Stare at this picture for a minute or so, and you’re going to swear someone put some undersized wheels and tires from a Toyota Tercel on this Camaro. We’ve become so used to cars having such large wheels, that our sense of proportions have become…changed. And we’ve become used to all the remaining F-Bodies on the streets sport big wheels. Which all explains why I stopped to shoot this Camaro, as it’s not the kind of car that would normally get me to do that. I just couldn’t take my eyes off its tiny wheels and tires, and smile as I shot.
Well, that and the fact that it brought back memories of one almost identical to it that I had as a rental car once.
I had forgotten that these Camaros still came with 14″ wheels, except for the Z28. But I had to walk across the street to convince myself I wasn’t seeing things, and to see the exact tire size: P205/70R14. Which is what it wore as it rolled off the factory floor. And that’s only by virtue of it being a Berlinetta, which was the high-end “touring car” version. The base Sports Coupe made do with narrower (6″) steel wheels and 195/75R14s.
Now don’t get me wrong; I’m not suggesting this is some kind of GM Deadly Sin like the truly undersized tires put on American cars in the 1960s. It’s just to point out how far we’ve come, considering the standard 18″ wheels on a base 2017 Camaro, and optional 19 and 20 inchers.
Let’s just say there’s plenty of daylight between the tops of these mini-donuts and the fender lips.
I somehow ended up with a Camaro very much like this on a business trip to Dallas. I was not expecting to be thrilled by it, and I was not let down. I will try to restrain myself for a change, and keep it objective, as I already vented my spleen on these on a Deadly Sin CC. And I got it out of my system, and I rather appreciate seeing one on the street in such original condition.
Obviously, the interior was a huge contrast from my Mercedes 300E; realistically, the quality of the materials were pretty much on polar ends of the spectrum. The Camaro had lots of nasty black plastic that I guess someone thought had a sort of spacey-80s look that looked cool in a properly-lit and shot ad photo, but in real life, close-up, it looked and felt really cheap and cheesy. And the panels on the various plastic pieces didn’t all fit quite right. It was more liek something one might expect in something like a Bricklin, or kit car. But maybe I’m starting to exaggerate already again.
Needless to say, this one is as nice of condition interior of one of these I’ve seen…forever. I have to assume this Camaro was bought by someone on the very old spectrum of Camaro buyer demographics, and ended up sitting in a garage a lot. And now a grandson or grand-nephew is driving it. There’s just no other explanation.
The Berlinetta (and my rental) came with the 2.8 L 60° V6 that was rated at a 112 hp. Let’s look on the bright side (for a change); at least it didn’t come with the 90 hp Iron Duke 2.5 L four, which was the standard engine in the Sports Coupe. Teamed with the three-speed THM automatic, the V6 was not exactly a fast car (see how positive I’m staying?). Tip in, as with all GM cars of the era, was pretty good, a combination of engines tuned for good low-speed torque and a throttle linkage that opened the two-barrel carb’s throttle plates disproportionately fast in the first part of the pedal’s travel.
But once past 30 or 35, acceleration became increasingly leisurely despite the V6’s roarty exhaust. It’s as might be expected, given the very poor power-to-weight ratio (27lbs/hp). That’s substantially worse than a 1967 Camaro six (23lbs/hp). And the torque was even disproportionately worse, due to the significantly smaller displacement. At least the automatic now had all of three gears.
At freeway speeds, the V6 Camaro rental felt strained at anything above a relaxed 55-65 mph cruise, again the polar opposite of my 300E, loped along effortlessly at 110 and was willing to sprint to 140, despite having almost the same size engines. And then there were the brakes, and the ride, and the… OK; I realize this is a futile comparison, and the difference was of course accentuated given that I was stepping out of a tall, roomy sedan and into a low sporty car. But that just goes to show that appearances are of course deceiving, as have so many six cylinder pony cars over the years.
Opening the rear hatch to stow my luggage was a revelation, of the wrong kind: It was surprisingly small and shallow, thanks to the Camaro’s big live rear axle and fuel tank. That’s one thing that would have been undoubtedly improved if GM had made the FWD GM-80 cars to replace these. Space utilization just wasn’t.
