There is a nearby restaurant/bar that serves up a weekly steak special, and Mrs. JPC and I are found there from time to time. Steak night is always a busy time for this place, so the parking lot is usually pretty packed, giving me a great field for car spotting. More than once this year I have seen this black Camaro that always seems to, well, stake out this prime parking place right near the dining patio.
It is well known hereabouts that the Camaro and I have a complicated relationship. I have come from a full-blown Camaro-hater to an admirer of certain, selected cars – such as the beautiful original I wrote up some time back. But to come across a random Camaro out in the wild, one which causes me to stop and appreciate it – perhaps this marks the occasion upon which my Camaro Rehabilitation has been completed.
As I walked around the car taking pictures (something I did not do until the second or third time I saw it) a thought occurred to me: It was like I was looking at an early 2nd generation Camaro fresh, for the first time. And I wondered just how many car-obsessed Americans of my age could say that?
I cannot say just why I never paid much attention to these in 1970 when they were new, other than that they were Chevrolets. And Chevrolets simply were not part of my day-to-day experience. The GM cars in my orbit were almost all Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs. Any Chevys in the background tended to be Impalas or the occasional Malibu. Besides, I was bored with the oh-so-common GM stuff yet endlessly fascinated by exotica from Ford and Chrysler.
And for some reason, 1970 cars were not well represented in my world either. My father got a Lincoln in 1970, a yellow Continental Mark III. Neighbors brought home an Olds 88 that year and another neighbor took delivery of a new Firebird – a gold 6 cylinder with dog dish hubcaps. I found that last one boring, and a big downgrade from the ’67 LeMans Sprint that it replaced. There might have been a 1970 Chrysler Newport down the street, but it could just as well have been a 69 or a 71 because they all looked alike to me then.
And the Camaro was just not my kind of car. I liked the big stuff. The Mercury Monterey convertible in the brochure my father brought home when he was car shopping would have suited me just fine. And to the extent that a pony car could capture my attention, the Mustang Mach 1 and the new Dodge Challenger/Plymouth Barracuda were moderately interesting. But a Camaro? Nah. It is funny how fifty-something years can change a guy’s perspective.
I will confess that I had to do some digging to determine the year of this car. Did you know that only the 1970 models said “Camaro by Chevrolet” on the rear nameplate? Or that the ’70 was the last year before the goofy pictogram of the shining headlight that Chevy started putting on the light switch knob the following year?
And I wonder if Camaro fans get a little embarrassed by the emblem over the grille that looks like the kind of broughamish touch that belonged more on a Monte Carlo with fender skirts and color-keyed wheelcovers.
I knew that the split-bumper Rally Sport was different from the garden-variety Camaro (or the SS), but did not know the subtle differences between the early (70-71) and late (72-73) grilles. I do now.
| Mustang | Camaro | |
|---|---|---|
| 1970 | 190,727 | 124,901 |
| 1971 | 149,678 | 114,630 |
| 1972 | 125,093 | 80,015 |
| 1973 | 134,867 | 96,751 |
These did not sell all that well at first. Did you know that the Mustang outsold the Camaro every year from 1970-73? And not by a little, based on the production figures found online. I knew at least one person who owned a big Mustang and two people who owned the 2nd gen Javelin AMX. But nobody with an early Camaro.
I wondered, for example, if that cloth interior was authentic? It might well be, as part of the Custom Interior Option. And I do not recall ever seeing an early Camaro in black before. Maybe this is because black was not listed as available in 1970. Although special orders were not unheard of then. However that black paint found its way onto this car, it really works, helping me to appreciate the car afresh.
The only other place this car appears to depart from the basic Chevrolet order sheet with its mysterious RPO numbers is in the wheels. I like them. They are certainly better than the standard equipment hubcap.
Or the PO1 wheel cover.
Or the PO2 wheel cover.
The ZJ6 Rally Wheel was attractive, but aren’t we a little tired of those?
And the owner clearly respects this Rally Sport too much to slap the Z28 wheels on it.
But really, I am just happy that it is not wearing those ubiquitous Rally Wheels with what I now know to be Derby Caps, bolted to something like 89.4% of existing Chevrolets built between 1926 and 1996.
