(first posted 4/3/2014) I’ve seen this Camaro running around town for a couple of months, and last week I caught up with it in the parking lot of a local community service organization (Kiwanis as I recall). Based on my earlier sightings, I wanted to get a better look at this pony car. As you can see, it carries a working man’s patina, with a clean body and original parts.
But more than that, it’s true to the original pony car vision. It’s stylish, the right size, and has sufficient power, but has not given way to excesses in styling, power or features. Toss in the fact that the top retracts, and this car resides in my automotive sweet spot.
Most of the Camaros running around town nowadays look more like this fancy model, with a high horsepower four-barrel V-8 engine (the SS Package) and hidden headlights (the RS package). Chevy preferred to sell these upgraded models with high priced options, but in 1967 almost 75% of all Camaros came with straight sixes or the base two-barrel V8.
This advertisement for a base model convertible helps explain why. This convertible shares most options with our Curbside Classic, including the paint color and the bottom rung V-8 (in 1967, 327 cubic inches). The only noticeable upgrades over our car are the white nose stripe and the full wheel covers. It even shares a round rear view mirror with the Chevy Nova. We frequently apply pejoratives such as “stripper,” “poverty trim” or “loss leader” to this type of car, but not in this case–I think it’s a damn fine looking ride.
By the way, be sure to read the advertising text. It includes a reference to “road hugging weight.” I’m amazed Chevy still used such language to sell a sporty car in 1967, but there it is…
Some have criticized this grille, saying it looks cheap or that it lacks character. I can see their point, but perhaps the rest of the body helps explain why the grille gathers so much criticism. Chevy got so much right on this car, that any fault is magnified by its contrast.
That simple point defined by the hood and bumper, combined with the smooth lines defining the grille opening give us a dramatic image. Inside that grille opening, we’re looking for something equally dramatic and interesting. Two round headlights flanking a pair of small turn signals and a one piece plastic insert just doesn’t do it. I just want to get in there and add a pair of headlights, or darken the silver frame around the grille, or paint the grille body color, or something!
Despite that, I definitely have an interest in this Camaro. The 327 V-8 was the most common engine displacement, mostly because 5.4 liters is all the engine this car needs. Most 327s came with a two barrel carburetor making all of 210 horsepower, but if you really needed power, this small block delivered 275 horses when ordered with the four barrel, which also included larger valves and a more aggressive camshaft, helping to explain the 30% jump in horsepower. Based this car’s trim, I’m assuming it’s equipped with the base two bbl V-8.
What wasn’t available was a third cog in your small box automatic, as the two-speed Powerglide was the only automatic transmission available. While I’d like to see a clutch pedal in this cockpit, it would most likely engage the standard three-speed manual, which had a column-shifter. A four speed manual, with floor shifter, was optional with all engines, even the standard 230 cubic inch six with 140 hp. The four-speed would have been the ideal choice to go with that (imagined) 275 HP four barrel engine.
While the front view has that cheap grille, I think this back view is very solid. Continuing the theme from up front, the sheet metal provides context, while the bumper and tail lights perform their functions without distracting the eye. Look carefully, and you can spot dual exhaust pipes, promising a subtle rumble to match the V-8’s power output. Those skinny little tires deliver the only sour note to this composition. They may be the stock width, but I’d want a bit more tire patch on the pavement; something to bite the ground when I unfetter that classic 327.
To close, let’s view the complete package. This car has the right size, the right engine and the right features. If you remember a Camaro from your youth, it probably looked a lot like this. Let’s send out thanks to the original owner who choose the typical options of the day, and to the current driver for proudly displaying this car’s forty six years of use, leaving it with the perfect patina. Enjoy!
I find these base Camaros so much more interesting when they aren’t fake RS/SS models or Z/28s. How many are out there looking like this?
If the current Camaro was more like this I’d be interested.
STRONGLY agree with ex-x-fire on this!
You forget how good the earliest Camaro looked, each facelift made it look a little more cartoonish…
This is the second time I have heard that the later Camaros were more “cartoonish” than early ones. They only made this body style for 3 yrs, did each year actually change more than grill?
I ask because just this weekend I stopped at a local car dealership known for having interesting inventory, exotics, classics, race cars, etc. And on the showroom floor he happened to have a new Camaro ZL1, a full restomod 69 Camaro, a newish GT500 and a 97 Mustang Cobra all in a row. I was surprised to see that the new Camaro was really not much larger than the 69, and the 97 Cobra appeared to be the smallest of the bunch. I had always assumed the 1st gen Camaros were very small cars but the 69 looked almost as cartoonish as the ZL1.
