The 1982 Chevrolet Camaro marked the debut of the third generation, a significant redesign that embraced a sportier, more aerodynamic aesthetic. Available as a 2-door coupe, key trims included the base model, Berlinetta, Z28, and the performance-oriented Camaro IROC-Z (though the IROC-Z nameplate officially debuted in 1985, its spirit was present). It was popular for its aggressive styling and improved handling, offering a more modern take on the classic muscle car formula at a competitive price range, generally starting in the low to mid-$9,000s.
The Good
The 1982 Camaro offered a compelling blend of sporty design and accessible performance, appealing to enthusiasts with its sharp handling and available V6/V8 power. For practical buyers, its redesigned body was more fuel-efficient than its predecessors, and its perceived value was high for a car with such dynamic looks and driving characteristics.
The Bad
Potential buyers of the 1982 Camaro should watch out for rust, particularly in the rocker panels, wheel wells, and subframes. Electrical issues, especially with dashboard components and window regulators, can be common. Engine performance can vary greatly depending on the specific powerplant, and some base engines were underpowered.
1982 Chevrolet Camaro: Quick Overview
- Engine Options:
- 2.5L Iron Duke I4
- 2.8L LE2 V6
- 5.0L LG8 V8 (Cross-Fire Injection)
- 5.0L L69 V8 (High Output 4-barrel carb)
- Horsepower:
- 2.5L I4: 90 hp
- 2.8L V6: 102 hp
- 5.0L LG8 V8: 145 hp
- 5.0L L69 V8: 175 hp
- Fuel Economy (EPA Estimated):
- 2.5L I4 (manual): Approximately 22 MPG city / 34 MPG highway
- 2.8L V6 (automatic): Approximately 19 MPG city / 27 MPG highway
- 5.0L V8 (manual): Approximately 16 MPG city / 24 MPG highway
- Note: Fuel economy varied significantly based on engine, transmission, and driving conditions.
- 0-60 Times:
- 2.5L I4: 13-15 seconds (approx.)
- 2.8L V6: 10-12 seconds (approx.)
- 5.0L V8 (LG8): 8-10 seconds (approx.)
- 5.0L V8 (L69): 7-8 seconds (approx.)
- Note: These are estimates and can vary based on specific configurations and driver skill.
- Towing Capacity:
- The 1982 Camaro was not designed for towing; therefore, no official towing capacity is listed.
- Trim-Level Features:
- Base: Standard coupe, 4-speed manual transmission, basic interior appointments, 14-inch wheels.
- Berlinetta: Featured upgraded interior, power windows and locks (optional), distinctive grille and badging, upgraded suspension, air conditioning standard.
- Z28: Sport suspension, 4-wheel disc brakes, specific aerodynamic body kit (hood scoop, ground effects), optional higher-output V8 engine, 15-inch alloy wheels, performance tires.
- Camaro (unofficial precursor to IROC-Z spirit): While the IROC-Z wasn't a distinct trim until 1985, the 1982 Z28 offered the performance-oriented package that laid the groundwork, including the L69 engine option for true performance enthusiasts.
1982 Chevrolet Camaro Specifications
Vehicle Information
| Year | 1982 |
| Make | Chevrolet |
| Model | Camaro |
| Trim | - |
| Style | - |
| Type | Coupe |
| Category | Compact Car |
Manufacturing Details
| Made In | United States |
| Manufacturing City | NORWOOD |
Dimensions
| Doors | 2-Door |
| Curb Weight | - |
| Gross Vehicle Weight Rating | - |
| Overall Height | - |
| Overall Length | - |
| Overall Width | - |
| Wheelbase Length | - |
| Standard Seating | - |
Engine & Performance
| Engine | V-8 |
| Engine Size | 4.3L |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 |
| Transmission | 4-Speed Manual |
| Transmission Type | Manual |
| Transmission Speeds | 4-Speed |
| Drivetrain | Rear-Wheel Drive |
Additional Features
| Anti-Brake System | - |
| Steering Type | - |
Pricing
| Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) | - |
| Invoice Price | - |
| Delivery Charges | - |
Vehicle History Report
Vehicle
Specifications
Specifications
Ownership
History
History
All History
Events
Events
NMVTIS Title
History Check
History Check
Salvage/Rebuilt
Check
Check
Accident
Check
Check
Theft
Check
Check
Open Lien
Check
Check
Past Sale
Listings
Listings
Safety
Recalls
Recalls
Odometer
Check
Check
Market Price
Analysis
Analysis
What Problems Does the 1982 Chevrolet Camaro Have?