And while vinyl roofs are not popular today, I also applaud the owner’s choice to go with this look that was enormously popular in 1970. Those of you who were around then know how odd a bare steel roof looked on anything nicer than the very cheapest cars. Love it or hate it, the vinyl roof was like large wheels and low profile tires on today’s vehicles – it’s hard to find a decent car or SUV without them.
What is really interesting is how Chevrolet tried bucking the trend, as vinyl roofs are virtually absent from the advertising and promotional photos they used for the new ’70 model.
The fender callout tells us that this car is not concealing a Power Thrift six or a crummy 307. I like to think that this 350 breathes through a 4 bbl carb. But then isn’t about every classic Chevy packing a 4 bbl 350 these days? 1970 was about the end of the line for the muscle era with detuning coming to a Chevrolet dealer near you for 1971.
Who, I now wondered, had any idea in 1970 that we were looking at the car that would come to define its segment? Or that every competitor (save its Firebird twin) would be gone by 1975? Could Chevrolet’s ad writers have been using a crystal ball? Except for the fact that the 1974 Mustang II sold in numbers that dwarfed everything in the 1970-73 ponycar segment, anyway.
This was a fascinating car to contemplate all on its lonesome, without a screaming chicken or a coat of Panther Pink paint anywhere in sight. Has there ever been another car that has been so successful over a long term that was imitated so seldom in the years since its debut?
Think about this: The 1965 Mustang (re)introduced the world to THE SHAPE – the long hood/short deck look that has been imitated almost without ceasing in the years since, right up to the present time when the Dodge Challenger continues to pay homage. Even the modern Camaro looks back to this car’s predecessor – a rushed Mustang copy.
Another thought – this car was unsuccessful enough early in its run that there was no plan for a 3rd generation. The Gen2 Camaro never hit 125,000 in annual production until Ford abandoned the segment for 1974. Only after the car continued to build momentum was it given some significant updates, some of which have been more successful than others. And did the success of the later iterations ruin the car for posterity as we began the long retreat from loud cladding and stripe packages? These clean, elegant early cars seem to have been lost in everyone’s collective consciences.
In law there is an old Latin term – sui generis, which literally means “of its own kind”. Unique, in other words. This Camaro, it seems to me, is the automotive embodiment of that concept. No other company has paid this car the tribute of imitation, including the car’s originator.
I concluded that I benefited quite a lot from taking a really, genuinely, fresh look at the fresh concept that was the 1970 Camaro. A car that remains just as fresh today.
Further reading:
1970 Chevrolet Camaro – GM’s Greatest Hit (Paul Niedermeyer)
1970 Chevrolet Camaro – With Turbo Thrift 6 Power! (Tom Klockau)
The black one you found is pretty nice, but I have to admit the one that really catches my eye is the peanut butter colored one with the whitewalls and wheel covers. It is possible that I’m not really the Camaro type. 😉
The quickest way to spot the early 70.5 F-body
Is the seats if the car is unmolested. They are lowback with a separate headrest . I always found this curious, since they were not carryovers from 69, AFAIK. They tooled up for new seats used only a few months, then retooled again. To my eyes, the early seat is more attractive, but the later one was more in line with the fashion at the time.
That IS odd, even for a behemoth like GM was at the time.
At first I thought perhaps those seats were shared with another model, such as the Nova, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Uh-oh, JP is appreciating a Camaro. However, given this example it’s easy to see why. A ’77 Z-28? No, and those are the ones people tend to remember due to being newer and more plentiful.
This black one is as pure to the original intention as is possible.
I doubt that anyone who was involved with designing this car wanted that vinyl top on it.
The one thing that makes me want to retch on that car. And thank God dad stayed away from vinyl roofs until the 70’s successor, a ’73 Monte Carlo.
I’ve always felt that the failure of the early second generation Camaro to run away with the sector is due heavily to the classic Mencken “You can’t underestimate the taste of the American public.”
And, the equally classic “Americans buy their car by the pound” – of course the bigger ’71-73 Mustang outsold it. It was more mainstream, and caught the beginning of serious brougham.