The surfacing of the panel was changed a bit- “speed whiskers” added around the wheel arches and such things. Mostly it came down to detailing, with more aggressive looking grilles and such.
+1 on the pre-speedwhiskers version. The original Camaro is a super clean piece of design. The articles I read about the latest version had the designers referring to the 69 as their inspiration for some reason.
If they really used that for inspiration, there must have been some major hallucinogens involved. If only a Camaro looked like this today, they might have got my money in July.
The ’67 and ’68 were essentially the same car, except for some details like the grille and such, and no vent windows. The exterior body panels changed for ’69, with the fender-bulges and speed whiskers, as well as a much more complex and 3D grille. Oddly enough, the ’69s front end was from an early prototype, but they didn’t use it until ’69, probably to save a few bucks.
Thanks for the explanation. I like the early ones best, but I also like the 70-73. Guess it’s my age, I grew up with more of the 2nd gens.
The two things I always look for to tell a ’67 from a ’68 are the vent windows in the doors (’67s have them, ’68s don’t), and side marker lights (’68s have them, ’67s don’t). The taillights are also slightly different between the two years. I wasn’t aware of a change in the grille but there may also be a slight difference there.
I’m sure it would be easy for someone to put a ’67 grille, fenders, doors, and tailights on a ’68, or vice versa, just to mess up those of us who notice such details.
The 1969 had considerable sheetmetal changes, and are what the new Camaro is based on.
Love it. Ever since I saw Paul Newmans patinamobile in Harper, this is how I want a CC to look. Pangs of jealousy to the owner and nice find to Dave.
I want the white one in an earlier article with the 250 Powerglide, instead!
Otherwise, this is right up my alley, even though with that 327, it’ll be a gas hog. However, being a convertible takes the sting out of that considerably.
Ohhhhhh – are those brand new whitewall tires where that blue coating has not washed off yet? Somehow whitewalls and dog dish hubcaps look right on this car.
I would have assumed that the 283 was the base engine, so thanks formthe new info. I find that concept of the column shifted 3 speed fascinating. One area where Ford did it right was making the base 3 speed a floor shift also. No wonder ther are so many 4 speed Camaros today when the only other choices were the 3 on the tree or the Glide.
I love the condition. About 10 years ago I used to see an orange Challenger convertible in about this same shape (with a little Indiana rust added.) I suppose that at some point, every car like this will get treated to a resto.
I hope this one doesn’t…It’ll end up a “restomod” or a fake SS. I’m glad there are others who appreciate the same things I do; I walk right by customized early Camaros–they just don’t do anything for me.
+1
The guys on the Firebird & Camaro forums disgust me…but there’s no decent forum out there for these cars unlike many other models. Finding useful information (& neat stories) is difficult amongst all the “Pro-touring”, “restomod”, & “how to take “worthless base-models & turn them into Yenko/ZL1/RS/SS/Z28/W72/SD455/Bandit clone” garbage threads.
I bet the owner loves that car & enjoys it like a favorite broken-in pair of shoes. It’s just perfect being a V8 console-shift convertible in that color combination.
This car is just perfect as-is: I’d be piling the miles on that baby…but since it’ll never grace my driveway, I can only hope it never changes color or gets bastardized with an identity that was never meant to be.
I find nothing wrong with the grille design either — it’s handsome and understated.
Agnelli’s 375. When I first read about it, it was owned by two guys who kept it perfectly patinated. Then a guy called Jack Thomas had it 100-pointed. I know which condition I’d prefer.
For ’68 there were something like 9 engines available, and I’d assume it wasn’t much different for ’67. The base engine was a 235 straight-six, followed by the 250 Turbo-Thrift (which is what came in my ’68). Then there were the V-8s. I don’t think the 283 was ever offered in the Camaro. The lowest displacement V-8 was the DZ-302 in the Z-28.
Everyone goes ga-ga over the ’69, but personally the ’67 and ’68 are far more attractive.
Some day I’ll finish my ’68. Some day. . . (ugh!)
That was quite a jump from the 250 six to the 327 V8, but then Ford had the same problem when it jumped from a 289 (or 302 in 68) up to a 390 with no stops in between. I always daydreamed about the possibilities of a higher displacement/higher output Ford smallblock for 1967-68. That ungodly heavy 390, as great as it was for pushing Country Squires around, was a disaster in a Mustang. The 327 was probably just perfect for the Camaro.