The 1982 Chevrolet Camaro, being an early model of the third generation, experienced some common issues that owners and mechanics frequently reported. A primary concern for many was rust, especially in areas prone to moisture accumulation like the rocker panels, lower fenders, and the floor pans. The subframe connectors were also a common area for corrosion. Electrically, issues could arise with the dashboard instruments, leading to flickering gauges or non-functional components. Window regulators were another frequent culprit for failure, often resulting in the inability to operate the power windows. The early Cross-Fire Injection system on the 5.0L V8, while an improvement over carburetors, could sometimes be finicky to tune and maintain, leading to driveability issues if not properly serviced. Some owners reported problems with the ignition system, including coil and distributor issues. The transmission, particularly the automatic TH700-R4, could develop issues if not maintained, such as slipping or delayed engagement. For the 1982 model year specifically, there were a few recalls. One notable recall involved the automatic transmission shift cable, which could potentially detach, leading to the vehicle shifting out of park unexpectedly. Another recall addressed potential issues with the steering column lock. Long-term reliability is largely dependent on the specific powertrain chosen and the level of maintenance the vehicle has received. The V8 models, especially those with the 4-barrel carburetor (L69), tended to be more robust than the base 4-cylinder or V6 engines, which were sometimes seen as underpowered and more prone to strain. The overall chassis and body structure, while subject to rust, were generally solid if cared for. However, the sheer age of these vehicles means that component wear and tear are inevitable, and ongoing maintenance is crucial for continued reliability. Specific model year variations in terms of engine tuning and minor component changes might exist, but the general trend of rust and electrical issues remained consistent across the early third-gen Camaros.
How long will the 1982 Chevrolet Camaro last?
Estimating average mileage for a 1982 Chevrolet Camaro is challenging due to its age and the varying levels of use and care. However, vehicles that have been regularly maintained and garaged might have accumulated between 100,000 and 200,000 miles. Those that have been driven extensively or less meticulously cared for could have significantly higher mileage or be non-operational. Long-term durability is a mixed bag. The V8 engines, particularly the L69, are known for their robustness and can last for hundreds of thousands of miles with proper maintenance. The chassis, however, is susceptible to rust, which can compromise structural integrity over time if not addressed. Electrical systems and interior components are also prone to wear and degradation. Weaknesses that emerge over time often include suspension wear, aging seals and gaskets, and corrosion. Cars that have survived into the present day often owe their longevity to dedicated owners who have invested in regular upkeep and rust prevention.
What Technology & Safety Features are Included?
The 1982 Chevrolet Camaro, by modern standards, was quite basic in terms of technology, entertainment, and safety features. Its design ethos prioritized performance and style over advanced electronics. The standard entertainment system typically consisted of an AM/FM radio, with an AM/FM stereo with a cassette player often being an optional upgrade. Power windows and power door locks were also optional on lower trims, becoming standard on some higher-end models like the Berlinetta. Air conditioning was a common, albeit optional, comfort feature. Cruise control was another optional convenience. Driver-assistance features as we know them today simply did not exist. There were no advanced traction control systems, parking sensors, or rearview cameras. The focus was on the driver's direct input. Safety features were limited to the expected for the era. Standard safety equipment included seat belts (lap and shoulder belts in the front), padded dashboards and steering wheels, and side-impact door beams. The car featured a relatively robust unibody construction for its time, but it lacked modern crumple zones. Regarding crash-test ratings, specific data for the 1982 model year from organizations like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is scarce and not directly comparable to today's rigorous testing protocols. However, contemporary reviews and anecdotal evidence suggest that while the car offered a solid feel, its passive safety systems were rudimentary compared to contemporary and especially modern vehicles. The absence of airbags, advanced braking systems like ABS, and sophisticated structural engineering means that, in a severe collision, occupant protection would be significantly less than in vehicles from later decades. Therefore, while it was equipped with the safety standards of the early 1980s, it would not perform well in modern crash tests.
What Colors Options are Available?
We’re working on this section!
In the meantime, feel free to explore the other sections for more content.
In the meantime, feel free to explore the other sections for more content.