No, I was not happy behind the wheel of that Camaro those few days in Dallas. Given the huge popularity of Suburbans and pickups in Texas already back then, sitting so low in it, and with its mediocre visibility, was something of a glimpse into the future, and not a good one.
But all that’s in the far past; except of course the part about tall CUVs and pickups. I’ve long needed to see this vintage Camaro in some positive light, and seeing it sitting there, on its original little wheels and with so much gap between the tires and fender openings, brought a big smile to my face. Which given the nasty weather and my history with these cars was no mean feat. Who would have thought that me, of all people, could find an F-Body Camaro to be so therapeutic?
Yep, wheel sizes have grown so much since the last century. My 2016 Astra, a humble family hatchback, drives on 16″s, which are the smallest wheels in the lineup. They get to 18″ at the top end.
And when the sporty OPC model will arrive, it’ll be wearing 19s!
A trend driven by aesthetics, no doubt, not functionality or handling.
Yep, many of today’s wheels are too big, too heavy, too fragile, and shod with too low profile tires. And expensive as heck.
.
The big wheels are there to assist in making more road noise and harsher ride.
Agree. My wife’s now-departed Ford Edge had 20″ and the ride was terrible. And probably contributed to the chassis feeling heavy and lethargic as hell.
I’d say for the general fleet, yes, but the root of bigger wheels is braking performance, since larger diameter rotors need a large diameter wheel to accomidate them. The last gen Z/28s brake rotors were larger than the wheels on the third gen Z/28s, and the performance between the two is incomparable. Generally to clear disc brakes you need to add about 4″ minimum in wheel diameter to the rotor diameter
Phil, the prolipheration of large diameter wheels has plummeted cost for tires in popular sizes the last few years, 10 years ago any size ending with 18 or above would cost as much as a full set of tires ending with 16. Now you’re lucky to find certain 16″ sizes being made at all, and the cost per tire may be even more than some 18″ or 20″ tires. I actually made my recent larger diameter wheel purchase on the basis of the tires in the overall heights and widths I desired being far more available and inexpensive compared to my last set of wheels.
Try getting 12″. Last time I needed tyres for the ’84 Suzuki Swift, I wound up with light aeroplane tyres!
Overall braking performance is the reason behind the increase in the diameter of base model wheels. Rotor diameter is dictated by the room in the center of the wheel and larger rotors are the best way to improve overall braking performance. Yes you can increase the size of the pad but that means that the rotor temp will climb quicker in hard or extended braking.
Last fall it was time for new winter tires for my daughter’s car. Since she was away at school and the wheels were here I through them into the truck and headed to Sam’s club to get them before the $80 off a set promotion ended. Because they are aluminum they decided to not put clip on weights on the outer face. Instead they used the stick on placed where the spokes meet the rim. They did not clear the brakes on the front. We put them on and went to go for a drive. There were some nice clunks as I backed the car up. So I watched as she backed it up to get them in a good location so I could pry them off as she needed to get back to school. Luckily there wasn’t much weight and it wasn’t really noticeable. However she came back down a few weeks later and took it back and they re-balanced all 4 with clip on weights.
So much for those myths that Panthers didn’t change during their lifetime because like this Camaro the platform started life with 14″ wheels.
Brakes, yeah I forgot about that, that is true to some extent. But I don’t think it explains the proliferation of 18″+ wheels.
Same reason you see rear wings on the backs of stock Corollas. No doubt it’s done for looks but it’s imitation of a look that is functional on *something*
The real story is in the aspect ratios though, keep in mind cars have gained A LOT of body mass over the last 15 years, and overall tire height has increased in diameter to match. 18″ profiles on some cars aren’t much different from 16″s in the 90s.
Note I said base model wheel sizes. However mfgs and dealers want more profit so they offer and sell those larger wheels as extremely profitable options.
I think it looks good… Especially, with the special gold-toned Berlinetta road wheels, that were made just for this edition.
The Berlinetta was supposed to be the Euro-luxury Camaro.