IINM, in that era most Chevy models offered the 327 only with a 4bbl, with a 283 (307 starting in 1968) slotted in beneath it as a base V8. For some reason, the 1967-69 Camaro did not offer the 283/307, but instead had a 2bbl version of the 327 as its base V8. I don’t know why. Taking into account the 302 in the Z28 and the 350 in the SS in 1967 (a year or two before other models got it), the Camaro had a rather unorthodox lineup of small-block V8s.
In 1969, the 350 replaced the 327 for all “normal” applications (i.e., 4bbl), including in the Camaro, but the Camaro kept the 327 for the 2bbl version. For that one year only, full-size Chevrolets also adopted a lineup with a 327 2bbl and a 350 4bbl, similar to the Camaro (though the 327 had a different horsepower rating than in the Camaro). The 327 2bbls in the Camaro and the full-size models were the only 327s still available in ’69, which was their last year. For 1970, the Camaro adopted a conventional 307/350 lineup, while full-size cars went with the 350 as their smallest V8. I’ve heard that some late-model year ’69 Camaros were built with 307s instead of 327s, possibly due to the ’69 Camaro’s extended model year; maybe they ran out of 327 blocks by the fall of 1969.
One more note: the base six in 1967-69 Camaros was the 230, not the 235. The 230 was essentially a smaller version of the 250, and had replaced the old 235 in 1963. For 1970, the 230 was dropped from Camaros, and the 250 became the base six.
I wonder if offering the 327 was meant to one-up the Mustang’s base 289 V8. GM was already three years behind Ford & needed a real strong competitor to draw attention away from the running pony.
Cubic inches was a bit of a bragging right back then.
Engine lineup from the late brochure
Compared to the early one.
Also, the switch to the 307 was made quite early in the model year, as per this bulletin.
Very interesting that the switch was made so early; I never knew that. Maybe they had a certain number of 327s in inventory at the start of the model year, and when they were gone, they were gone? Did the full-sizes drop the 327 at the same time?
> That was quite a jump from the 250 six to the 327 V8, but then Ford had the same problem when it jumped from a 289 (or 302 in 68) up to a 390 with no stops in between.
And then for several years in the late ’80s the only Mustang engine choices were a 2.3 four and a 5.0 V8 Talk about a big jump, well over twice the displacement for the optional engine!
I don’t think I’ve seen one looking like this since the 1980s! This, to me, is what a Camaro should be.
Aside from the standard hubcaps, this car looks like one that Samantha (Elizabeth Montgomery) drove on Bewitched, “brought to you by…Chevrolet!”
So I don’t really get the appeal of “patina”. To me this car just looks like it was abused. Its so close, yet would cost a ton of money just to get it back to looking good and that’s sad. If the original owners had just kept it nicer then it would have so much more appeal to me.
But the good news for all your patina lovers out there is that you can easily find examples in this condition for sale, and cheap too. This is about a $10k car. And it’s true, if you don’t buy it someone else surely will and then resto-mod the crap out of it. 🙂
If this were my car, at the first sight of “patina” (which I absolutely HATE) I would have had the car painted.
@Zackman – my guess is that if this was your car then it would have been kept washed, waxed, garaged and/or covered and therefore not need painting, like I would have done. 🙂
I completely agree with you regarding patina (the only exception being a commercial vehicle), its just looks lazy to me, that you could not be bothered to look after it.
Not a huge fan of GM but the early Camaro is a nice looking car, one thing that does bug me though is the chrome wheel arch trim, unnecessary and a rust trap, I would take them off.
A UK car programme Wheeler dealers restored one, in pale metallic blue, saw it without the wheel arch trim and it looked much nicer without them
This car is 47 years old! If it were truly abused it wouldn’t be rolling anymore. A 10-year-old car that looks like this, yeah, abuse.
@Jim – to me that just makes it worse. Because someone at some point cared enough about this car to not let it get destroyed the first 10-15 yrs of its life, but eventually whoever owned it just stopped caring about it. Its a classic Camaro, even at the worst point in the market it was a valuable desirable car. And you can’t wash and wax it regularly? You can’t be bothered to keep the interior clean? You cant get the giant dent fixed? Did you notice the cigarette lighter on the console and the ashtray full of butts? I bet the car reeks of smoke too. This isn’t “patina” from a loving owner that daily drives his dream car. This is just some dirtbag who simply doesn’t care about the car at all and treats it that way. This isn’t even a driver for me, I would have to rip it all apart and clean everything.
Some of us don’t have OCD. And you’re jumping to a lot of conclusions/judgements. What’s the problem with just accepting and appreciating it for what it is, without all the heavy judgements? You really don’t know anything about this car’s story. Are you with the Papal Automotive Inquisition? 🙂
Seriously, calling the owner of this car a “dirtbag” borders on what is not acceptable in terms of our commenting guidelines. There’s a good chance the owner will find this post here, and I don’t think calling him names is cool. FWIW, he obviously just put new tires on it. Maybe he just bought it. Or just likes it likes this?
