Cosmetically Challenged Chevrolets: 1985 Chevy Camaro vs 1987 Chevy Astro

Welcome back! We’ve got another pair of ugly but good-running vehicles today, both from the Heartbeat of America. One is like the car that every jerk in your high school drove, and the other is like nothing you’re likely to have ever seen before.

We looked at a couple of impromptu “Harlequin” cars yesterday, from Mitsubishi and Ford, and I guess I’m not surprised that the Fiesta ST took a huge win. I’ve never driven one, but I’ve heard they’re a riot. I have driven several Eclipses of various generations, and the only version I really like is the first. Everything after that, including this one, sits too low and has too tall of a beltline; it feels like you’re driving it from the bottom of a well.

Oh, and kudos to commenter V10omous for picking up my Foreigner reference in the headline and running with it, even though I completely forgot to include the second half of the joke later. The title of the poll was supposed to be “Which one would make you a Gearbox Hero?”. Not sure how I forgot to include it; maybe I had double vision or something.

All right, let’s check out a couple of ugly Chevies. One was obviously a Gambler car, and the other doesn’t seem like a terribly safe bet either. But they both run and drive fine.

1985 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 – $3,700

Engine/drivetrain: 5.0-liter overhead valve V8, four-speed automatic, RWD

Location: Tacoma, WA

Odometer reading: 53,000 miles (almost certainly rolled over)

Operational status: “Fun car to drive”

I feel sorry for the Camaro. It’s a cheap, good-looking, fun car built from dirt-common parts, with almost endless upgrade potential. But it always gets portrayed as the bad-guy car, from Buddy Repperton to the boyfriend in that Wheatus song. And because of that easy modifiability, too many Camaros end up really tacky, or half-finished, or – like this one – both.

1985 was a big year for the third-generation Camaro: the sharp edges were softened a little bit, the infamous IROC option package for the Z28 became available, and some decent power was finally back on the menu with a tuned-port fuel injected 305 V8, which pumped out 215 horsepower–but was only available with an automatic. The seller claims this is an IROC, but it is not. It is, however, a Z28, and according to the VIN, it does have the TPI engine. All the seller says is that it has a “fast” engine, which may or may not mean it’s stock. You’d have to look under that ridiculous aftermarket hood to know for sure.

The interior is where old Camaros tend to suffer the most, and this one is no exception. It’s missing a door panel, the seats are just plain gross, and I don’t think I even want to know what that is on the carpet. Replacements are available, so it can be fixed up, but it’ll cost you.

The outside actually looks pretty good, except for that stupid hood. The front spoiler is broken, a victim of some curb somewhere no doubt, and there are a few other blemishes, but nothing terrible. It has T-tops, and comes with one extra – though the seller doesn’t specify left or right.

1987 Chevrolet Astro – $1,200

Engine/drivetrain: 4.3-liter overhead valve V6, four-speed automatic, RWD

Location: Seattle, WA

Odometer reading: 250,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives great

The Gambler 500 is part of a larger automotive movement in recent years, a movement towards having fun with cheap cars, along with the Lemons race series, car shows like the Festival Of The Unexceptional, and –I like to think, in some small way – this column. The emphasis is on having fun with what you have, or can buy for cheap, rather than spending a ton of money. It’s automotive democracy in action, and I love it. Even better, the Gambler ethos is all about leaving the woods better than you found them. The same cannot, however, often be said about the cars.

Gambler cars are supposed to only cost $500, but that’s really more of a guideline. This old Chevy Astro van could certainly have come in under the wire when it was first purchased for the task, fresh off a life of shuttling someone’s kids to soccer and ballet, and having no idea what its future held. Somewhere along the way, it lost most of its roof, and had a rear window and bulkhead installed behind the front seats, turning it into what the seller calls a “vuck,” a portmanteau of van and truck, but also probably a fair representation of what most people say when they see it, preceded by “what the.”

The Astro’s stout mechanicals are a good choice for bashing through the woods, and the seller says its 4.3-liter V6 runs like a top. In fact, it just had an oil change and a full tune-up. Some concessions have been made for Gambler use: the rear diff is welded, and the exhaust is straight-piped, so it’s loud and doesn’t turn very well on pavement. The interior, what’s left of it, is a mess, as you would expect after untold romps in the woods.

The modifications outside aren’t limited to the removal of the roof; a pickup-style roll bar has been installed in the bed, along with one of the old rear bench seats turned around backwards. There’s a big light bar on the roof, and a big winch in the front, both of which are important out in the boonies.

I realize there’s a big price difference between these two, but one is also a lot further gone than the other. The Camaro is probably restorable, if you wanted to, but the Astro is just a toy, unless you rip the stuff out of the bed and use it as a pickup truck. So which one interests you more – the quintessential 80s muscle car, or a cheap and interesting bushwhacker?