Chevy went for “practical sports car.”
The other thing in the 71-73 Mustang’s favor was that it came in 3 separate body styles – coupe, convertible and fastback. Each of the three had a separate personality so Ford covered a bigger swath of market.
Also, when it came to the semi-luxurious GT kind of car that Ford offered as a Mustang Grande, Chevy dealers were selling the snot out of the new Monte Carlo. I suspect that when we add in the mid-sizers (Torino, Chevelle, Monte Carlo, etc) Chevy was way ahead. This Camaro just had more competition within the same showroom than the Mustang did.
Mustang always outsold Camaro, so it isn’t surprising that the trend continued.
In this time period, the styled compact coupes (Nova, Maverick, Duster, Gremlin) were the main story in the showroom. They reversed the previous condition where the stylish pony cars were the swinging alternative to a dirt dull two-door sedan. When the makers gave their compact two-doors some distinctive styling at a lower price, the pony cars mostly appealed to people who had or wanted a Mustang or Camaro before. Mustang had been more popular, so it stayed more popular.
Yeah, a vinyl roof doesn’t become a second-generation Camaro. It looks even worse on a 1971-73 Mustang fastback.
Ironically, the Camaro and Mustang were very close in dimensions and weight. The big difference was visual: Ford designers mimicked the chunky Lamborghini Espada whereas GM gave its pony cars a lovely tapered look (sort of a cross between a Jaguar and a De Tomaso Mangusta). GM stylists certainly had better taste.
JP is right that Mustang sales benefitted from a broader range of body styles. The notchback outsold the fastback but the Grande always played second fiddle to the Mach I. That said, the Chevelle/Monte Carlo blew out of the water Ford’s Torino.
“Americans buy their car by the pound” – of course the bigger ’71-73 Mustang outsold it.
Well….
1971 Mustang 302/cruise-o-matic
length: 4813 mm / 189.5 in,
width: 1882 mm / 74.1 in,
wheelbase: 2769 mm / 109 in
curb weight: 1441 kg / 3177 lbs
1970 Camaro 307/THM
length: 4775 mm / 188 in
width: 1890 mm / 74.4 in
wheelbase: 2743 mm / 108 in
curb weight: 1505 kg / 3320 lbs
My cousin had a medium turd brown ’71 Camaro with a darker turd brown vinyl top. On top of the sad sad color choices, it had a 6cyl in it and was a base of base car. It replaced a brown base Javelin that was his first car in ’69 and rusted away at amazing speed. In ’74, he got hit at a stoplight by a drunk driver and the ’71 was gone, and soon replaced by a frosty green ’74 base Camaro that he had well into the ’80’s. Another 6 cyl car, it’s no wonder he thinks the Subaru Outback he drives now is really quick. He and his wife just flat out love Subs. I just don’t get it at all.
Nice find and it illustrates exactly why I’m not a fan of the new cars wearing Camaro badges, 1970 was pretty much peak Camaro as far as looks go.
No matter who you are, you have to agree that the Gen 2 F bodys are great looking cars. They drove nice and were pretty well-built by 1970s standards, especially compared to the Mustang and Mopar E-Bodies.
My brother’s first car in 1983 was a brown base model (full bumper) ’73 Camaro with all the street machine add-ons. Like JP, I always liked big cars compared to the sporty cars but that Camaro, on Cragars with slapper bars, sidepipes and a great stereo constantly playing Triumph, Rush and Van Halen was all I needed to know that was the club I wanted to belong to.
I would lose the vinyl roof though.
The one time we went to cheap-steak night and ran into you and your wife, that Camaro was there, obnoxiously parked in that “special” parking spot!
Yes, I think I already had my pictures by then. The car’s owner seemed to have been a regular.
After all of my pictures and research, this car still confuses me a little. It appears bone-stock, one of the few Camaros that gets this kind of treatment. But it is a non-standard color and has aftermarket wheels. Why paint a non-standard black and leave the vinyl roof there? Maybe it really was a special-order black car. A little more research shows that the Tuxedo Black paint was offered in Chevelle, Nova and the big Chevy in 70 and on the Camaro for 71, so perhaps this car could be a late build also. Or the black paint could have been phased in as an option some time during the model year. Anyway, it is a lot more fascinating than I first thought I would find it.