Thats a good point Paul, I apologize for the name calling, if I could edit it I would.
As for the judgments, all of us were giving our opinions on the desirability of “patina” on old cars, and I gave my opinion, not judgement. Sorry but I stand by my opinion, as it is simply my opinion. There is patina and then there is simple mistreatment, and this particular car in my opinion was mistreated. Perhaps it WAS just purchased by someone who will clean it up nicely, who knows. I just think its sad that it was not kept nicer in the first place.
And for the record, I am not talking about OCD levels of perfection. Keeping a car decently clean and washed, fixing big dents, those are pretty easy things to do to keep a nice car “nice”. I hate those garage queen full resto big blocks as much as the next guy here.
I think we all forget that 99.9% of the population could really care less about cars. And I’m guessing the owner of this car does not belong to the OneTenthOfOnePercent club(a more exclusive group than the OnePercenters). I’m also guessing that this owner probably keeps this car just for the attention. I know I get tired of people asking me “if it’s for sale” when ever I’m driving one of my more “rare,clean or you just don’t see one of those anymore” cars. Than there are the people(Mr.Moneypants for example) who can’t take no for an answer. Hey, sentimental value has a high price tag. So with that said than who really cares if it’s turned into a “clone” or resto-rod. Or whether the driver keeps on driving till it can’t no more. People,people Chevy made millions of cars over the years. And not because we all dream about buying one when it’s 50 years old. It’s just basic transportation. It was when it was built and it still is today. I mean do we really admire this car because of it’s “patina” (I hate that word too!) or because the driver can keep a 50 YO appliance running? Both? Or neither?
Also, not everyone is independently wealthy. If you’re on a fixed income or just don’t have a lot of disposable income, pouring money into nonessential cosmetic stuff is hard to justify.
I see a lot of cars like this around these parts, often owned by older people who’ve had them for many years (or even from new). They get regular maintenance and essential repairs, but $5,000 paint jobs and all-new chrome are not on the menu.
Not sure I see the impoverished angle, if the car has value as a collectable classic then it must have some decent resale value, surely it would be better for an impoverished owner to sell it and buy an ordinary more modern used car that would be more reliable and economical and pocket the difference?
Keeping a car clean is not OCD ( or CDO as it should be known) , some people like myself simply do not like dirty surroundings., if people think I am up my self, to quote Catherine Tate “am I bovvered ?”
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bovvered
Lee, Ok, we get you like clean. But others are different. Is that allowed? Why do you and others have to keep harping on how others chose to keep their cars? It’s a free country, at least in that regard. And you know nothing about the the circumstances of this car or its owner.
I’ve seen cars like this that commonly have been kept by someone for decades, but simply either haven’t gotten around to fixing them up or don’t want to. But they like to keep them driveable, and enjoy taking them out from time to time.
I just don’t get why you and others have to endlessly nag and finger-wag about this. Have you seen what my ’66 F100 looks like. Makes this Camaro look pretty good in comparison.
Paul – It was meant in fun or did it go over your head?
I did not draw any conclusions about the owner nor did I give them any thought
Is it alright to express an opinion here ?
mnm4ever has a point of view , but perhaps the wrong choice of words.
Do you not see the subtle cyber bullying going on here? the chap said sorry for the name calling
Is it OK to imply that people who like things clean are OCD (it means suffering from a mental illness), isn’t that a blatant criticism? I don’t see that as any different from calling someone a dirtbag. Call me OCD and I will take offence
I have seen it before on this site where someone does not agree with the norm and other people gang up on them, and do not appreciate it
I’m fine with “patina” if that’s what it actually is – the normal wear and tear in an old car that’s used for everyday transportation along with occasional battle scars rather than a buffed-up showpiece that’s displayed at car shows and sees little driving elsewhere. I think a distinction should be made between such patina-bearing cars and those that are simply rusted out, poorly maintained clunkers that got that way from being neglected though. This one seems to belong in the former group.
FWIW I’m fine with restomods too, particularly of common cars like Mustangs and tri-five Chevys. There are loads of these around so it’s not like you’re destroying a rare or unique collectible, and some sane people want the looks of a classic car without having to deal with drum brakes, carburetors, or bias=ply tires. Not obsessing over original parts (or worse, what precise optional equipment the car was born with) makes it practical and affordable to drive what looks like a vintage car without having to deal with the cost and maintenance associated with old cars, authenticity be damned.