With the gold pinstriping and special gold wheels, I equate it to being like those 80’s-90’s Jeep Cherokee Limiteds.
It’s funny, the wheels don’t actually look that undersized (for the era) from the side view, but the front and rear quarter views greatly emphasize how small they are relative to the amount of rubber and wheel openings.
I’ve always much preferred this generation Firebird’s styling, with its hidden headlights, full-width taillights, and smoother lines. Unlike other generations, it really made the Camaro look like the budget version.
Agreed, Brendan:
The Best.
F-bodies.
Ever!
+1 The long front overhang is actually necessary to accomidate the radically sloping nose of the Firebird, and it pulls it off well. I think the Firebird had the smoother transition into this body too, the 79-81s previewed the full width taillights, offset hood bulge and sloping nose with low grille ducts in the bumper opening, the Camaro carried over the taillight design from 81 but not much else, it’s front end(especially on this Berlinetta) looks more like a Monza successor.
Didn’t this generation of Camaro have a “special” instrument panel? I’m not sure when it was phased in, but it had faux digital instruments and the controls were put on little “wings” each side of the instrument panel so that they could be pivoted towards the steering wheel.
Yes it did.
The Space-Age dash pod arrived with the 1984 Berlinettas — definitely the car’s most unique feature, though it didn’t help Berlinetta sales much.
Below is the ’83 Berlinetta interior as shown in the Camaro Brochure:
I remember the rental Camaros in 1984 in LA. $29 a day. That amazed me being a young Australian on holidays not long out of school. It’d be an Iron Duke, but that sounded pretty cool to me.
Well Paul, I guess you are further along in your F body rehab than I am.
I cannot look at one of these without remembering the attractive young woman who lived downstairs in my first apartment building after law school. She traded something I have forgotten on a new blue Camaro. The first time I heard it run I couldn’t believe it was a four banger. Talk about all show and no go.
And you are right about the wheels.
Even my 10 y.o. S-type’s 17″ers look like bed casters nowadays.
The Iron Duke: style of a Camaro, sound of a postal truck….
Yup. None of the practicality, none of the fun. 🙂
I recall seeing the new Ferrari back in 1981-82 in NY about 1/2 mile up the freeway so I had to catch up-it was white. When I finally caught him, it was the 1st of this gen Camaro on the road at least for me, a guy with car eyes. I knew the world was changed from then on. Later, I discovered that rear window cost 1200. or about 3000 today.
It is a nice looking vehicle. Clean design. If it had a 305, automatic, and speed control, I would think it would be a nice cross country cruiser with the higher profile tires. The Darth Vader dash is a bit of a letdown, though.
I always thought the 3 hole Berlinetta nose looked a bit lame, but this dark gray monotone colour combination with black accents balances things out a little. The perimeter pin-striping I thought could be deleted, but on second thought, it adds a tiny bit of flair and is OK.
I still to this day cannot stand these cars. Another one of GM’s finest that I got to work on way too much along with the X-cars.
I’m sure it handled just fine with those wheels specified. All that super-fat wheels do is make it easier to swerve into your neighbor in the lane next to you on the interstate.
I’ll try to echo the author’s relative positivity. I thought the Berlinetta was the best looking of this generation of Camaro. I specifically like it without the T-top roof, as the somewhat tasteful (as compared to the garish Z-28s, etc.) trim specs accentuate the lines of the car without looking *too* tacky. But yeah, that interior. Hindsight makes it seem like no less than 60% of the people I knew back in the late 80’s drove an F-Body, and my most vivid memories of riding in them are of squeaks, rattles and missing or loose trim pieces. By the time these were a year or two old I don’t think I ever saw one without the little 2″ plastic vent grilles for the side window defoggers loose or missing. That piece in particular sticks in my memory, as it was right there front and center as you got in the car or sat in the passenger seat, and it just screamed “Cheap!”
Wow — and I thought the Berlinetta I wrote up two years ago was the last of its kind! Great to see another one still on the road.
