88 GTA 350, but same same...

3rdgenfan

If you could send me a link or whatever to DL it that would be great! I think its probablt the intake manifold bolts not being tightened all the way down(not sure how seeing as i got them tight as **** and went from the inside of the manifold outwards.)

But anything will help!

Thanks

Gord's Green Z28

190 HP in 1983 with 5 speed and 3.73's. Not bad in it's day. Carb too.

34 mpg in 1982 was pretty impressive. Especially considering you got either the 4 speed manual or the 3 speed auto.

I think those cars were a large step forward compared to the 2nd gens. The 2nd gens were too heavy, definately didn't get 34 mpg and I never liked the interiors in them. The ergonomics in the 3rd gen were pretty good.

Kwiksilverz28

No, I can not send you a link. Sorry. Tell me what you think you need, and I will download and email it to you.

ws6transam

Yeah well, so is the LS1!