“Internet Humor” can often be “iffy” and easily understood when you cannot see the facial expressions or hear the vocal intonations of the sender.
As I know all too well…..from both directions.
Lee: To say “it was meant in fun” is the oldest cop-out known to man. Well, that and “I was just kidding”.
You said: ” surely it would be better for an impoverished owner to sell it and buy an ordinary more modern used car that would be more reliable and economical and pocket the difference?”
You jump to a conclusion that the owner of this Camaro is “impoverished”. That’s almost certainly a highly inaccurate judgment. And you’re telling him what to do, as in in telling him he shouldn’t enjoy his old Camaro just as it is.
This issue is not just about commenters “expressing an opinion”, like whether they like the ’67 Camaro or not. It’s passing judgement on its owner, which is a whole different thing altogether. It’s not ok to express your opinion about blacks, Indians, Asians, gays, lesbians or other groups of people either.
My problem with this endlessly occurring issue is this: I started CC for the purpose of documenting and honoring the old original well-used cars still on the streets. CC is not about gushing over perfectly-restored or preserved cars. Yes, they may appear from time to time, but that’s not really our thing here. Maybe you should re-read our Welcome page.
Yet from day one, there’s been an endless stream of derisive comments here from folks who don’t like authentic old original cars like this Camaro, which actually fits our CC definition as perfectly as any. Keep in mind it’s actually much harder to find a ’67 Camaro in this shape that a perfectly restored one.
These negative comments about old, original cars with patina are laced with judgement about their owners. it always boils down to that. That’s the nature of folks who are into keeping everything perfect and tidy and neat and clean: they inherently look down on folks that don’t. Curiously, it doesn’t work the other way around. We don’t make negative judgments about the folks who have immaculate cars. We may not gush over them, but we’re not derisive about the owner’s personality defects. I wonder why?
There a hundreds of websites dedicated to owners who love to show off their perfectly restored or restomodded or hot-rodded or otherwise sparkling and clean cars. CC is not one of them.
So if you’re going to come to a site dedicated to finding and honoring the old beaters on the street, doesn’t it make sense to respect that and not make assumptions about the owners?
I’m sure plenty of folks make economic assumptions about me when I drive my beater F100, but they’re obviously wrong, as I’m actually pretty flush. I’m expressing my choice in keeping it like that, and the owner of this Camaro is almost certainly the same. And there’s a whole lot of others like us; in fact, it’s a growing phenomena. Many young car guys with old cars choose to not tun them into gleaming objects, and appreciate the authentic patina of a well-used older car.
So go ahead and say you don’t like ’67 Camaros, or even that you prefer a nice sparkly Camaro, but just leave the owners out of the equation. You and everyone else who makes any assumption about the owners of cars is invariably wrong. And that’s not a quality that brings respect to the writer of such comments. And these types of comments are not welcome here.
Why am I disappointed and not surprised by your response
I will tell you why your sneering and insulting response to mnm4ever really annoyed me and why I felt compelled to support him.
He made a faux pas and you pulled him up on it which was valid, all you needed to say was he transgressed the rules and it was not acceptable. He would have responded as he did and apologised, and that would have been the end of it, perhaps he just had a bad day, or maybe his life is falling apart, who knows, who are you to judge, any compassion?
That was all that was needed but you had to ridicule, judge and insult him online for all to read, in the comments that followed I certainly felt that mnm4ever was being ridiculed.
Your very first words “Some of us don’t have OCD” which you imply mnm4ever must suffer from, he is not quite normal, how can that not be seen as a personal insult right off the bat. So you judge him as an obsessive without really knowing him. What if he actually does suffer from OCD (you love statistics its about 2.3% so it’s likely some must visit and post on this site ), congratulations, you have just ridiculed person with a mental disorder. I have a friend whose life has been ruined by it, is that funny?
“Papal Automotive inquisition”, second unnecessary personal insult, though there are times when you have definitely assumed that roll
You are guilty of throwing insults about and that is Cyber bullying , which is not acceptable for a person in an administrative position, but is it your site and what you say is law I suppose , apply your own standards to yourself.