In my opinion, the Berlinettas were the most alluring of the early-80s F-Bodies, due to their rarity, and to the subtle gold trim, which managed to avoid being gaudy and actually accentuate the car’s design.
What a coincidence. Today I just happen to be shopping for 205/70R14 tires!
A friend has a 1977 450SL with original wheels, steel with hubcaps painted to match the car. It needs new tires.14’s were still very common back then, not so easy to find today.
Yup the choices in 14″ tires are quickly shrinking. When my Mother In Law’s Ranger needed new tires it was impossible to find a quality tire for a reasonable price in the 225/70 optional size that the truck came with. So it got a set of 92 Crown Vic aluminum wheels and 205/70 to keep the diameter close. Since the base trucks came with 195/75 the tires still exceed the weight rating needed for the truck’s max capacity.
Mercedes-Benz stuck with 205/70R14 for many years even in S-Class, citing the ‘superior’ ability to reduce the hydroplaning and steering effort in event of power steering failure and improve the traction over snow and ride.
Today, many of old Mercedes-Benz philosophies went out of window in the late 1990s with massive changes within the company. Now, we don’t have oversized steering wheels, ribbed taillamps, larger gear selector knob (that was supposed to prevent eye-goring for the unbelted rear passengers), hard seats (that was supposed to reduce the physical exhaustion from long drive), narrow tyres, and so forth.
I wish some of that “old Mercedes philosophy” would come back. It is simple physics: narrower, higher profile tires tend to roll straighter and better resist efforts to turn – or be turned – via driver input or road imperfections, given same alignment specs and power steering assist level. I’m tired of feeling like I have ‘automotive Tourettes’ behind the wheel of most 2010 or later cars. Twitchy!
Hard, uncomfortable seats can be found in most cars built today, except for some of the high end SUV’s.
Had a few of these….mostly Camaros, one Firebird….as rentals between ’83 and ’86. My memory of what they were like to drive is pretty much the same as Paul’s.
Amazing find – the EXACT DUPLICATE to my late mother-in-law’s ’83 Berlinetta, color and all! She loved that car, and it actually saved her life. She was turning into a mall parking lot and someone jumped the red light hitting her head on. She walked away with so much as a scratch, the Berlinetta totaled and actually unrecognizable from the photos I saw of it after the accident.
I drove that car several times over the years and remember it being SLLLOOWWW. She thought it was ok because of the fake, exaggerated exhaust note that fooled you into thinking it was faster than it was. I actually thought it was dangerous! You could really feel the weight of that car, and it simply begged for a V-8.
I cannot tell you how many times the center caps were stolen off those gold wheels when she went to the mall. After replacing them over and over she finally gave up! The infamous 205-70-14 tires – she had white lettered ones for the longest time. My Dad’s 1982 Country Squire had 225-75-14’s! They were very hard to find back then – I can only imagine today!
To see a Berlinetta in that shape today is truly an amazing feat. And that color was very unique, too. She always talked about that Berlinetta as it was one of her favorite cars.
Gads, yes, Ford and those stupid 14 inch wheels on the early Panthers. By the time I bought my 1987 Mercury Grand Marquis, I believe 15 inch wheels were standard.
One of my biggest gripes with Fords of the early ’80s is small wheels and four bolt wheels on just about anything smaller than a Panther, it just screamed cheap to me at the time.
So true Dave! Ford used the 14’s as standard equipment on all full-size Panthers until 1986 when they finally made the 205/75/15 standard equipment. I was surprised to see that my Dad’s ’82 CS had the optional 225/14’s – but I can say one thing for sure – they rode beautifully! With that huge sidewall they acted like a big cushion, and they filled the wheel wells nicely too.
It not only could’ve been worse, it was. My 57 has those size tires in a full sized v8 with a two speed. same size tire as my hard body. Much smaller than my 77 Impala with the 15s and the 350/350 drivetrain. The 77 was great by comparison.
’57 was the year Chevy switched over to 14″ wheels from 15″. All about appearance back then, the 14s made it look lower and longer. At least it wasn’t a ’58 with the exact same front suspension and brakes and 400 extra pounds AND a flexy X-frame.
