This 1984 Chevrolet Camaro is said to have 4,500 original miles! We’ve all heard the stories about an ultra low mileage vehicle found after years of storage. Whether the owner passed away soon after the purchase or the owner was sent off to war and never came home, these stories are plentiful within the automotive community. Other (more realistic) reasons for finding a super low mileage car is that it was a collectible or potential future collectible and the owner had the means and opportunity to purchase it and not drive it. This car is located in West Branch, Michigan and can be found for sale here on Craigslist with an asking price of $7,000. Thanks to Barn Finds reader Dan for the tip on this mystery car.
Unfortunately, there is very little information in the ad and only four exterior photos. The ad does state the car has a 305 cubic inch engine and needs the carburetor cleaned. Other than that, it needs a headliner. Why is there no mention of the history of the car? Why is there no documentation? If this was a “saver/collectible” type car, wouldn’t it be a Z-28 or IROC or pace car? Hopefully, the seller will have some sort of documentation or proof that this car has a legitimate 4,500 miles and it’s not 104,500 or the odometer has been rolled back at some point. What do you think? Is this a true 4,500-mile car?
Two thoughts on this; miles are correct and the reason why is it was damaged early in it’s life. The tells are 1). The pictures are taken in a body shop; 2). The nosepiece is not of ’84 vintage. It is for a 1986 or newer model. 3). Said nosepiece doesn’t look square to the hood, and 4). those wheels, the rally type with the kidney bean shaped holes ,we’re not introduced until 1986. I’m going off memory here, as I have Camaro brochures from the eighties, but not in front of me.
The other thought – it was stashed away until now. Could be an 1987, though.( see above). More pictures would definitely help.
Agreed. Something is fishy… No interior or engine compartment shots, or underneath either. And was that paint color even available? The finish has that “repaint” appearance… and why take photos inside, and without first washing off the dust? Bah. Something is not being said about the car’s history.
I have gotten through West Branch a number of times in the last year. It’s about halfway to Macinaw City from my home.
i disagree on the nose. i learned to drive in a then-new red ’82 Sport Coupe Camaro & it had the same design front clip as this. The 14″ Rally wheels on ours were different than these & had pentagram-shaped holes between their “spokes.” Charcoal was an available paint color in ’82 at least.
poseur, this is a picture of what the nose should be. Notice the smaller squarish turn signals on the Camaro Sport Coupe.
i stand corrected, thank you, Miguel.
i was focusing on the three slots below the hood rather than the turn signals.
our car had the miserable 2.5 4-cyl with auto.
it did have F41 suspension, white letter tires, t-tops & rear spoiler. it looked fast but woulda lost any drag race it encountered.
handled well though, even with the little 70-series 14″ Tiger Paws.
This style nose came out in 1985. It was revised from the earlier design with shorter vents in the middle and closer to flush mount and more rectangular turn signals. The earlier 1982-84 design had larger vents in the middle (between the headlights) and deeper and taller/ less rectangular marker lights.
Also, those wheels are newer than ’84 (introduced in ’87 I believe) as were those taillights- they have a black stripe molded in the middle. Earlier base model 3rd gen taillights had a recessed v shaped groove there.
Big Fun, that nose was introduced in 1985.
I thought this was a 1987 model with that nose and wheels.
I thought, “finally an honest car”.
Nope.
Two thoughts on this; miles are correct and the reason why is it was damaged early in it’s life. The tells are 1). The pictures are taken in a body shop; 2). The nosepiece is not of ’84 vintage. It is for a 1986 or newer model. 3). Said nosepiece doesn’t look square to the hood, and 4). those wheels, the rally type with the kidney bean shaped holes ,we’re not introduced until 1987. I’m going off memory here, as I have Camaro brochures from the eighties, but not in front of me.
The other thought – it was stashed away until now. Could be an 1987, though.( see above). More pictures would definitely help.
Did anyone notice what’s sitting behind this Camaro? A much more desirable car… a 66 Chevelle convertible! Anyone buying this Camaro will check the claims out before forking over the money….
82-84 SC noses had recessed turn signals, that’s the 85+ style. And those steelies weren’t available till 1987.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say the seller doesn’t know what year this car is.
It seems odd this car was dressed up to look like a 1987 model.
It is more likely the car is a 1987 model and the seller got it wrong in the ad.
Can somebody from his area call him and verify this?
I smell a rat…
I am sorry, one more thing. The majority of the Sport Coupes in 1984 had no rear spoiler.
Most of the Sport Coupes did in 1987 because the the CHMSL mandated by the government.
This is another reason why I think this is an 1987 model. Why add the rear spoiler to a car that didn’t have it.
It was an 87 car, the 3rd brake light would be on the back window. I’m calling 145,000 mile car. A shot of the interior would say so. And. Why at that low mileage would you need a headliner?? I smell fish
Jaime Paw, that is not the case. All ’86 models had the CHMSL on the rear glass, but in 1987, if the car was equipped with a rear spoiler, it was mounted in the spoiler.
.
My brother had an 84 TA that had a 350 with throttle body injection and a 4 speed, my thoughts are if this is an 84 and the seller claims it needs the carb cleaned, does it have a carb or throttle body or does the owner even know what they have?
Calling the seller to verify the correct year may get you the right year but he/she may just be going by what they were told. If they have paperwork claiming it’s an ’84, then you guys are probably correct; something is not right here. If it is in fact an ’87 then you can just focus on verifying the low mileage and ascertain if the car is original or not.
All that aside, I find this car kind of mundane. It’s blah gray and pretty plain looking; it’s got no pizazz. If it’s a stick shift, that helps but the 305 is not exactly a tire-shredder. Don’t get me wrong, if’s it’s a low-mileage, all original car in great condition, it has a lot of appeal but it’s not exactly a head-turner.
Did I miss the VIN?
Oooo, my mullet just tingled.
Head & Shoulders for you then.
Somethings funny about how that hood fits.
The hood fit is completely normal for mid-’80’s GM quality. It depends on the temperature – if it’s cold the gap is narrower, if it’s hot the bumper cover sags. And the cut lines along the fender peaks were a mere suggestion of uniformity. You have to squint to get everything to match…
Did I miss the VIN ?
The VIN isn’t listed in the ad.
Somebody should call the person and ask if the tenth digit in the VIN is an E or an H
This car looks like it has been hit. The wheels and nose are from a 1987.
You lost me at 305. Asking 7K and you can’t clean the carb and fix the headliner, NO SALE!
So plain, it looks like a rental car that was long forgotten in a parking facility somewhere. My dad drove the same plain jane 4 cylinder auto year round in Montana. His was red & one of his favorite cars, he could get in, turn the key & go.