mnm4ever realised he transgressed, retracted and clarified his position but that didn’t seem to be good enough, he is entitled to express his opinion about how he like things to be without being accused of OCD and of being an inquisitor, others are able to respectfully disagree with his outlook, or not, though if they do agree with him then expect the thought police
That’s what really pissed me off
When I said keeping a car clean was not OCD (or CDO in the correct alphabetical order which seems to be completely lost on you ) It was reiterating mnm4ever, that is normal behaviour not worthy of the OCD insult
Your first statement – so you know my mind and I am a liar, that’s what you are saying, more implied insults, I say you need a sense of humour
Where did I jump to the conclusion that the owner was impoverished? if you actually read and comprehended what I said then you would understand that I was surmising that the opposite was possible as they had an asset of worth. We can tell that the owner was not an invalid as the car had no special hand controls, they were a smoker etc that’s what mnm4ever was looking at. It is fun trying to deduce things from observation like Sherlock Holms but I am sure it would be lost on you as well
Needless to say I will not bother with this site again
I have appreciated the contributions from Europe, and other locations in this big and varied world, I hope to see some of you blog on some other site in the future, and to the US contributors , I enjoyed our banter about Lucas Prince of darkness and cup holders, and to the Oz and NZ contributors, it has opened my eyes to the car scene there and really looking forward to my visit in 2019
Lee, I assume you know that this interchange with mn4ever happened over four years ago? And yet you chose to re-open it now?
My original comment, as well my comments to you, are targeted at a generalized group of commenters, not him or you specifically. Re-read my comment: I’m expressing frustration with the fact that this type of comment occurs here with predictable frequency, and has since just about day one.
Frankly, it’s kind of obtuse for folks to endlessly leave comments like that, expressing their dismay at a car that is not in pristine condition and passing judgement about its owner, at a site dedicated to the celebration of just that kind of car. Think about it. That doesn’t mean it’s not ok to express your preference, but the problem is that all-too often it degenerates into name calling, as mn4ever did, in calling the owner of this car “a dirtbag”. That’s not ok, and it goes against our stated policy.
I simply pointed that out to him. That’s hardly “cyberbullying”. Our commenting policy is in writing, and very clearly stated. Calling someone a “dirtbag” for owning this car goes completely against not only our policy, but our whole purpose, and stated values, of celebrating old survivor cars.
I never said that mn4ever had OCD. I said that “some of us don’t have OCD”, meaning that some of us are not compulsive about our cars’ appearance. I didn’t say whether he is or isn’t; just what some of us aren’t. Using the term that way is something that is commonly done. It was obviously not a medical diagnosis.
mn4ever apologized for his very clear transgression of our policy. That was the end of it, but you just had to wade back into this four years later. And make all sorts of spurious attacks against me. That tells me something about yourself, and with this last comment of yours, I can now say I’m not sorry to see you go. Your rather superior attitude and derisive comments have not gone unnoticed by me in the past, so it’s hardly a loss.
Yeah, like the other guys said, not everyone is OCD or rich dude. Patina looks cool IMO (if it’s real, I hate when people purposely rust their cars). Of course if I had a choice between patina and a restored or original condition car, I would take restored. But I dig cars that wear their age well too.
Calling someone a dirtbag because they have a lighter in their not perfect almost 50 year old car is ridiculous.
You don’t have to be rich to wash your car once a month or so, and empty the ashtray. It isn’t really OCD to do those things either. If you actually read my comments you would see that don’t expect the car to be kept in showroom condition, or restored at the first sign of wear. I just think it would be “cool” if the owner tried a little bit instead of letting it just waste away.
And I apologized for the name calling already too.
Sort of brings back memories. Dad was out of the dealership two years by the time the ’67’s were introduced, and while he’d bought mom a new Caprice wagon the previous model year, he was finally due for his new car. And, to my amazement, he decided to go for a Camaro, ordered before the car was out.
Of course, it was a dressed up secretary’s special: Rally Sport trim (neither of us liked the standard grille when we saw it in the flyers), 327 two barrel, Powerglide, the fancy interior. Some kind of wheel covers, whatever came standard with the Rally Sport package.
And I have to agree with you on the engine choices. I don’t care if you’re talking Camaro, Barracuda, Mustang, Corvette – I dislike big blocks. They completely ruin the handling of a car, and, to me, say that the owner is into drags and can’t drive a road course worth a damn.
Nice little rag top there , these were _not_ ‘heavy’ , they had little weight at all and folded up easily in minor crashes , still nice cars though .
In 1982 I had a ’67 RS with the 327 , 2BBL Rochester and Slip ‘N Slide Powerglide slushbox , in the same color blue , it was given to me to sell and I couldn’t ~ I was working on Automotive Row on Walnut St. and curb parked it daily for three months , no one wanted to pay $500 for a running registered Ca. car with the original black and yellow plates . (blue plates didn’t arrive until 1970) .
I even tried parking it in front of the Corvette Shop but no one even ever asked about it .
Times change .
-Nate
I like patina on old cars and also six cylinder pony cars!
