There’s few things that reflect our collective interests here at CC more clearly than our coverage of Camaro sixes. We have had…well; wait for it. certainly more than any other website. Joseph Dennis’ post of the ’68 Camaro six convertible got me wondering. Just what was the percentage of Camaros built with the six?
Here it is; and the share of sixes is not quite as low as some might think. it was pretty healthy during the gen1 era, then it tumbled with the gen2 in 1970.
I suspect that had to do with the fact that the handsome new gen2 Camaro just didn’t appeal to the kind of folks who had been buying Camro sixes. And of course the fact that the pony car era came crashing to a near-halt in 1970-1972. No wonder GM almost pulled the plug on the F-Body cars in around 1973 or so. It got off to a very slow start. And with almost no sixes.
But the energy crisis changed all of that. Already in 1974, the share of sixes jumped back to 15%, and in 1975 and 1976, it was back to a gen1-like 21%. Unfortunately, Camaro production stats in the Standard Encyclopedia of American cars stop giving breakouts for sixes and V8s after 1976.
FWIW, Mustang sales were also not broken out between sixes and V8s, but it was 47% sixes in 1965, then it went up in 1966, due to a severe shortage of 289 V8s, and then went into a steady year-to-year decline. If anyone has the actual number, please share them with us.
Here’s our complete bibliography of Camaro sixes, of which there are five. But with the addition of this post, we come out to six. That’s probably enough.
CC 1969 Camaro Six Daily Driver Paul N.
CC 1970 Camaro Six Tom Klockau
CC 1968 Camaro Six Convertible Joseph Dennis
Ebay Find: 1967 Camaro Six Gerardo Solis
Bedside Classic (Fiction): 1968 Camaro Six PN
By being just too heavy for a four, and the six being more of a workhorse, it limited the appeal to cheap guys. These buyers will forever notice that Nova is the same car but cheaper. Thus the low take rate.
We forget that many pony cars are also appealing to women. This was where the Japanese super coupes and the Mustang II were able to appeal. The performance being less, but economy and ease of use were perhaps a better value than a 250 Camaro with three speeds or powerglide. Think the more recent Camaro made the same mistake by not offering a turbo four/ 6sp combo.
I’ll disagree on the current generation Camaro (which I detest, by the way). The first generation Camaro was made to appeal to everybody: Sports car fans, muscle car addicts, secretaries who wanted to look hip and sexy, etc. The second generation car pretty much dropped the secretary market (which had probably moved on to other things anyway, style is like that) while sticking with the other two and a surprising preference for the sports car and grand tourer crowd over the muscle car bunch. In retrospect a smart move and the muscle cars were in the throes of a temporary death.
The fifth and sixth generation Camaro’s are built for baby boomers who were either muscle cars fans back in their youth, or lied (both outside and to themselves) about the neat car they had back in high school. A four cylinder isn’t all that desirable to that crowd (Hellcat, muthafucka!), and at Richmond’s cars and coffee of the 25-30 fifth and sixth gens I see, the owners don’t appear to be any younger than 45.
I agree the young female market is more into their RAV4s and CRV, having moved on from the not totally unrelated Celicas and Preludes. But I think the new Mustang is at least making a play to bring them back into the fold with the small engines and less retro styling. I want to applaud the effort. Volume comes from offering a big tent to different types of buyers.
I was going to say, to have the same appeal-to-everyone the original did, the new Camaro would have to be a five-door hatchback in a choice of (relatively) low and raised-ride-height models.
Hi did they make an 68 6 cylinder Camaro convertible with ac
On the 5/6 gen demographics, I would be interested to see actual data. I see a lot of young men driving lower spec camaros where I live here in Jacksonville FL. My son has a 2010 IISS and I see many of them going on and off the military bases here driven by young sailors. Cars and Coffee is by default an old guys event, so judging the demographics from that isn’t going to work. I would say that the split around here is 25%/75% in favor of six cylinder models. Sales of the new mustang with the ecoboost have been strong and I don’t think that most people who are going smaller than V8 care much at all if its a 4 or 6 cylinder so long as it feels strong when they drive it.
This .
In the 1980’s California got slews of used Gen 2 6 cylinder Camaro ” Berlinetta ” models , from the South ~ mostly from Mo. , cheaply , they were dressed up with graphics and chrome wheels and easily sold again .
