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.
History / OriginalityGot a question about 1982-1992 Camaro or Firebird history? Have a question about original parts, options, RPO codes, when something was available, or how to document your car? Those questions, answers, and much more!
This car has been for sale for a while. This is EXACTLY as I would have ordered a Camaro in 1982.
So I called on this car yesterday. I asked for undercarriage pics, but the seller/dealer says he can't because he doesn't have a lift but said it's "like new". I asked why were the rear plastics replaced if the car spent it's life inside a garage? Sales guy says, I'm looking at it right now, I don't know what your talking about. I said some are gray and some are tan. He said, they are all the same color, it must be the photos. I also found out there is a coolant leak from the radiator. I just got tired of talking to him and thanked him for his time. There is a reason this car has been for sale for so long.
Cool car, but has some issues easily corrected by a hobbyist. But price would have to come down.
Also, looks like it has a Saginaw 4 speed trans after GM ran out of BW Super T10s midyear in 1982.
I asked why were the rear plastics replaced if the car spent it's life inside a garage? Sales guy says, I'm looking at it right now, I don't know what your talking about. I said some are gray and some are tan. He said, they are all the same color, it must be the photos.
Could be the camera flash or the protectant residue on the plastics. Ignore that the locking storage lid is the correct color, that's just part of the photo trickery.
Also, the door plates are the same, second, color.
I think the lighting might be an issue in that building. Because one rear seat mat looks tan while one looks gray.
But definitely the best year for Conteur seat option IMO.
As an early car fan that’s a keeper. But for $15k it must be perfect. Fresh fluids including brakes. No leaks. New tires with the old ones saved in bags for the new owner. Working AC.
My old 1982 Z28 I sold a couple years ago had some serious trouble with the rear plastics when I got it. The car had 20,373 miles on it when I bought it. It was stored in a climate controlled garage, the entire car looked like brand new EXCEPT for the rear plastics. I blamed it on the flourescent lights in the garage. I removed them and re dyed them the original color.
Look close at the pics of the inside rear of the black car. On the panel that is on the underside of the hatch panel....it looks like the leading edge is tan, but everything behind it is grey. I bet this car has the same thing going on that my car had. If you look at the rear headliner hold up piece on my car, it's not discolored at all....but the sail panels are faded all the way to the top of them where they meet the roof piece. It's like it spread all the way to the end of the plastic part, somehow.
About a year ago, I painted new interior rear seat area side panels on a 20k mile, 1980 Trans Am Pace Car. They were originally grey, and they had faded to a cardboard colored brown...almost exactly like the car in the op
It's hard for me to see that as a lighting issue because the color tan is too perfectly uniform. Looking at this picture, you can see it's tan all the way up to the top headliner trim (which appears to be gray), perfectly tan around the rear speaker cover, and tan toward the front where it meets the black plastic door trim and the gray bottom plastic trim.
BTW, I'm going finally ask since I'm not too familiar with the Camaro side. Is that passenger seat correct?
The 1982 states that the optional driver side Conteur seat comes with a similar style passenger seat without the adjustments:
The 1983 re-words by noting it has the adjustable headrest only:
This one in this Camaro does not have the adjustable headrest on the passenger side. Was this a change between the two years, optional, or wrong for the car?
BTW, I'm going finally ask since I'm not too familiar with the Camaro side. Is that passenger seat correct?
The 1982 states that the optional driver side Conteur seat comes with a similar style passenger seat without the adjustments:
The 1983 re-words by noting it has the adjustable headrest only:
This one in this Camaro does not have the adjustable headrest on the passenger side. Was this a change between the two years, optional, or wrong for the car?
Only the driver got the Lear Siegler seat. The passenger seat was upholstered to match.
Only the driver got the Lear Siegler seat. The passenger seat was upholstered to match.
I remember that, but I didn't realize that the adjustable headrest style seat for the passenger side didn't exist until later. It would have atleast matched the driver side better, minus the extra support controls.
