[oldman]

Originally Posted by mikeman

Why do you say the old 3rd gens were terrible cars?

The 350 TPI cars were some of the most powerful best looking cars at the time.. The styling was sexy and they were very popular back in the day. In fact, I betcha you'd get more looks driving a clean mint looking 3rd gen Iroc around town than a 6th gen unless it's a ZL1-1LE model.

Those '80's 3rd gens are starting to creep up in value. Of course, like everything else, the ultra low mile high option mint examples are getting top dollar. I don't think the 6th gen manual cars will ever be a cult classic though. The automatics are faster and that's what people care about. Back in the first muscle car era, manuals were known to be faster than the auto slushboxes offered back then so the value and desirability on them increased more.

Going to have to disagree, the 3rd gen were blah all the way around. They were NOT fast, their chassis design sucked, and their stock dependability was also garbage. How can your restore or enjoy something that sucked right from the factory? I do like the look a bit more than the fastback Mustang (like the notch). Overall the 3rd gen is definitely on the limp scale. The 4th gen you get the LT1 and then the LS1, both glory engines and the frame front suspension were much better. For me and it is close I like 1st gen, 2nd gen (close almost tie), 6th gen, 4th gen, 5th gen and then 3rd gen. I would bet the collectible market would say the same thing. The 4th gen is an OK car, I just think the Challenger and Mustang were "better" and therefore the 5th gen suffers in comparison. Same thing goes for the Mustang II ( I actually like the way they looked), but they were Pintos and there was no getting around it. So are we going to see high price Mustang II Mach 1s? doubtful... even though OK looking their performance really sucked bad.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by oldman

Going to have to disagree, the 3rd gen were blah all the way around. They were NOT fast, their chassis design sucked, and their stock dependability was also garbage.

Actually, the chassis was pretty good for its time, better than its leaf-sprung predecessors. Remember that although the 3rd gen started in 1982, that means that both the chassis design and the powerplant state of tune were strictly 1970's. Blah as far as under the hood was concerned, sure.

Truth be told, the 3rd and 4th gen torque arm/PHB rear axle suspension is one of the top two simple stick-axle suspensions (the other being the 3-link / PHB arrangement found in the S197 Mustangs). Either of those is better than the triangulated 4-link arrangements as used on Chevelles, '78 - 80's A/G body cars, and Fox/SN95 Mustangs.

The 4th gen Camaro is a really easy car to jump into cold and drive hard (save for some years being subject to brake hop that most people today might not be aware of). The 3rd gen shouldn't be all that much different except for being less powerful.


Circle track guys get into much fancier suspension arrangements that disqualify them from being considered "simple".


Norm

[Abubaca]

For me and it is close I like 1st gen, 2nd gen (close almost tie), 6th gen, 4th gen, 5th gen and then 3rd gen. I would bet the collectible market would say the same thing.

First gen is pretty much in a class of it's own. Not many cars anywhere bringin' that much collector traction. 5th and 6th gens are still depreciating so who knows where they'll land. I actually have an interesting thread going about that. ....and except for maybe the early split bumper cars, the good thirdgens are bringing more money than the 2nd or 4th gens. Some by a good margin. The very top thirdgens are going for over $50k right now, with LOTS moving between $25k and $35k. Mine sold for just under that. ...and lots of people, myself included, put it's good looks up there above all except maybe the 1st gen. You don't have to agree of course, but it's not some fringe group of rando enthusiasts buying these cars. I doubt there's a hotter American collector car right now. -Maybe Fox Bodies 70s and 80s era single cabs....hard to say.


As for what they were, sure...they were slow like ALL cars back then. But back then, it delivered impressive performance by comparison. More politics there than anything though. Chassis was actually pretty good, assuming you view through the lens of the times. .83 on the skidpad wasn't tooo shabby in '82! Quality was ok. Not great, fair enough. I've haven't ever heard of general reliability issues with the 3rd gen compared with other generations. Oviously all have their quirks to this day. It's an F-Body after all, I get it. But I don't see it any better or any worse than any other F-Body.

[c4racer]

Originally Posted by 1LEASYE

Think of it like this: We are at the end of the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) Age.

From what it appears every mass production to boutique car marker world wide will be pushing out more hybrid cars by 2030 at the latest and their respective car lineups maybe all electric by then (depending on how much longer the C19 causes havoc for these companies).

Get what you can get while you can get it and enjoy the original age of the automobile while you can before electricity fully takes over and then the hybrids and fully electric cars they have their time.

That's kind of what prompted me to replace my 2013 Panamera with a 5 year older M5 - the one with the V10 and a 6speed manual. Nobody will ever be making a car like that again - real manual trans and a 500hp NA V10 that rev's up to 8500rpm. It's a pretty special car. And I have a newish Colorado to pile the miles on whenever needed so that helps.