Poor boys cars to be sure .
-Nate
I’m confused…were they from the South, OR from Missouri? ?
(Sorry…I had to do it!)
My former wife and late in-laws are/were from Springfield, MO.
I asked her the “Is it the south or not?” question once, as I am originally from MA and lived in WI as a teen. She emphatically told me it is the mid-west. In-laws disagreed. I stopped asking after that.
Sorry for the massively late reply, but if anyone cares (former LONG time Missouri resident, family originally from Adrian).
Missouri firmly believes it is Southern (unless you ask KC or SL blue voters). Due to the Missouri compromise, it came into statehood firmly on the side of the Conf., and never let go. The civil war arguably began with the KS-MO border wars a decade before Ft Sumter. I lived a decade in Liberty, north of KC even, and there were still stars and bars flying everywhere. Yes, it’s culture more than geography, but the state has way more in common with Arkansas than Kansas or Iowa neighbors.
Anyway, yes, it’s firmly a southern state in all respects. For cultural reference, see the movie “Ride with the Devil”.
+1 on the demographics of the Camaro and also the Mustang/Challenger.
Its a mixed bag here in the Portland area. Ive seen everything from early 20s on up to 70 year olds driving them, but the bulk of the owners of these cars seem to be about 27-47, which would mean a LOT of GenXers, and some Millenials. Just in my local Mopar club, that crowd tends to skew a bit older but again out of about 50 people, its a very mixed bag.
Can’t answer for your geographical area, but Cars and Coffee here in Houston is quite an eclectic mix of folks, age and ethnicity. Anything from pure classic to slammed Lexi. Lots of fun to see the crowd all mixed up.
There’s quite a subculture here of mid-late ’90s RHD Japanese sport tourers it seems…
“The fifth and sixth generation Camaro’s are built for baby boomers”
So true. Here in Chicagoland, outside of the rare stereotypical drug dealing hustler, that’s the only demographic that seems to own these cars from what I see. Doesn’t help they are not a good fit width wise on our city streets.
Mustangs, on the other hand…
Or, as Bruce McCall parodied, “The power of a four, with the the gas mileage of an eight!”
Besides the Mustang II and Celicas, there was also those who wanted something a little bit bigger with family coming like the Oldsmobile Cutlass S, not as luxurious as the Cutlass Supreme but still a interesting bang for the buck for the era.
Agreed. I have a hard time understanding the target market for the turbo 4/manual Camaro. Reviews are lackluster with fuel mileage no better than the V6. With an auto, a few secretaries might bite. But, as is, in dealer parlance, they’ll be nailed to the showroom floor.
The big takeaway for me in those stats was how poorly the Gen2 Camaro fared in sales following the Gen1. I have always preferred the purity of the early Gen2 to the more baroque later versions, but the early ones seem to be so seldom seen. Now I know why – because they were so seldom built, at least comparatively.
What a failure that Gen2 must have seemed to be at the time, dropping nearly half from the worst year of the Gen1 (1967), and dropping from there. Even the record breaking sales year of 1973 failed to bring the Camaro over 45% of 1967’s sales.
A high school acquaintance was given a red 74 Camaro, that was probably a 3 or 4 year old car at the time. I was really surprised when he raised the hood and I saw the inline six. I had no idea then (or even now) that sixes made up 15% of production that year. Very interesting.
Early Gen2s always have been very thin on the ground, but I wonder if there’s ever been a car that became a sales hit so late in it’s life before or since?
GM could barely give them away ca ’72 and couldn’t build enough ca ’78.
Seemed to me there were plenty of six cylinder Gen 1s, also lots of 327 2 barrels and 307s with Powerglides. Real SS versions and Z-28s were comparatively rare. Until the resurgence of the Z-28 in late ’77 most gen 2 cars were pretty pedestrian as well.
It’s hard to believe from what you see out there today, but the reality is most Camaros (and other pony cars) were grocery getters and ordinary drivers when new!
“I wonder if there’s ever been a car that became a sales hit so late in it’s life before or since?”
That’s a really good question, and I am scratching my head. Just a guess, what about the 1973 Chevy Suburban? It was undoubtedly selling much better in 1991 than it was in 1973, but this is just a guess.