1982 Chevrolet Camaro Prices and Market Value
When new, the 1982 Chevrolet Camaro had a starting MSRP that typically ranged from around $9,000 for a base model to over $13,000 for a well-equipped Z28. Current used market prices for the 1982 Camaro vary dramatically based on condition, mileage, originality, and trim level. Project cars or those needing significant work might be found for a few thousand dollars, while pristine, low-mileage Z28 or rare configurations could fetch $15,000 to $25,000 or more. The depreciation curve for the 1982 Camaro, like most cars from its era, was steep in its early years. However, as a classic sports coupe, it has stabilized and is now appreciated by enthusiasts. Factors affecting resale value include the presence of original documentation, the condition of the engine and transmission, the extent of rust damage, the originality of the paint and interior, and whether it's a desirable V8 model (especially the L69) or a more common 4-cylinder or V6 version.
1982 Chevrolet Camaro Cost of Ownership
Owning a 1982 Chevrolet Camaro can range from moderately economical to surprisingly costly, depending on usage and condition. Fuel costs will vary significantly with the engine; the 4-cylinder and V6 are more fuel-efficient, while V8 models will consume more gasoline. Insurance rates for classic vehicles can be reasonable with specialized policies, but standard coverage might be higher due to its sporty nature. Maintenance is generally straightforward for simpler mechanicals, but parts availability for some specific components can be challenging, potentially increasing repair costs. Long-term ownership can become costly if rust damage is extensive or if major mechanical issues arise, particularly with the early fuel injection systems. Overall, while not prohibitively expensive, it requires diligent maintenance to remain economical and reliable.
1982 Chevrolet Camaro Fuel Efficiency
Fuel Type
Gasoline
Fuel Capacity
-
City Mileage
-
Highway Mileage
-
1982 Chevrolet Camaro Recalls & Defects
Parking Brake:conventional
Recall date
1991-04-11
Recall no.
91v055000
Source
NHTSA
Summary
Parking Brake Adjuster Fails TO Operate and DO NOT Work After Brake PAD Wear.
Consequence
Parking Brakes Will NOT Completely Hold A Parked Vehiclewhen Parked ON A Slope, Causing Unintended Vehicle Rollaway Which Could Resultin A Vehicle Accident.
Remedy
Replace Nonfunctioning Parking Brake Adjusters.
Notes
System: Parking Brake.vehicle Description: Passenger Cars; Firebirds and Camaros With Manualtransmissions and Rear Disk Brakes and Fieros With Manual Transmissions.
Seat Belts:front:anchorage
Recall date
1982-09-21
Recall no.
82v089000
Source
NHTSA
Summary
THE Involved Vehicles DO NOT Conform TO Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard NO. 210, "seat Belt Assembly Anchorages". THE Non-Compliance Exists Because THE Rear Seat Belt Anchorages MAY Pull Through THE Underbody OF THE Vehicle IF Enough Force IS Applied.
Consequence
Consequence OF Defect: IN THE Event OF AN Accident, Personal Injury or Death MAY Result From A Failure OF Belt TO Adequately Restrain Occupants.
Remedy
Upon Inspection, Dealer Will Install A Rear Seat Belt Anchorage Reinforcement KIT TO Ensure Proper Anchoring OF Seat Belts Without Charge TO Owner.
Notes
Vehicle Description: Passenger Vehicles.system: Interior; Seat Belt Assembly.
Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly
Recall date
1982-07-29
Recall no.
82v076000
Source
NHTSA
Summary
Fuel Tank Ventilator Valve IN THE Fuel System MAY Produce A Loud and Persistent "whistle" During Venting OF THE Tank. IF THE Fuel Filler CAP IS Removed While This Condition Exists and THE Tank IS More Than 3/4 Full, Gasoline MAY BE Forced OUT OF THE Filler Neck Onto Bystanders.
Consequence
Consequence OF Defect: Fire and Personal Injury Could Result IF Introduced TO AN Ignition Source.
Remedy
Dealer Will Inspect And, IF Necessary, Replace THE Fuel Tank Ventilator and Pressure Control Valves Without Charge TO Owner.
Notes
Vehicle Description: Passenger Vehicles Equipped With Fuel Injection Engines.ystem: Fuel; Fuel Tank Ventilator Valve.: Fire and Personal Injury Could Result IN THE Presenceof AN Ignition Source.
Equipment
Recall date
2007-10-24
Recall no.