I recall first hand the weak points of these cars, and I was not a huge fan of the styling when they were new, but it has grown on me, and I find this Berlinetta quite appealing.
Today, up close, I find more than just the wheel size on cars like this to be shocking, the smaller downsized cars are just tiny all around compared to so much on the road today. For the times, this was a pretty good wheel/tire package for the intended mission of this car – perhaps one of the best things about this car from an engineering and specifications standpoint.
I found some models of these cars attractive. I wanted to like them…I REALLLLLY did. But they just reeked of cheap with all the rattles and shifting body components, especially if yours had T-tops like a friend of mine’s ’84.
When I and my friends went through a brief hot rod Volvo 122S phase in the mid-70’s, we would do a “minus one” conversion and fit 14″ Ford or Mopar steelies with used or takeoff 205/70-14 Michelin XWX tires, in place of the OEM 15×4.5 stock rims and 165-15 tires. By the time the 240 came along, Volvo had gone down to 14″. I still remember my friend’s parents fintail Mercedes with 13″ wheels, which seemed odd at a time when 14 and 15 were common. By the way, even though our current fleet dates from the 21st century, both of our vehicles have 16″ wheels and I’ve never owned anything larger. Given how harsh our VW’s 205/55’s feel on local potholed roads, I can’t imagine driving something with even lower profile tires. And it’s ironic that we take my truck when we know the road will be rough … like taking the highway to the airport! By the way, as the former owner of a last model year 2nd gen F Body, these ’83+ cars seemed perfect … fresh styling, fuel injection, rack and pinion steering, hatchback cargo space … until one looked at the execution. But they sure were popular.
FYI Rack and pinion steering didn’t make its way on F bodies until 1994.
One of my almost-first-cars was an early 80s Berlinetta, a local dealership literally a down the street from my house had a resale red one for $800, jacked up in the back with big fat centerline wheels sticking out of the fenders – proof how rare of a sight this all original find is – The funny thing is the trashy stance of that car wasn’t what turned me off it, in fact it attracted 15 year old me to it, it was the test drive with my Dad driving that pretty much turned me off it, super slow, super creaky, loud in all the wrong ways and the interior, I agree, was a letdown. Second gens were much nicer inside
I’m probably about the only one here, but I really like it, and always have. I’d be tempted to make an offer. I haven’t seen an early 3rd gen Camaro this nice in at least 20 years, and it evokes the good memories of my 82 Z28. Yes, it sure has it’s share of issues (many, many issues, and this car has probably been through at least one transmission), but it was definitely a better experience than the Honda CVCC cars that immediately preceded it in my driveway.
Regarding the V6 engines in the first 3 model years I always thought they made a mistake not using the larger 3.8 sized engines that made 45 additional LBS FT of torque to the 2.8 engines. That would surely have made these quicker if the right gearing was used along with mileage enhancing 4 speed overdrive automatics. By 1985 they could have switched over to the 4.3 TBI engines that made up to 225 Ft LBS of torque which would have made these relatively light coupes pretty snappy.
Regarding the tires these 205/70R14’s do look so small today. This is the optional tire size my 1987 Cutlass has too but in raised white letter versions. The new Camaros can have up to 21″ which is too big IMO. The base 18″ rubber is more than enough for these car’s equipped with 4 cylinders and V6’s but I do wish they would spice up those alloy wheels on the 1LS and LT Camaros.
The lower aspect ratio speeds up response compared to the old 70 series tires. Large wheels do leave plenty of room for big brakes, a good thing on production cars. Aftermarket upgrades to older cars can be too big, and the low sidewall tires result in a lot of rim damage. The ride gets really bad without any sidewall to flex and absorb the impact. Plus one or plus two is about as big as I will go on my cars. Unless I’m building a donk.
My ’67 Olds 98 is pictured here with Coker American Classic P235/75R14 radials, which really make the wheel covers look tiny, especially with no whitewalls.
They in fact are whitewalls but I turned them inside because the white stripe is WAY too far from the rim. It actually looks less ridiculous with blackwalls, in my opinion!