The Jeep Patriot had it’s best sales year in 2015
Pretty much all of the Camaro’s competitors were dead by 1978, including the Mustang(which wholly went for the secretary market), so presumably there was a vacuum pulling in buyers who liked the long/low/wide ponycars of the early 70s.
By that point, the Camaro’s only competitor was the Firebird.
To be fair, in model year ’72 there was a UAW strike at the F body plant that affecting production. There were numerous unbuilt ’72 models that had to be scrapped, since they couldn’t meet ’73 emissions.
Motor Trend said back then that returning Vietnam vets were buying new F bodies in 73-74 and helped sales rise. ’73 Mustang and M-2 benefited. But, too bad the Mopar E body didn’t see the same increases. Probably Duster and Dart stole sales.
Most brand new F bodies sold had 2 barrel carbed V8’s and were driven as commuter cars. Average working guys, not just women, bought low powered stylish cars, too.
There was also a recession in the early ’70s. Insurance and environmental concerns had changed the national psyche. I’d be curious to see Nova sales in contrast.
And is there any chance Vega sales impacted Camaro sales? Obviously not with performance buyers but were fewer secretary special Camaros sold because the Vega might be seen as an alternative?
You remind me that there was also a big GM strike in 1970, which allowed Ford to outsell Chevrolet for the first time since, what, 1957 (or 59, depending on how you counted)? But even after the strike, sales continued to sink in 71 and 72. Overall industry sales were pretty healthy in 1972, in fact I knew more people in my area with new 72s than new 73s. And I had no idea how poorly the Camaro sold then until now.
Bingo! I wondered the same thing. Those ’72 & ’73 numbers are pretty telling. You’ve got to wonder if those lower end Camaro buyers were spending their dollars on the hot new Vega instead. Of course sales of 3rd and 4th year of a new bodystyle are probably going to reflect the fact that most people who really wanted the car had already bought it in the first couple years out of the gate, but 6 cylinder sales dropping from double digit percentages to low single digits coinciding with the intro of the Vega can’t be a coincidence. I’d further speculate that 6 cylinder sales only cranked back up to the levels they did in ’74 and ’75 because folks were downsizing from bigger, thirstier cars in the wake of the gas crunch, but many just weren’t ready to go as small as the Vega just yet. (Not to mention that by ’74 the cat was out of the bag about Vega reliability, etc.)
You’re forgetting about cars like the Toyota Celica, which arrived in 1971, and made a pretty decent splash. Starting in the 1969-1973 time periodor so, there was a huge shift in interest to smaller and sportier cars. That included the Capri, which was the #2 selling import at one time. That’s where so many Maustang/Camaro buyers went. Cars like the Capri and Celica were decidedly sportier than a six cylinder Camaro.
Even cars like the Corolla SR5 coupe, and such all were siphoning off the kinds of young buyers that five or eight years earlier were mad about a Mustang or Camaro.
The truth is that the base six cylinder pony cars weren’t any more fun to drive than a Falcon or Chevy II. But these small import cars (and even the subcompact domestics) were genuinely more fun (especially with a stick shift) to drive. And more economical to boot.
It’s why Ford decided to build the Mustang II; they saw which way the market was going.
And why Ford only offered the 2.3 and the 2.8 v-6 in the Mustang II.
That’s an idea for another article, the take rate of the 302 in the Mustang II.
Also, wasn’t during that same era there was a trend of young peoples also goes to pick-up trucks and vans? Chevy Van/GMC Vandura, Dodge RamVan/Tradesman/Sportsvan and Ford Econoline was popular for being customized. Even the Stepside version of the Chevy trucks was getting more sportier with stripes and all. https://www.flickr.com/photos/coconv/6763154841/in/faves-95502257@N08/
The new 1970 didn’t arrive until Feb. 26 of 1970 (as per the ad shown), so it had avery short year. And of course the 1969 had a very long year. But clearly, the gen2 came into a very different market.
The classic pony car market boom died after 1969. The Maverick was a huge hit in 1969, and undoubtedly made an substantial impact. Also, Toyota had explosive growth during this time, and Datsun was close behind.