Unless someone is cosplaying the era or creating a museum exhibit, being ‘representative’ instead of selecting the better available choice is silly.
I am coming to the conclusion that the car may have been built this way and that it has been restored per the build sheet, with the exception of the wheels. I am with you, this would have been a really stunning car with a slick roof. I am not as anti-vinyl roof as a lot of folks today, but will admit that this body does not lend itself as well to the style as most others back then.
And I don’t find the look as jarring as I might if the car had either of the two styles of wheel covers offered, which could be the reason for the modern wheels – neither of those two original wheel cover choices would look good on the car today. What would be unique today would be a set of steelies with the PO2 wheel covers and bias ply whitewalls that this car may have come with. Try to find a modern picture online of a Camaro of this vintage with wheel covers. Maybe these wheels and modern radials are what the guy uses for driving as opposed to show.
“And did the success of the later iterations ruin the car for posterity as we began the long retreat from loud cladding and stripe packages? These clean, elegant early cars seem to have been lost in everyone’s collective consciences.”
I think you nailed it! But this trend happened to many brands/models as the power went away and stripes/cladding, etc. is all that was left.
I owned a 1977 Z28 that I ordered new in ’77. It is usually referred to as a ’77 1/2 because it was a mid year introduction. It was fantastic in terms of handling, braking and maneuvering, but that’s it. The performance of the watered down 350 CI was dismal and the workmanship was pathetic. Quality of materials was nothing to write home about either. This model predated the “Mullet-mobile” moniker but it is easy to see how the Camaro earned that dismissive put-down. Yes, the Camaro had lost its way but it didn’t adversely affect sales – the late ’70’s models were among the best selling but the most obtuse in terms of cheesiness.
I kept the Z28 for three years and then passed it on for something more fuel efficient, a quality not possessed by this car and most notable in 1979’s fuel crisis #2. I never looked back and never desired to own a Camaro again.
I have to admit, I am surprised by the 1970 production numbers considering that it was a truncated seven month (January to July) production schedule – it’s actually pretty strong and it always seems that the ’70 model is the one that I see least often even though the ’70 production numbers are stronger than the ’71 to ’73 production output. Of course coming off of the cherished 1969’s elongated production cycle that yielded 243,000 copies, it all seems insignificant.
BTW, nice write-up!
I wonder of those 1970 production figures include some 69-style cars from early in the year. Those fluent in these cars probably know, but I do not.
Something else to bear in mind is that there was a protracted strike (174 days) at the good ole Norwood assembly plant in 1972 that, IIRC, significantly held down production of 1972 f-bodies, as well as the Vega.
It’s also worth noting that the strike went a very long way to eventually shuttering the Norwood plant in 1987. It was one of the worst GM plants in terms of productivity and absenteeism.
Not to mention quality control!
Brings back memories of my dad’s second Camaro, same car but red with black interior. As usual, he went for the secretary’s special: High end interior, Rally Sport, base V-8 with a two-barrel and automatic, and red with a black interior (just like his ’67). The big difference this time was he let me talk him into spending the additional fifty bucks or so for the optional handling suspension.
He was absolutely stunned in how differently the car drove from anything he’d owned in the past. From that point on, assuming it was available and he’d ordered the car rather than taking one from stock, everything he owned would get whatever suspension upgrades the manufacturer offered. Up to, and including his last car, a ’92 Caprice with the F41 suspension under an absolutely otherwise ‘old man’s’ equipped car.
Dad’s car’s interior was defintely black, but it was vinyl.
I saw this one on the weekend at a show n shine. It was a 1970, but I don’t think it was a Rallye Sport. Attracting lots of attention nonetheless.
I don’t usually shoot these cars, but for some reason I snapped off this quick shot because it reminded me a bit of my friend’s 1970 1/2 that he had in high school, and I believe, still has it. Must have been CC karma at work.
Yep, another one restored to the “this is what I’m claiming I drove in high school” level. Yet 90% or so of Camaro sales were much more on the lines of the featured car, minus the mags, and minus the Rally Sport treatment.