8.85×14 blackwalls were standard on the 98 in ’67. I doubt if many were ordered that way, but it is a “stock” look.
I have a set of those rims sitting in my garage. Good looking rims but no one wants them.
My best friend always gets the sporting editions of cars with the large size wheels and tires. Always has problems with tire pressure and flats. I don’t find the ride in his Acura TL at all comfortable, though it’s a nice car.
I can see where larger tires on this Camaro would look better.
It’s getting much harder to find 13s for the Valiant, and the 14s on the ONION seem to be going the same way.
Representin’ on my 14s. Need a scrub in the passenger seat to crank the window down when I need to do a drive by, but that’s how I roll Gs.
My uncle bought a new ’82 Berlinetta, black over gold with gold pin stripes, Very similar to this one, same wheels, 2.8L, automatic. It was the first 3rd. gen. F body I ever drove, and I thought it was a decent car. Handled very well, adequate power, nice size. The downsides were the marginal interior design/materials, and the engine was noisy at higher R.P.M.’s. The car was quite reliable, about the only issue it ever had was the rear hatch imploded one afternoon. Dealer said it was improperly tempered and replaced it under warranty.
This is actually a highly optioned Berlinetta. Just from what I can see, this car has A/C, power windows, power locks, top end ETR cassette stereo, rear defogger, rear spoiler, and body side molding. That’s nearly all the boxes one could check. I bet this car was probably ordered by the original owner.
My 3rd gen Camaro experience was limited to a 3 day rental. Tucson, 1988. The V6 was up to what, 135 HP by then. Other than wanting more power, ( which I say about most of ‘my’ cars) I loved it. I was surprised by the lack of trunk space, but as a solo traveller it didn’t worry me. No rattles, easy cruising on I 10 and decent handling.
And the F bodies used a unique platform ( yes Fox body I’m looking at you!) And looks that made the Foxes look like the shipping crate for the F bodies.
And,FFS, does every article featuring a post 1960 GM product have to be linked to a DS?
Re tyre sizes, more choice in rubber makes me glad my Skylark has been upgraded to 15 inchers
I had a 2012 Ford Taurus Limited that was a company car. It was equipped with those garish looking Ford 20 inch wheels. The car literally rode like an old U-Haul truck. It was awful. At freeway speeds the roar and drone of the low profile tires gave me a headache. Ironically the car didn’t handle all the well either. I hated that car. I wish auto manufactures would cease and desist with putting giant bling rings on family cars.
Tom:
Impressions override function in SHOW ME!! country. smh
The CC effect is in full swing!! I’m looking at buying an ’84 Berlinetta I recently found. The car is a true to life barn find, parked years back when the 700r4 started slipping. The one I found was well equipped with a 305ci and T-tops. Funny I didn’t have to go far to start researching it!! I think it still has those wheels, too.
Although I’m not much of a fan of American made (muscle) pony cars, I have to say that this generation of F-body had a reasonably tidy appearance in this trim level. The 3rd generation cars were a good transition from the second generation cars; the 2nd generation F-bodies were a monumental improvement over the plain, stodgy-looking, illhandling, 67-69 F-bodies.
The styling of these 3rd-gen F-bodies has grown on me recently. I didn’t used to care for it but I’m warming up to it in a big way. (Still have no desire to own one–that interior is awful…) The wheels on this berlinetta really add to the car, small though they may be. Great find!
This is my 1983 daily driver Camaro. I was very surprised to find it on line. My father passed it along to me in 1988 when he purchased a new Thunderbird. He has been gone for a number of years now, he loved new cars. The car has become an old friend that cannot let go of. A local car mechanic keeps it alive and it still has the original V8 with 235,000 miles. When the engine dies I will get a new one. It has enough power and does very well in turns. I replaced the upholstery ten years ago and it as two repaints and it could use a third. Everything is completely stock and I am able to find most replacement parts on line. I drive it almost every day even in the snow. I put chains on it in minutes and it will go up any hill. The car is fun to drive and it does seem to make people happy that it is so old and still running. Cheap to own and easy to fix!