The market went through a major change, and ponty cars just weren’t all the rage anymore. As Syke pointed out, the direction GM took with the gen2 F-Bodies was spot-on, at least in terms of their long-term success.
The pony car market died in 1970. The volume switched to compact coupes and the 1971 subcompacts.
JP. “Now I know why – because they were so seldom built …”
In the market for a new car in late 1972 to replace my stripper ’68 Nova, I had my heart set on a new Camaro. Problem was, there were none to buy. Same with Firebird. Zero inventory and dealers couldn’t give a delivery date if ordered. Problem was a six month UAW strike at the Norwood plant that built them. Severely impacted ’72-’73 production.
The 1967-69 Camaro has always been my favourite generation. But most of the cars I’ve seen have had V8 engines powering them.
There were a lot more first generation cars with sixes and column shifts than the current hobby market would ever have you believe. And the “average” Camaro in 1967 was a non-RS or SS with a base 327/2-barrel/Powerglide – although I think most of them were floor shifts, I’m not willing to put a monetary bet on the percentage vs. column. GM was incredibly clueless regarding the column shift that first year.
I remember, at age 16, being incredulous that Chevrolet would even put a column shift on a car with bucket seats, making you pay extra for the floor shift (and console whether you wanted it or not), while the Mustang gave you a floor shift on every car, no matter how bare bones (and a college buddy of mine had a ’64 six w/three speed in the fall of 1968).
Chevrolet did offer a bench seat on their 1967 Camaro, thus the option of column shifter. According to the Camaro White Book this was option code (AL4), A total of 6,583 at a price of $26.35 were sold. Colors were limited to: Gold, Black, & Bright Blue. An acquaintance in high school had one, with a 230. His was blue.
The average early Camaro buyers were families looking for a second car. Not the “go fast” teenagers squealing tires, drag racing.
Think of Darrin Stephens driving his ’67 Camaro conv’t to the Ad Agency on “Bewitched”. Or, Samantha going shopping with Tabitha in it.
Back in the early 90s I saw a 71 Camaro advertised in the Memphis Autotrader as having a 6 cylinder and column – mounted 3 speed manual transmission. I couldn’t believe it and had to go “check it out” in person. Red car with a white interior, bigger wheels/tires in back, to give it a slight rake…but sure enough, 3-on-the-tree.
The only other F-body I remember seeing was in the early 80s when I was stationed in Texas. That car was a 69 Firebird with a column – mounted automatic transmission shifter….it had the OHC 6, IIRC.
The 1G RWD F-Bodied 1967-69 Camaros/Firebirds and 2G RWD F-Bodied1970 1/2-81 Camaros/Firebirds actually had close kinship on the basis of a shared nearly identical common platforms with the RWD X-Bodied 3G 1968-74 Novas (for the former) and the RWD X-Bodied 4G 1975-79 Novas along with its Divisional Cousins (for the latter). Same can be said also with the 1G RWD K-Bodied 1975-79 Cadillac Seville albeit on a stretched 4G 1975-79 RWD X-Bodied platform also had shared identical backbone with the 2G 1970 1/2-81 RWD F-Bodies as well.
Pedro, just above, mentioned the Pontiac Firebird. How were its sales in the second generation, once it gained more of its own identity than in 1967-69, and did it take a lot of Camaro buyers? My aunt, a “secretary” type, bought a Firebird Esprit in 1971.
By the mid-70s, the Pontiac Firebird Trans Am was a huge hit, thanks to Smokey and the Bandit. It sure didn’t hurt Pontiac that it was also the top of the Firebird line, with big markups.
When was the straight Six in the Camaro replaced by the V6?
I have not really checked the sales figure since I figured that the 2G Camaros and Firebirds were very popular during those eras and going by their huge volumes, both of these cars were hot sellers. The Firebird along with its upscale model the Trans Am were of course very heavily promoted in the media especially with the Smokey and the Bandit Movies. In addition, don’t forget the Firebird Espirit or Formula since that car was heavily promoted by Jim Rockford of the Rockford Files as well. the Straight 6 for the Camaro was replaced in 1980 by a smaller and lighter 229 V6.
In 1977 a friend of mine brought over the 3 year old Firebird Espirit that he had bought at an auction for his wife to drive.