Something we need to keep in mind is that the average Mustang back in 65-66 was a coupe with automatic on the floor and either the six or the base 289, standard interior, AM radio. This set the standard for how the majority of the pony cars were sold, no matter who the manufacturer.
To go to a car show today is think that America 1964-1972 was Jan & Dean’s “Drag City” come to life. Or, as I noticed two years ago, a father/son combination at a Cars & Coffee, and dad’s explaining to junior that, yes, Pontiac made cars other than the Firebird and GTO. While Junior is staring incredulously at a 1956 Pontiac Star Chief (I think) four door sedan.
Indeed, all those extreme musclecars at car shows have become so commonplace, it’s more interesting to see what was actually a much more common, lower-trim car with a low-performance engine and typical comfort options. The problem is those were also more likely to be driven into the ground and discarded, so they’re the ones that are rare, today.
Or cloned into the Z28/SS et al. That’s the thing with most of these cars, find a Ponycar or two door intermediate of the era and it’s not really a difficult task to add the widely available stripes and reproduction emblems to have 90% of the look of the real deal
I’m sure this is how they envisioned souping up their regular Camaro to be during high school, to stand out from the pack of regular cars in similar colors/trim. It just amazes me how 30-40-50 years later, long after most of the regular cars of the era went extinct, they can’t see how special a “plain” example of a 70 Camaro is. The common aesthetic details that made up a Z28 are common in econobox crossovers these days – Black grilles, “mag” wheels, color keyed bumpers, low trim.
Agreed, like that blue Chevelle next to it. Most of them were regular cars, very few ended up with even a sniff of mag wheels in their prime.
To me, this, and the Chevrolet Vega, were GM’s two best-looking cars of the entire decade.
Camaro/Firebird, unlike Vega, were pretty much executed to the level of their timeless and gorgeous styling. At least for the first few years.
As a kid of 13, I DEVOURED everything I could find about the new Camaro…the ads, brochures, even a plastic 1/25th scale model. Even though I’m Tri-Five through and through, if I HAD to own a Camaro, this would be the one, hands down.
AND amazing to me that so often in the ponycar sales races, the better car was usually outsold by the crappier one.
I’d forgotten that even during 1971-73, Mustang remained the sales leader.
BUT the tables were turned in the 80s when the third-gen Camaro took the lead, even though the Fox-body Mustang was a superior car in almost every respect. Few rides inspired less confidence than a Gen 3 Camaro/Firebird; the car felt like it was going to fall apart on the showroom floor. At least after 1987 the TPI 350/TH700R4 combo made for a bulletproof donor. It’s exactly what I put in my ’89 Caprice Classic wagon back in 1996.
Of course I’d have to LS any Gen 2 Camaro, maybe the L83 out of the 14-up Silverado pickup and preferably with a 6L80E trans. Because we MUST LS ALL THE THINGS.
The rest can look showroom down to the Chevy moon hubcaps that remain a personal favorite.
PO2 turbine wheel covers are one of my favorite covers ever.
One of the most misspelled car names of all time.
How can a person own a car, with the name plastered on it in different locations, and still write a for sale ad for a ” Camero”? Or a “for sell add” as it is commonly called.
Nice car. So….how was the steak?
“Nice car. So….how was the steak?”
A lot like the 1970 Camaro. It was a good car. For the price it was a great car. 🙂
Those sales numbers were affected somewhat by the GM strike. I think it was in 1972 or 1973, but I’m not sure. I’m sure Ford was laughing all the way to the bank with the Mustang sales on that one. Didn’t AMC’s Javelin sales go up a little then?
I know what you mean by the vinyl top being ubiquitous. My bog-slow ’69 Camaro was a daytona yellow secretary special with a PG on the steering column (no floor console!) and the 2bbl 327 that also included a black vinyl top and hockey stick stripes on the front fender. And A/C.
A high school classmate drove his father’s 71 lime green Camaro Z-28 (no vinyl top) regularly and it was one of the few Camaros in my school that never got wrecked, dented or modified. If he kept it stock and it still runs, I bet he could trade it for a nice house today.
