What's this likely to have 305ci or 350ci ?

Roadkill · October 20, 2006, 10:49:12 AM

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290041273317&sspagename=ADME%3AL%3ARTQ%3AUK%3A1&rd=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290041273317&sspagename=ADME%3AL%3ARTQ%3AUK%3A1&rd=1

I've emailed the guy suggesting it's a 305ci . . . . It must be mustn't it ?

55starchief · October 20, 2006, 10:52:16 AM

Looks like it, i think the 350's were only like ryans with the tuned port injection

sixpack2639 · October 20, 2006, 11:05:25 AM

It looks like a Z28 package to me. It's maybe had a respray so all the Z28 detailing is gone except for the badges behind the front wheels down on the rockers and they look like they were sprayed over too. I thought all of the Z28 packages had the 5.7l 350ci engine???

FUBAR · October 20, 2006, 11:29:21 AM

Simple, there were NO 5.7ltr Camaros or 'birds pre 1987
there were about 50 in '86 as test cars but thats it.

FUBAR · October 20, 2006, 11:34:00 AM

See here for full options:

http://www.thirdgen.org/1982-chevy-camaro\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.thirdgen.org/1982-chevy-camaro

It will either have the same engine as my old car, the LG4 with a 4bbl Carb (but 20hp less cos of the year

)or a 2bbl TBI. (165bhp) either way its a 305 regardless, just thank god its not the 4 banger version

a massive 90hp!!!

FUBAR · October 20, 2006, 11:41:28 AM

Oh and with the wear on the wheel & interior you can stick a 1 infront of the mileage too...

And its got the clock in the centre console, thats a really rare option apparantly.

Whats also very strange is it appears to have an odd pair of 4th gen seats in it... (looking at the belt holder style to determine that...) but the seats are definately an odd pair!

Its also missing 1 rear speaker cover.

FUBAR · October 20, 2006, 11:41:47 AM

Yeay Quadruple Post!!!

philoldsmobile · October 20, 2006, 01:09:14 PM

Quoting: FUBAR

Simple, there were NO 5.7ltr Camaros or 'birds pre 1987
there were about 50 in '86 as test cars but thats it.

correctamondo, ALL were crushed, too so its 87 0nwards for 350

there were no carb'd 350s either....

camaro V8's were...

LG4 - 305 ci 4bbl 145 - 165 BHP
L69 - 305 HO 4bbl 190 BHP
LB9 - 305 TPI 190 - 220 BHP
L03 - 305 TBI 170 BHP
L98 - 350 TPI - 245 (ish, memory fails me exactly) BHP

philoldsmobile · October 20, 2006, 01:16:19 PM

i'd secon 135k miles. that is the LG4 305, in that year, making 145 bhp

due to the changes in how the engines were rated, and the fact that the 3rd gen was so much more efficient in general, made people often believe it had to be a 350, as previous incarnations of the 305 were rather less pokey..

fact of the matter is, even the base 305 while not fast, was producing a decent 250lbs/ft of torque, so felt far quicker than the numbers sugested.. a really good late LG4 could do 60 in 7.7 secs when it had a few miles on it to loosen up, out the showroom, the 82 LG4 was good for 60 in about 9 secs, despite being only 20bhp less..

most were quicker with 100,000 on the clock than when they were new

sixpack2639 · October 20, 2006, 02:04:27 PM

Well, that shows how much I know about Camaros!

Roadkill · October 20, 2006, 03:18:12 PM

Quoting: sixpack2639

Well, that shows how much I know about Camaros!

Well, I told him i'm sure it's a 305ci and that he should check it - so it's up to him . . .

Pod · October 20, 2006, 03:35:52 PM

It's not necessarily the original engine.
Although the pictures don't look like it's been changed (recently).

FUBAR · October 20, 2006, 05:25:56 PM

Quoting: Roadkill

Well, I told him i'm sure it's a 305ci and that he should check it - so it's up to him . . .

What are you thinking then Deano?

Roadkill · October 21, 2006, 01:27:23 PM

Quoting: FUBAR

What are you thinking then Deano?

Oh, absolutely nothing - I was merely being neighbourly . . . . Not thinking of buying it or anything !

CJ-IROCZ · October 21, 2006, 03:19:04 PM

I saw this one and emailed the guy asking what was the engine out of due to the fact its a '82.

he said its a 305 but the guy who sold it to him sold it as a 350 and that the reason he is describing it as a 350 is that he keeps forgetting its a 5ltr 305 .

mine is a '87 L98 350 but the build sheet reads '86

Roadkill · October 23, 2006, 04:53:34 AM

Quoting: Fin170703

I saw this one and emailed the guy asking what was the engine out of due to the fact its a '82.

Ahh, Of course, Craig, I noticed that . . .

Me thinks he's doing a bit of back peddling as he said to me he wasn't sure.

CJ-IROCZ · October 23, 2006, 04:00:03 PM

we know it , he knows it. but he still has not changed the description.

i see someone getting ripped off

philoldsmobile · October 23, 2006, 04:53:52 PM

meh... caveat empor or whatever it is....

yup, i personaly feel the guy should change his description, but at theend of the day, on ebay motors, take nothing as read, and always view a car before purchase, base your desision to bid on your own oppinnion of the car...

as always, with yanks, assume mass bodging and crappy work, sadly they seem to be among the most bodged and butcherd cars on the road, and finding nice ones can be difficult..

philoldsmobile · October 23, 2006, 04:57:06 PM

wehey, he's lowerd reserve, and in the questions bit has said its a 305!

looks ok to me, and unusualy, not too fooked with (if at all)....

CJ-IROCZ · October 23, 2006, 05:35:04 PM

Ha ha thats my question to him,.

at least he has posted it, and like you said phil , it dont look a bad car

FUBAR · October 24, 2006, 04:05:08 AM

As you say at least he's put something on there now with it showing as a 305. not a bad car though by the looks of it.

Roadkill · October 24, 2006, 05:06:53 AM

Looks very stock (apart from paint).

I just think he could make the 305ci bit a little clearer . . .