Pretty car with it’s deep metallic blue exterior paint, white vinyl bucket seat interior, “Rallye” wood-grained gauge package, tilt “Trans Am” smaller diameter black padded steering wheel, working A/C, “Rallye II” factory Pontiac rims and raised white letter radial tires, later revealed to be a set of the (in)famous Firestone steel 500 tires,
Then he started it up…and the complete “image” of the car was ruined (for me) by the taxi cab sound of it’s Chevy six cylinder engine, bringing back instant memories of my Grandpa’s ’51 Chevrolet. A closer look at the console revealed a 3 speed manual gear shift lever and not the expected TurboHydraMatic automatic transmission gear lever.
I raised my eyebrow slightly and stared at the oddball car. My friend hastily explained that his wife picked it out at the auction line up, thinking that she was being “sporty” driving a stick shift pony car. He swore that he would never explain the engine to her.
They kept that oddball car for almost 5 years. She must have been happy with it.
Her husband and I knew better but kept quiet.
A few years ago a costumer called me looking for a Chavy Small Block and I had exactly what he needed, a brand new 350 crate engine . The guy has a 68 Camaro, matching numbers equipped with a 250 in line six and he just wanted to replace it with a V8.
As a sales person, a client like him is like a dream, so easy to convince to close the deal but even though I asked him twice if he was sure to mess up the original condition of his car.
When the job was done he said to me: “Know what Rubens? It just looks right”
Well it really does.
I’ve never realized how popular the 6 cylinder Camaro’s were in the 60’s although it is very understandable why they would be popular in the mid 70’s due to the 1973 Oil Crisis.
This may be off on a tangent, but I wonder what the real-world, city driving difference in fuel economy was between, say, a base-powertrain ’74 Camaro and a ’74 Mustang II.
I would bet substantial, Joe. In my experience, cars of that class and era with sixes usually turned in mileage of maybe 16 in town and maaayyybeee 19-20 on the highway, usually because the things were geared too low in order to keep them from being complete dogs at every stoplight. These numbers were on the high end of real world mileage. 14 and 18 would not have been scary low mileage numbers.
I had a couple of friends with Mustang IIs and they routinely got maybe 20 or so in town and around 25 on the road. Both of them had sticks, and I’m sure the 3 speed automatic would not have done as well. But then my 68 Mustang with the six and a 3 speed had mileage as above.
Very good points, JP. For the drastic measures Ford took with downsizing the Mustang with the II, there would have needed to be an appreciable increase in MPG’s compared to what came before it and also what else was in the marketplace at that time.
JPC’s numbers are accurate, from what I can recall.
One must remember that any car that approached 20 miles per gallon was considered an “economy car” in the late 1960’s/early 1970’s.
Both of my Mother’s American station wagons (Plymouth and Ford) from the 1960’s would often dip into single digit city gas mileage; religiously checked and notated by my Father. Not desired but not unexpected.
My six cylinder, 4 speed ’67 Corvair Monza got 17 to 20 miles per gallon…..,when I tried. Stoplight racing Vegas, Pintos and Fiat 124 convertibles was my amusement when in high school.
The “loosey-goosey” Ford 3 speed automatic of that time period did indeed zap off a LOT of the performance on the Mustang douches. You could sit at a long stop light and tap-tap-tap on the gas pedal, making the engine’s rpm rise and fall, without ANY movement of the car.
The Pinto/Mustang 4 speed manual transmission was a tight, short throw, direct, delightful transmission to row thru the gears! You may not have been achieving that much acceleration; but it sounded and felt like you were.
Don’t forget, I think it started in mid-75 where all 4 cylinder Mustang II models were technically called “MPG” models… Yes, my eyes rolled just typing that out.
Yup!
“23 Miles Per Gallon” was prominently displayed in the ads.
This reminds me of a lady I used to know. She had a green 71 Camaro that was just beautiful, with Cragar mags and expensive-looking white-lettered tires. Pretty impressive! But looks were deceiving. It had a straight six, and she was so broke that she never filled up the tank. She would never buy more than five gallons at a time, but she had herself a Camaro!
The latest generation Camaro has moved on from a mainstream to niche vehicle. The cheaper Mustang and Challenger have a broader appeal.