I’m always in the minority when I say that I prefer the 67-68 grille to the ’69, but I do. I don’t know why, but I just do.
These are right up there with the 2nd gen Corvair with some of the nicest lines in automotive design IMO.
This is a true ‘pony car’ and what most Camaros were equipped, except as hardtops. They were not all ‘muscle cars’.
BTW: The HP figures listed are in Gross #’s. So a 210 Gross HP 327 would more likely have 180 or 190 net HP, about the same as the late 70’s 305/350 v8.
Too many forget this HP rating change and go ‘wow HP dropped in 1972!’
I think all or perhaps most GM engines were designed for lead free gas for the 71 model year. Engines were rated for both gross brake horsepower and net HP. Then after that engine ratings were for net. Net ratings slipped a lot as emissions standards tightend. GM dabbled with electronic fuel injection making it standard on the 76 Seville. However, this is the time frame when the microprocessor became widely available and GM also could see that analog computer fuel injection was obsolete already. Digital fuel injection would make controlling emissions easier.
If I recall correctly, GM and other automakers began making mechanical changes to their engines in 1969 to prepare for the availability of unleaded gasoline. The compression ratios, however, were not changed by GM until 1971. I believe that Chrysler held out for one more year on that change.
From the pictures, it seems that this particular car has an abnormally-high suspension height (esp. when compared to the advertisement picture). Was this normal? Or does it just look that way due to the stock wheels (most of them I remember growing up had the rally wheels or Cragars, or slotted mags).
It could be that the one pictured in the advertisment had a dozen sacks of cement distributed in the trunk and floorboards to lower the car. Madison Avenue had a lengthy bag of tricks designed to improve a cars appearance over as delivered version.
I like this a lot and I’m a Ford fan!Ford must have got a nasty shock when the Camaro appeared.
I had forgotten about the similar styling cues GM shared with these two
I own a ’65 ‘Vair convertible, and it’s beautiful, but I wonder if the ’67/8 Camaro’s rear quarter panels might be the best looking ever. The car looks so right from a rear 3/4 angle.
So true, Aaron65.
I think a ’65 Corvair looks just as good from a rear 3/4 angle.
We both know the ‘Vair stops quicker, with less drama, and handles curvy roads better than this featured Camaro.
Rear 3/4 view of my Corvair:
My father had one same color as yours. Loved that car
There, you went and did it. The mid-’60s Corvair ragtop. My absolute dream car from the time it first hit the road. I also immediately saw the parallel to the featured Camaro.
They’re both lovely vehicles I’d be proud to own.
Maybe in the next life. . .
Just like my 68 Mustang hardtop. Basic 289-2V, auto, console, AC, power steering, drum brakes, Pebble beige with black dash top and carpet as accent. Stock wheels, stock tires, stock wheel covers and stock engine. The Mustang as it was originally intended.
+1 — love the ’67 & ’68 Mustang when they are original.
This looks like the quintessential Cali car that has weathered a bit, and paint has thinned. And probably saw some long term storage.
I’d bet that this car would really pop just with serious elbow grease, compounding and polish. It would be fun to drive it that way for a year or so.
Then, I’d restore it to factory, but would get a set of OEM full wheel covers or wire covers to switch out occasionally, just for a few different looks.
Chevy really did nail this one.
Congrats to the owner!
I like this car just fine the way it is. There can’t be many left that haven’t been turned into “tribute” SS396s or rally sports. While it may need a little TLC, back when most Camaros were equipped like this. Barrett-Jackson may make it seem like they all had cowl induction hoods, rally wheels, spoilers, skunk stripes and 4 speeds but they were really a pretty ordinary car. I wonder if this one has the infamous mono leaf rear springs?
Love the lines, but this example sits much too high… Someone boogered it up.
On the weight issue, early F-body convertibles (like the Corvair convertible) had damping weights at each corner of the body — if I recall, they were 35 pounds each, which was on top of the beef added to the floorpan and the extra mass of the top mechanism. So, maybe the ad copy was a little defensive.
I had a 1967 Camaro coupe, from brand new; and I don’t miss it.
I’ll concede that its styling was right on the mark, elegant and chaste, with just the right amount of bulge to the fenders. The 1969 Camaro was almost like a caricature in comparison.
But as a CAR it was lacking. The hoary Powerglide was a drag on performance. The ride was jolting, tossing and the nose-heavy handling didn’t justify the discomfort. Not until I installed an aftermarket rear sway bar did the car handle the way its looks suggested it would. The seats were thinly padded slabs that did nothing to cushion the jolts of the ride. Among the “ponycars” of the time, the Plymouth Barracuda was the best CAR but it was handily outsold by the Mustang, Camaro and once it hit the market, the Firebird.
