After being trapped six weeks in a 1971 time warp, I had the controls of the Curbside Classics time machine all set for the mid-eighties. But once again, fate interceded. Running some errands, I had my first encounter with no less than two 2010 Camaros. Then, on the way home, something called out to me as I tooled down Franklin Boulevard. I found it parked behind the old boarded-up Chevy dealer, and it had an important message for you and me: “beauty is not in the eye of the beholder; it’s in the object itself.”
I needed to hear that, after trying to make aesthetic sense of the new Camaro. Which was going nowhere, until it hit me: the 2010 Camaro is the Pamela Anderson of automobiles: exaggerated proportions, desperately trying to evoke a (long distant) youthful past, cartoonish, crude, clumsy, and just plain stupid—Borat would love it (“you like?!”), although he would have a hell of a time trying to stuff over-stuffed Pamela into its tiny trunk.
The fact that Chevy picked the ’69 Camaro for its “inspiration” tells it all, because the gen-1 Camaro was a rushed, half-baked stylistic lightweight (Update: that applies more to the ’67 & ’68s). Yes, it was cheerful and youthfully innocent, kind of like the high-school Pamela. But it was hopelessly outclassed by the timelessly elegant, handsome, mature and universally praised 1970 version. Perhaps we should thank GM for leaving well enough alone, although I have a sinking feeling that if the Camaro revival doesn’t peter out quickly, its successor may well be a horrible pastiche of this 1970 Rally Sport.
I was never quite as stunned by a new car from Detroit as when I first saw the 1970 Camaro. One of the reasons was that Chevrolet managed to keep it a perfect secret right to the end: no spy shots in Popular Science or elsewhere. One day, I opened a magazine, and kazow!, that incredible front end was staring at me from a full-page ad. And such a complete break with its predecessor. Who saw that coming? It was quite the change from the three and a half years-long strip-tease we’ve just endured. Enough, Pamela, enough!
Obviously, Bill Mitchell had his Pontiac and Chevy design studios perusing old Pininfarina-designed Ferraris while they were fleshing out the 1970 F-body. If you’re going to crib, might as well go to the master. And when the master returns a compliment(which Pininfarina did) bask in it. But inspiration is one thing; to put it all together in a balanced, fresh, yet timeless way requires skill, time, encouragement and most of all, taste. Either you have it, or you don’t. Bill did, often enough.
The Camaro’s perpetual nemesis sure didn’t. Ford must been mighty nervous when the ’70 Camaro was released in February of that year. The Camaro’s ads even made references to it here. Because Ford’s ’71 Mustang, due six months later, was an ugly POS: overwrought, heavy, terrible visibility, cartoonish; umm . . . sounds familiar. And it was a sales bomb, as in the dirty kind. After a few more stumbles, Ford eventually got the formula down, and now sticks to it. Unlike Chevy, which couldn’t seem to ever find its way out of the trailer park since the 1970-1981 edition.
GM knew its ’67-’69 F-bodies were immature, which explains the lack of any stylistic carry-over. The 1964 Mustang caught GM totally asleep at the wheel, as usual. And its phenomenal instantaneous success meant rush, rush, rush. The two years it took to cram the ’67 Camaro and Firebird out the door showed.
So Bill Mitchell had Chevy and Pontiac studios working on a gen-2 F-body worthy of the Mark of Excellence right from the beginning. And, not surprisingly, it was the Pontiac studio that came up with the basic shape. But both versions received enough differentiation to make them each worthy of praise, interest and attention despite sharing the same basic body—kind of like Isabeli Fontana and Izabel Goulart. Take your pick; you can’t go wrong. Personally, I favor Isabeli and the Camaro.
This particular Rally Sport (which is actually quite likely a ’71 or ’72) is not exactly how I like my gen-2 Camaro dressed and made up: no two-tone paint job, please, and either Chevy Rally wheels, Z-28 stock wheels, or minilite type vintage mags. But then this is not a “garage queen”; it’s a regular driver, has numerous dings, and an interesting crude hood cut-out for the after-market air cleaner. I’ll gladly take this for a car parked on the street.
I could go on way too long talking about the elegant lines and proportions of this car. But the front end is brilliant; the contours of the hood and fenders as they drop to that protruding nose. And that unusual windshield compound curve with a hint of a dog leg. Nobody was doing that since 1961.
But my favorite part is that delicious front fender line as it tightly hugs the wheel and delicately nips and tucks into the head light. Unfortunately, that detail was ruined with the 5-mph bumpered 1974s.