With that said, GM always seemed to be incrementally moving in that direction. At first, the f-body, like the Mustang, had a much wider array of options, as well as a more user-friendly driving experience.
But every subsequent model seemed to drift more and more towards performance and away from day-to-day driving ease. I just can’t see today’s expensive, gunslit-window Camaro being much of a daily-driver.
Just under 50k for a new Mustang here Ford is planning to mop up any current Falcon V8 owners feeling the lack of a new car, yeah good luck with that.
And yet Mustang sales in Australia have taken it to the top of the sport coupe segment and, anecdotally, I am seeing them everywhere.
Is it a direct replacement for the Falcon? No. Do coupe sales generally cool off after a little while? Yes. But I think Ford has tapped a market that has been crying out for something like the Mustang (or indeed, for a A Mustang) for quite some time.
And it’s out-selling the cheaper Toyota 86 and Hyundai Veloster at the moment…
No offense to your point, but comparing the Veloster to a Mustang is akin to comparing an orange to a semi-automatic pistol.
Imported used Mustangs have sold well in NZ for some time they are literally everywhere but now they are cheaper and new and with a warranty from the local blue oval dealer, I’m seeing lots of RHD versions so I guess tthey are selling ok.
“GM could barely give them away ca ’72 ”
Posted about a 1972 UAW strike at the F body plant. It was that GM couldn’t build any. I think “Ate Up with Motor” has more info on this?
I hadn’t realized there was a strike in ’72, but I still don’t think GM did very well with F bodies from ’71-’73. First generation cars were plentiful, as were ’74 and later models, but the early year second gen cars were scarce as far back as the late ’70s. From about ’77 on, the Chev-Olds emporium my Dad worked at couldn’t get enough new ones and neither could the competing Pontiac-Buick store across town.
I remember dealership personnel who’d been around awhile remarking on the rush to buy a car no one wanted 5 years before, while gleefully writing up sales agreements for full sticker and taking large deposits for special order cars.
GM Ford and Chrysler all did the same here with their ‘performance’ hardtops, they could all be had with the small six and the stripe kit, Celicas 240Zs and their ilk all sold well though at much higher prices than in the US we couldnt get Mustangs or Camaros in any numbers though many were privately imported and very very few if any had six cylinder engines and tree shift and bench seats in a sporty car, really?
I do know that the old Chevrolet 250 inline 6 was used in Camaros through 1979. In 1980-81, the Camaro went to the 3.8 V6 (Chevy 229 in 49 states, Buick 231 in California) as standard engine. When the gen 3 Camaro arrived in 1982, the standard engine is the Pontiac 2.5 Iron Duke 4 banger with the Chevy 2.8 V6 and 5.0 V8 optional.
What surprises me more than a six-cylinder Camaro is ome from 1974 with column-shifted automatic and a ’65 Mustang hardtop with a bench seat.
“I’m confused…were they from the South, OR from Missouri? ?
(Sorry…I had to do it!)”
S’ O.K. , I consider Mo. to be part of the South as does anyone not from there….
My Mo. buddies all call it ” The State Of Misery ” ~ I thought it was nice last time I passed through .
-Nate
I was there today. Missouri always strikes me as a mini-U.S.; big, more liberal cities on the east and west ends, conservative in the south, farmland in the middle.
You’re correct, Missourians don’t consider themselves to be Southerners, but then again, inhabitants of other Southern states typically don’t consider Missouri to be part of the South, either. You definitely feel a Midwest vibe in Kansas City, although not so much in Joplin and Springfield.
Fall 1967 owners’ survey (Popular Mechanics) re mileage:
Personally, I’d LOVE to have a 1967-69 Camaro with the 250/Powerglide. Just my speed! It’s all about the STYLE, baby! I cruise in the slow lane…
The really low take rate for the 100hp six in ’73 could be due to the availability of the 115hp 307 V-8 right next to it on the order sheet. The comparative huge jump with the six in ’74 may be explained by the 145hp 350 becoming the smallest V-8. I dont have access to EPA mileage figures, but the 250 and 307 may have been nearly identical.
I happen to have a 1967 Camaro 6 cylinder convertible with factory air. I am guessing it is rare. Anybody know how many were made ?