Image of Chevrolet Camaro Z28 E

Chevrolet Camaro Z28 E specs

Car type Coupe
Curb weight 1769 kg (3900 lbs)
Power / weight 88 ps (86 bhp) / t
Torque / weight 184 Nm (136 lb-ft) / t
Introduced 1982
Origin country United States
Views 10.7k

Performance

Top speed 191 kph (119 mph)
0 - 100 kph 10.5 s
0 - 100 mph 29.6 s
Est. 1/8 mile 12.8 s @ 70.2 mph
Est. 1/4 mile 19.2 s @ 84.5 mph
Est. 1/2 mile 29.1 s @ 98.2 mph

More acceleration times

Chevrolet Camaro Z28 E acceleration graph
User avatar

User avatar

Shaggy  7y ago

@ monkeypop: The whole point would be to take something too slow to get out of its own way, like this heap, and make it frighteningly fast. ;)
PS: I would keep the same engine, just heavily modify it.


User avatar

monkeypop  7y ago

@shaggy

If your going to invest that kind of money its better to start off with something that has more potential to begin with. I supercharged and fully built two of the last generation ws6 trans ams with ram air. They look a whole lot better than the camaros and have more going for them than this old clunker. They top out at 160 stock and are really stable at high speeds.

I don't even know if the ws6 has been added here yet. Ill check later and if it isn't ill make a page for it.


User avatar

Shaggy  7y ago

@ monkeypop: I would love to own one of these Camaros with a manual transmission, if I had the money, I'd modify the heck out of it, high performance camshaft, ported and polished cylinder heads, MSD ignition, Dynomax high flow exhaust, headers, high flow catalytic converter, cold air intake, K&N air filter, heavy duty differential, Eaton twin screw supercharger, 18" Fiske spilt spoke wheels painted black, etc.


User avatar

monkeypop  7y ago

Unfortunately putting in a proper engine and transmission would cost more than the car itself is worth. Not to mention updating the suspension and steering.

Being that this was one of my first cars I will always be fond of the body style.. just not enough to buy one today and make it a decent car lol.


User avatar

Mental  7y ago

I would be glad owning one of these things. It just needs a decent engine - 300-450 horses would be great :) and a proper manual gearbox.. and a lightened body.


User avatar

monkeypop  7y ago

Yeah these were some sad times for a whole lot of cars. I drove one of these with a 305 in my early teens. It was fun and at the time seemed fast..keeping in mind that at the time I had not driven much else. While acceleration wasn't great it had the torque to burn the tires at will.

It was a surprisingly well balanced car and very easy to control with the rear wheels kicked out. I drove the one I had down dirt roads 75% of the time because I did not have a license yet and I use to love sliding it around corners. I always kept two full size spares in the hatch because the rocks would put holes in the side walls so often. Damn durable car, I abused the hell out of that thing. I still see these clunkers on the roads today pretty often.


User avatar

Shaggy  7y ago

@ Anon: That makes 2 things you have said that I agree with.


User avatar

Аnon  7y ago

Don't forget that in 60s manufactures claimed GROSS output, begginin of 70s were just times of proper SAE outputs, so dark ages of muscle cars are mostly end70-80s and this car is probably at the peak of those days.


User avatar

Shaggy  7y ago

@ Mental: The mid 70s-early 80s were dark days for American car manufacturers, inline 4s were depressingly weak, V6s were crappy, and most V8s were only making around 1/2 a horsepower per cubic inch. The 1982 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 was no exception, 153 horsepower from a 5.0 liter, 305 C.I. V8 is just plain sad. :(


User avatar

Mental  7y ago

@Anal... named directly...
This car could carry much more a serious power aggregate, whether it's a muscle car. For 1982, 150 horses and 325 Nm certainly were a decent powertrain for a little sportcars or hot-hatches, more than serious! But for a muscle car?... Just a joke... In 60-ties muscles were equipped with 400hp/400lb-ft + monsters, which was an astonishing amount, getting some really fast acceleration... But what gives you this 15-year-evolution?... 10.5 seconds to 100 kph? That's ridiculously shameful for a muscle car!.. and this the thing that carries Camaro badge... And BTW, the gearbox in this Camaro is absolutely shitty.

This car just got such a potential, that it is just a shame it's underpowered and slow. I'd Wish it was the true successor to the legendary Camaros of 60-ties.

BTW, I have never owned Corolla, and I will never do.


User avatar

monkeypop  7y ago

Troll on Anal.. troll on.

153bhp and 241 tq is nothing to brag about. Everyone knows how crummy these cars were with the factory 305.


User avatar

Anal  7y ago

Your 22 years younger soft toyota from your mother has anywhere near 241 pounds of torque ?
Rice on with your corolla.


User avatar

Mental  8y ago

A 153 hp muscle car made in 80-ties? A Camaro? Dude, were they kidding or what? Bother 8l ... LOL XD! 150 hp from 5 liter V8? Is it from 30-ties? 2002 Corolla TS with the half of cylinders and a third of displacement would overtake this so-called muscle without any problem!

Okay, I know that in 1982 150 hp was more than enough in advanced sportcars, but in muscle car and especially in Camaro with Z28 badge...? Taking into account, in addition, >400 hp predecessors from 60-ties... Ridiculous!

BTW, though its exterior is enough good looking!


User avatar

joezee  9y ago

the mass should be 3092 pounds , not 3892... 82,s were very light.


User avatar

Anonymous  11y ago

This is the standard Z28 from '82.