The 1970 Camaro was anything but a poseur. It (not the Vega) set a new high for American passenger-car handling. The whole platform, and especially the suspension and steering were extensively re-engineered. The result was superb for its time. And not just in the race-track oriented way like the max-performance versions of Detroit’s pony cars, the previous Z-28 and Boss 302 Mustang. Ultra-stiff springs and a fast manual steering ratio are great on a smooth track, but in real world driving, especially on uneven surfaces, most muscle cars of the era were profoundly compromised.
Even the base version of the Camaro offered a level of balance, steering precision and feel, stout brakes, stiff body structure, and reasonable chassis compliance that finally brought US cars into world-class levels (of course, the ‘vette had been there since ’63). It was a huge step from the Falcon/Chevy II/Valiant based gen-1 pony cars. So good, that even at the end of its unusually long twelve year production run, the gen-2 Camaro was still being praised for its all-round handling competence, if not the performance from its de-smogged engines.
Chevrolet positioned the new Camaro much more as an all-round sports car/GT tourer than the ’67-’69 muscle/pony cars. You could still get a big-block 396 (actually a 402) SS Camaro, but it was no longer at the top of the horsepower pecking order. That would be the brilliant LT-1 powered Z-28. Whereas the previous Z-28 was a limited production Trans-Am race series homologation special, with a very peaky 302 engine, the new Z-28 essentially took the role of the old SS model. Even the THM autobox was finally welcome (if not preferred) in the Z.
The 1970 LT-1 350 cubic inch (5.7 liter) engine was the crowning glory of the Chevy small block V8, its ultimate evolution until the all-new LS-1 replaced it some twenty years later. All the goodies developed in the sixties for the Corvette were present and accounted for: four-bolt block, big-valve heads, solid-lifter cam, aluminum intake, 780cfm Holley, and that lumpy idle. It was rated at 360 hp (gross), but essentially the same parts in the smaller 327 used to be rated at 365 hp. It probably churned out at least 310 of today’s net horsepower. At 3150 lb., the Z-28 had a 10 lb/net hp ratio, resulting in a 0-60 of 5.8 seconds, and a ¼ mile of 14.2 @100 mph (C/D stats). Superb, for a small-block, non-understeering, great-handling car of the times (big-blocks need not apply).
And what has forty years of progress delivered? The porky 2010 Camaro has a slightly better 9.15 lb/hp ratio, and delivers the 0-60 in 5 seconds flat, and the ¼ mile in 13.5 @ 103 mph (Edmund’s stats). Stickier tires probably account for most of that. And GM’s sticky fingers account for the price difference. The 1970 Z-28 cost $3,412 ($18.7K adjusted) complete with the go-fast goodies. A new SS starts at $31K. In 1970, that was money well invested: Z-28s go for $40K-$80K today.
The timing of the gen-2 Camaro’s arrival was less than auspicious. The whole performance era was peaking and about to crash under the weight of insurance, smog-controls, and a change in attitudes, especially once the energy crisis hit. But it was exactly because of the gen-2 Camaro’s balance of qualities that allowed it survive, and actually prosper the whole decade, right through 1981. Well, it did almost die after the 1973 model year because the new 5-mph bumper and other safety regulations seemed like a huge obstacle especially in light of weak sales. But that’s the makings of another Curbside Classics.
For the brief golden period of 1970-1973, new Camaros graced us with their svelte elegance. And a few are still at it today, giving us a lasting lesson on how ugly and malformed way too many new cars are today. Raw attraction is all too often crude, hormonal, and indiscriminate; but true beauty is self-evident and timeless, like good art, a beautiful woman, or an inspired car.
As I got ready to leave, the Camaro had a parting thought for me: “Folks who can’t tell the difference between attraction and beauty should be held accountable for their bad taste.” Like getting stuffed into the trunk of a 2010 Camaro, perhaps, I suggested. “Yes,” it replied, “along with Pamela. That should teach them a lasting lesson.”


















I’ve never noticed the enormous tumblehome below the waistline. The wheels are virtually free off the bodywork where the body tucks in under. Also note the trademarked Pininfarina crease lengthwise from front to rear, neatly folding the tumblehome in an up and down curve. Notice how the play between light and shadow separates the car in a lower/upper half.