07e088000
Source
NHTSA
Summary
Certain Honeywell Fram Racing Brand HP4 and HP8 OIL Filters That Were Manufactured From MAY 25, 2006, Through September 14, 2007, and Sold FOR USE AS Replacement Equipment FOR Vehicles List Above. THE Affected Filters ARE Marked With A Date Code A61451 Through A72571 Sequentially. THE Date Code and Part Number Appear ON THE Filter Housing. Fram Racing HP4 and HP8 OIL Filters NOT Bearing A Date Code IN This Range ARE NOT Affected BY This Recall. THE Gasket OF THE OIL Filter Becomes More Pliable Under High Temperatures and Pressures.
Consequence
This Condition MAY Cause Inadequate Sealing and Loss OF Engine Oil, Possibly Resulting IN A Fire.
Remedy
Honeywell Will Replace THE Affected OIL Filters Free OF Charge. THE Recall Began During November 2007. Owners CAN Contact Fram Customer Service Toll-Free AT 1-800-890-2075.
Notes
Customers MAY Contact THE National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Vehicle Safety Hotline AT 1-888-327-4236 (Tty: 1-800-424-9153); or GO TO Http://Www.safercar.gov.
1982 Chevrolet Camaro Insurance
Insurance for a 1982 Chevrolet Camaro is moderately priced, reflecting its status as a Coupe with strong safety ratings and
reasonable repair costs.
reasonable repair costs.
How Does the 1982 Chevrolet Camaro Compare to Other Coupe?
The 1982 Chevrolet Camaro entered a competitive landscape of sporty coupes and performance cars. Key rivals included the Ford Mustang, Pontiac Firebird (which shared many components with the Camaro), and import models like the Datsun/Nissan 300ZX and Toyota Celica Supra. In terms of performance, the V8-powered Camaro Z28, especially with the L69 engine, offered competitive acceleration and handling for its time, often outperforming base V6 Mustangs and less powerful imports. However, the base 4-cylinder and V6 Camaros were outpaced by more potent versions of their rivals. Features-wise, the Camaro offered a modern, albeit spartan, interior for its class. While it lacked the refined amenities or advanced technology found in some Japanese competitors, its American muscle car aesthetic was appealing. Reliability was a mixed bag; the third-generation Camaro was a significant leap forward in design, but early models, like many cars of this era, could be prone to rust and electrical gremlins. The Mustang generally held its own in reliability, while the Japanese alternatives often had a reputation for greater long-term dependability and fewer rust issues. Price-wise, the Camaro was often positioned as an accessible performance option, generally undercutting more specialized sports cars while offering more performance than some entry-level coupes. Alternatives that offered similar or better performance and reliability might include: the Ford Mustang GT (especially later models), the Pontiac Firebird Trans Am (offering a similar V8 experience with slightly different styling), or for a more refined experience with comparable performance (in some configurations), the Toyota Celica Supra or Datsun/Nissan 300ZX. However, if pure V8 muscle car heritage and an aggressive American styling are paramount, the 1982 Camaro, particularly in Z28 trim, remains a compelling choice despite potential reliability concerns compared to its Japanese counterparts.
Final Verdict: Is the 1982 Chevrolet Camaro a Good Coupe?
The 1982 Chevrolet Camaro is ideal for nostalgia-seeking enthusiasts who appreciate its iconic third-generation styling and American muscle car heritage. It's worth buying for those who enjoy classic car ownership, understand the need for ongoing maintenance, and are looking for a project car or a weekend cruiser. It is absolutely a used purchase, as new models are long gone. Specific trims to target would be the Z28, especially those equipped with the higher-output V8 engine (L69), for the best performance. Buyers should prioritize vehicles with minimal rust, a solid mechanical foundation, and good documentation. It's not the ideal choice for someone seeking flawless daily reliability or cutting-edge technology, but for the right enthusiast, it offers a rewarding and stylish ownership experience at a reasonable entry point into classic car collecting.
Eugene S
Eugene is an automotive enthusiast with over 15 years of experience in the used car market. As a writer at VINCheck.info, he brings deep industry insight and a passion for cars, helping readers make smart, informed decisions. Eugene has written hundreds of used car reviews and is known for breaking down complex automotive topics into clear, actionable advice. Over the years, he has driven and worked on a wide range of vehicles—starting with tuning street cars in his early days and eventually focusing on performance upgrades and reliability improvements. Today, he specializes in evaluating used vehicles through the lens of real-world ownership and enthusiast needs. A longtime fan of Porsche, Eugene especially appreciates vehicles that blend durability with driving enjoyment.