Agree on everything G. Poon said here.
I rode in a nearly identical Camaro many times. A family friend traded in her ugly brown and cream ’65 Dodge (Not sure what model it was, but it was really ugly). I think her car had the six though. She had it into the middle 80’s. Last time I saw it, it was looking pretty pitiful, all rusted to hell. It was running though, she was taking her kids home from school in it. It was gone not long after. I doubt it was restored, it was probably too far gone.
Your talk of the Barracuda and other pony cars of the time made me think of “Bullitt”. When you get down to issues, this has little to do with the Camaro post above, but I far prefer the “Bullitt” Charger to the Mustang or any other comparable car of the time. Again, I’m sorry for the diversion. My early-morning ADD is kicking in, I guess.
Nice to see some here understand this was a CHEAP PONY CAR , not a racer nor even a Sports Car .
When equipped with the 250 I6 they rode and handled O.K. for the time , there used to be zillions of six cylinder Camaros everywhere but the jerkoffs have chopped them all up now ~ I look for them and haven’t seen a six banger Camaro in over a decade .
Mustangs too went out the door with 4 sixers for every V-8 sold when new , no one remembers this .
They’re quite pretty IMO and I always meant to find and buy a coupe with 6 but never quite did .
-Nate
I’ll go on the record as liking the patina of that car BUT… the the interior reeks of slovenliness. My ’78 Fairmont has rather weathered paint and a somewhat faded vinyl top but the interior, although slightly worn, in kept quite clean. And I’m anything but OCD. If I’m going to spend any quality time in a car I like the insides to be clean.
I flashed on the mint green 68 Camaro Convertible my “Crazy Aunt Marcia” had around 1970. 327 Auto, white top, mint green interior. It had AC, but her bright red hair with the top down (in her 70’s, never married), was a sight I’ll always remember. She worked for Bekins Moving for almost 50 years. Her first, last and only job. When she was near death she would not allow any of the family to visit, phone calls only. She wanted to say goodbye by phone. The only time she ever cried was when my 14 year old self told her I love her, the last time I ever talked to her. She loved life and never failed to have a smile on her face.
Sweet story.
I don’t get all the patina haters. This is probably still the original paint! Remember folks, you can restore and repaint a car as many times as you like, but it’s only original once.
I don’t like patina as the fashion statement it has recently become. I’ve seen project shows on tv where they demonstrate how to create an artificial patina effect on a repaint. I think it’s distasteful to fake it like that, but to see it occur naturally is like studying how erosion and time can create a beautiful landscape. It tells it’s own unique story. Besides the fact that not everyone has a spare 5-10k lying around for new panel and paint work. Mind you, every old car I’ve owned stayed as close to factory original as possible. It would feel a like sacrilege to do otherwise. Especially when a car is spared molestation by multiple owners over 20+ years.
It’s cars like this that I gravitate towards at a show, as if the SS/Z-28/Yenko clones parked around it are all invisible. We could probably start a new group. Call it something like the ‘Stripper Model Appreciation Club’. It could prove to be a misleading title for some people though. lol
Maybe ‘Basic Car Appreciation Club’ would be an ok substitute.
I think these understated early Camaros are the high point of Camaro design language (that they share cues with the 2nd gen Corvair helps). Ford wasn’t the only one to start with a nice clean design and much it up as years passed…. I also thought Ford had a lock on using ‘road hugging weight’ as an ad pitch; live & learn.
The exterior Rather Resembles a Corvair convertible….but doesn’t stop or handle curvy roads as well as a LM Corvair does.
My favourite year of the Camaro, Love the condition,
Love the way its equipped, Love the way it sits up high and confident on its springs, Love the color.
Would own this in a heartbeat,and keep it looking just the way it is, mechanically maintained of course, which it looks like it is anyway.
This car displays a cool relaxed attitude to me, or the way I would like to be, as if to say “who cares about a bit of dirt, aint gonna kill me, lets go get a six pack and a packet of Marlboros and enjoy the day”
And I love the sound of a Powerglide.
What most people will overlook is that a car in this condition is not as likely to be stolen off the street. A fresh total restoration or high dollar resto mod attracts a lot of attention, and not just from admirers. No crook is going to steal a weathered old example and then restore it. Everyone that I know that has a really nice old muscle car is super paranoid about it getting stolen or even just a little bit damaged. They hardly ever drive them. What fun is that? Though I’ll bet the guy driving that weathered Camaro is awfully tired of people trying to buy it from him.