Another interesting detail is the enormous door. Has there ever been a bigger door in car history? That and the fact that there’s no side window behind it makes for a very clean but unusual side profile. I’ve tried to imagine the car with a shorter door and a side window, but it wouldn’t be as beautiful. The end result would be something like a sleeker Chevelle. The only car I cant hink of with a similar side profile is the Lotus Elan +2S. Interestingly, the Lotus have a similar dogleg/compound curved windshield, making the greenhouse look strikingly similar, except that the Camaro has a faster fastback.
The two-tone paint makes it have a waistline, but the one interesting thing about the design is that it really doesn’t have one. It’s just one single sculpted mass from front to end, top to bottom. Like a slightly used bar of soap.
There are other Pininfarina cribs as well. The quad round rear taillights, from the Ferrari Daytona. The rectangular and vertical grille, cribbed from the Ferrari 400 Superamerica. The quad headlamp/vertical shieldlike grille makes me think of the Princess version of the Austin “Farina saloons”, the Princess 3-Litre. And, in an unlikely line of thought, the Volvo 164. Though, I’m sure the Swedes cribbed the English in that case, for the luxury connotations.
There are some Jaguar in it too. The front, of course, again the quad headlamps/vertical grille, but also how the front is sculpted into the protruding headlamps. Also, the XJ6 has a similar lower tumblehome. The front fender makes me think XJS, but that came later, of course. Most of all, the Camaro and the Jag is alike in the way they are so neatly tucked and muscular, like a leaping cat, waiting for prey. Like a muscle about to flex.
So, the Camaro was very contemporary in its styling cues. The Jaguar XJ6, the Ferrari Daytona, and the Volvo 164 was all presented in the fall of 1968, the Lotus a year earlier. Of course, the whole is larger than the sum of its parts, and the beauty of the Camaro is that it works on its own, as a complete and comprehensible whole. It’s a finished design, ready to take aim on its own terms.
http://www.acroney.com/A_C_Roney/Lotus_Elan_+2S_files/IMG_3363.jpg
The doors were a tragic flaw. They were too heavy for the hinges, too heavy for the structure the hinges were mounted to, and too heavy for the humans that drove and rode in the cars. Any time you see a MKII Camaro, look at the character line crease running along the sides. It will ALWAYS have a kink at the back of each door where the door has fallen relative to the rear fender. Otherwise, it was a great design. Can you imagine that there used to be a GM that came up with new and better ideas instead of trying to reconnect with past successes?
Yeah, those doors… even on my 1975 Monza, the door started sagging after 20-30k miles. The bushings were a quick and easy fix at the dealer but not enough people bothered, and a Camaro or Firebird that had been driven long enough with sagging doors also would ruin its door latches.
That was one of the points I checked carefully when I bought my 1980 Firebird in 1990 or so (can’t remember exactly).
Ferrari tail lights? hmmm, considering the Vette was wearing dual round tail lights for longer; I always just took it as a nod to big brother. Interesting how your perspective on design changes depending on your country of origin.
side note: in the sates there were plenty of cars with longer doors. 70s Monte Carlos, Grand Prixs, Eldorados, Toronados, and so on…
For the brief golden period of 1970-1973, new Camaros graced us with their svelte elegance. And a few are still at it today, giving us a lasting lesson on how ugly and malformed way too many new cars are today. Raw attraction is all too often crude, hormonal, and indiscriminate; but true beauty is self-evident and timeless, like good art, a beautiful woman, or an inspired car.
Wow, well put. Did you know that a little part of me dies whenever I’m asked to drive my mother’s ’07 RAV-4 whenever the folks are down visiting?
You’re right Paul about the Camaro loosing its way. I was raised in a GM family and while I can picture myself in many of their current products the Camaro isn’t one of them. (Now the Mustang…. heck yes!)
I could never figure out what all the love for the 67-69 Camaro was about. Sure they were neat but after a little seat time in a friends car back in the 90s… Ouch!
For a guy my size there was no engine powerful enough to overcome the fact that there was NO room in them.. I fit better in my MG Midget than this car.
I can’t even look at the “new” Camaro without reaching for the Tylenol. It’s like a caricature of the gen 1 cars rather than a tribute.
I remember the original “Titanic” Camaro print ad. I was in 8th grade and it was all over the car buff books. That 1970 Camaro is an amazing car then and now…I’ll take a ’71 RS with a transplanted LS-3 and 6-speed…that would make an amazing driver…
I’ve always loved this generation of Camaros. Don’t care too much for any of the others. The first car I bought myself was a mint ’78 Z28 with four speed manual gearbox. I couldn’t afford an early car as they where starting to rise in price by then. Speaking of the later 70s cars they have one of the best examples of integrating 5mph bumpers.