My 82 Pace Car had the same passenger seat as the driver side. Obviously without the adjustment options, but the seats looked the same with the same headrest.
What about the door panels? Aren't those the window crank holes behind the round logo? Even though it has power windows or is that an 82 thing. Side note: Door sills/kick panel seem to change colors too.
What about the door panels? Aren't those the window crank holes behind the round logo? Even though it has power windows or is that an 82 thing. Side note: Door sills/kick panel seem to change colors too.
Yep, that's an 82 thing with the emblems covering the crank holes on a power window car
I remember that, but I didn't realize that the adjustable headrest style seat for the passenger side didn't exist until later. It would have atleast matched the driver side better, minus the extra support controls.
Exactly why I did not order the LS option for my 1982 Z28. 1982 sales brochure shows the two different seats together--through the window in the pic of the car, and in the interior pic in the upper right corner--just like the car for sale in this thread. For 1983, the passenger seat, at least, looked like the LS seat, just without the "18 points" of adjustability.
Also visible in the upper right pic is the cap on the door panel where a manual window crank would've been.
Exactly why I did not order the LS option for my 1982 Z28. 1982 sales brochure shows the two different seats together--through the window in the pic of the car, and in the interior pic in the upper right corner--just like the car for sale in this thread. For 1983, the passenger seat, at least, looked like the LS seat, just without the "18 points" of adjustability.
Also visible in the upper right pic is the cap on the door panel where a manual window crank would've been.
Thanks for the brochure adding further confirmation. It's weird that the seats mismatch but it's part of the Camaro side!
The manual window crank cover was also a thing on the 1982 Firebird side.
Exactly why I did not order the LS option for my 1982 Z28. 1982 sales brochure shows the two different seats together--through the window in the pic of the car, and in the interior pic in the upper right corner--just like the car for sale in this thread. For 1983, the passenger seat, at least, looked like the LS seat, just without the "18 points" of adjustability.
Also visible in the upper right pic is the cap on the door panel where a manual window crank would've been.
The car in the brochure has the high back bucket seats. (No adjustable headrests) It looks like the drivers seat is reclined back farther than the passenger seat.
No, the driver's seat in the car is an LS seat. You can see the little edge of the lighter insert upholstery beneath the headrest as it wraps over the top of the seatback, just like on the other two LS seats on the page. And you can also tell that the stitched edge of the driver's seat headrest has a slightly different contour than the stitched edge of the passenger seat headrest, matching the contour on the other two LS headrests on the page. Some people might need to enlarge the pic to be able to see those small details, but they're apparent without enlarging the pic.
No, the driver's seat in the car is an LS seat. You can see the little edge of the lighter insert upholstery beneath the headrest as it wraps over the top of the seatback, just like on the other two LS seats on the page. And you can also tell that the stitched edge of the driver's seat headrest has a slightly different contour than the stitched edge of the passenger seat headrest, matching the contour on the other two LS headrests on the page. Some people might need to enlarge the pic to be able to see those small details, but they're apparent without enlarging the pic.
I agree that the main picture looks to me to be the LS driver's seat and the passenger seat had the standard (non-adjustable) headrest bucket seat, based on the faint gray/silver shown where the adjustable headrest would meet the seat on the driver's side.
Regardless, the upper-right corner of the brochure does show the LS driver's seat with the non-adjustable headrest passenger seat to support how strange the Camaro could be with mismatched seats compared to the Firebird
If I were going to get an early model it would be a Pace Car or Id hold out for an 83 and up HO 5 spd 3.73 geared Z28. I do love those early cars and the HO cars ran really well in that configuration.
The seller is a bit lazy with the photos. Posted almost as many photos of the documentation as of the car. I'll never understand how sellers think they'll be taken seriously with minimal images of ANY vehicle for sale, much less on a $25K car
And i see he stayed away from any rear compartment shots.
08-01-2021, 09:14 AM