I had the non-golden period ’74 model. Get this…six cylinder and three-speed on the floor. It still handled fantastic.
My first memories of Joe Romania Chevrolet in Eugene were during the early 60′s, they displayed the Mercury space capsule (John Glenn) in the garage in the picture. In the early 70′s my parents test drove a Vega for about 10 feet before the Vega died in the parking lot of the aforementioned dealership.
Did you notice the picture of the Romania showroom in its earlier glory the other day: http://www.curbsideclassic.com/auto-biography/getting-religion-auto-biography-part-3/
I’m sorry I missed it in its heyday.
I did. Beautiful showroom. I remember a lot of folks in Eugene preferring to drive the short distance to Guaranty Chevrolet in Junction City. The only car I ever purchased at Romania was a 1974 AMC Javelin AMX. I had it for an entire week, then returned it to the dealership because the car had been totaled in an accident prior to my purchase. They initially refused to take the car back, but since I was only 17 at the time, they were compelled to because they accidentally sold the car to a minor (me).
The sand man you have on another post was derived from the Holden range built on this platform it outsold the Falcon and Valiant easily down under. Now days Chevys sold outside the US and your Caddy cts and Camaro are built on a Holden platform. Isnt it ironic. This Camaro was GMs swansong as after this what was good enough to export ………………………………………. nada
Gotta be honest: I never liked these. Stylistically, yeah, it’s probably better than the ’67-’69 and the ’70-’73 actually is a good-looking car, but it just does nothing for me. Probably has to do with what a cheesy, malaise-y mess the ’74-’81 cars were.
Paul since you’re open to suggestions about the new site and its content, and this seems as good a place as any to make it, any chance of an “Automotive Histories” piece at some point explaining the details and examining the impact of oft cited 70s regulatory changes like the “5-mph bumper”?
These apparently seismic shifts in requirements for car design in the states are often alluded to here and elsewhere, and I’m fascinated to know more but can’t find any good sources. You’d seem the man to ask.
No rush, but if the suggestion grabs you it’d be good to learn more.
This would be an excellent idea–an aside on the 5-mph bumper, and how it all but ruined at least American car design for several years, is a great place to start.
splateagle: very excellent idea indeed. I’ve been needing a new inspiration for the next AH since the last idea went bust. The intense regulatory climate of the seventies had a huge effect, and of course, much/most of it was lasting.
It’s fodder for a full book, but I’ll try to condense it (I have no choice
Thanks for the suggestion.
I liked this generation of Henry Haga designed Camaro, but I liked the Firebird much better. I particularly like the Formula versions of the Firebird, all of the punch of the T/A but with less graphics and spoilers. I will say, either one of these cars were a handful in the rain and the snow, though.
When I saw the 1970 Camaro for the first time, I was angry, because, well, you know all too well – no rear quarter window – at all. Just a three-windowed coupe. The reason for those long doors was to make up for the lack of side windows – the longer door window would and pretty much did make up for it – but to also allow easier access to the back seat. When walking out of my barracks one day, there, in the parking lot, sat a brand-new 1970 Camaro. Tan interior, tan exterior, base model. It was stunningly beautiful in its simplicity and I admired that car and its clean lines and wanted one of my own just like it! I came to love that generation of Camaros after all! The next time I was in town, I just had to visit Daoust Chevrolet in Marysville, Ca. to check one out and I was impressed all the more.
The 74-81 F bodies were sales hits and the bumpers looked better than usual cars of the day. Looking back with 20/20, it’s too easy to dismiss them, but they carried the sporty car torch. And there’d be no late model V8 Mustangs or others if not for them.
My favorite of the camaro’s is also the last of the full body styles. The 1981 Camaro Z28, with it’s classic paint job, elongated front end, and, yes, the world’s largest door is still at the top of my fav list of classics. Who could fault that “tear-drop” hood scoop and the classic 1980′s T-top fashion statment! Although, as interior’s go….it had a lot to be desired. Still one of the best lookers of the ’80′s though, in my humble opinion.
Browsing through this linked thru the July 4 Caprice CC. Noticed the discussion about 5-mph bumpers-was this ever extrapolated upon in a longer Automotive History? Would be a great one!
That’s a good idea. I think they deserve their own Automotive History. Get on it, someone-other-than-me!