There was a fairly lengthy 1972 strike at the Norwood plant that had been transferred from Fisher Body to GM Assembly Division, and it was Camaros, Firebirds and Vegas that were affected. I saw a source that said the strike cost them 30k units. If all 30k had been Camaros the total still would have been down from 1971. That 1973 was a record breaking sales year does not show up in Camaro sales, either. But by then the car was 4 years old and had been changed very minimally.
I did some ponycar market share research in doing this and I may pull a piece out of it. The Javelin was pretty amazing, as it was the steadiest seller of all of them, with 1974 sales higher than either 1970 (even with AMX added) or 1971. The bottom fell out of the Mopar E bodies after 1970. In 1974 The Javelin/AMX outsold the Barracuda and Challenger combined!
Evidently, that Norwood strike was one of the longest in GM history (174 days).
It’s worth noting that it went a very long way to eventually shuttering Norwood assembly in 1987. It was one of the worst GM plants in terms of productivity and absenteeism. The Cincinnati enclave of Norwood really hasn’t recovered to this day.
really liked the new-for-1970 GM F-bodies, the Pontiac Firebird a bit more. But I would not have turned down a Camaro.
I still have the 1/25 Firebird model kit that I built, in metallic blue.
From what, 1974-on they got heavier-clumsy-looking.
The only example among my family was a 1970 Pontiac Firebird Esprit, the “secretary’s model” bought by my aunt the secretary.
I think what appealed the most was that these were “their own car” and not a slavish imitation of the Mustang like the 1967-68 Camaro, or the caricature for the sake of caricature that was the 1969.
It is quite nice and if it was black originally then great. For some reason I’m starting to be drawn to cars of this era in their original colors, such as gold or whatever. The green car with the dark wheel centers is a great representation of that idea.
But yes, as we age, some of us change a little bit or a lot as to what we like. Not just obvious stuff, I mean who the heck would want to crawl into a Vector every day now? But the accessible things like this. Age brings appreciation and can elevate even the humblest offerings, assuming they have some objectively redeeming value.
I normally agree with you on preferring cars in popular period colors. But I think the black paint on this one helped me look at the car in a new way, without the overlay of all the ones I have seen over the decades.
I remember how rare black cars were in the late 60s-early 70s, especially once you got out of the Cadillac-Lincoln class. Which, of course, made me a big fan of black cars then because it was such a throwback paint color. A buddy’s dad had a black 72 Newport coupe, and it was the only one I have ever seen like it to this very day.
+1, Jim.
I remember being a not-quite-10 year old kid the first time I saw one of these in early 1970 when they came out. My Dad and I had just exited a store and it was parked right next to his ’68 Impala Custom.
I did not like the car. It just looked to weird compared to the ’67 thru ’69 Camaros, which I liked.
As they striped and cladded up, I began to like it, still always preferring the concurrent Firebird/Trans-Am. (Teenage tastes, what can I say? ;o)
But now that I am older, I actually prefer this original clean looking ’70 to the years within the same generation that came after it.
Whether original or not, this car looks amazing in black, heck, I’ll even give it a pass on the vinyl top, although the car’s clean lines (rather CURVES) would look better without it.
MEMO TO GM:
Instead of cancelling the Camaro let’s do this generation as a retro-styled car.
I am SICK TO DEATH of the Gen 1 Camaro shape and style.
Thank You.
I know, right? We’re now into the second generation of that retro restyle (3rd refresh of it), and yet they’ve not yet moved on.
When did you hear they were cancelling the Camaro?
Say it ain’t so! Does that mean the Challenger and Mustang are next on the chopping block? Oh no!
I’m going to hate it then next time I am ready to by a car, because THERE WON’T BE ANY!!! Only trucks and CUV/SUV(s). ARGH@#%$^#&!!!
I saw something about it a few months ago as well. The 6th gen has been a commercial flop so it’s not surprising if true, Challenger and Mustang sales have been stable by contrast. It does highlight how precarious the segment is now, sadly.
Rumor has them cancelling the Camaro somewhere between 2021 MY and 2023… I’m mad because they finally introduced an LS V8 version that is basically a V8 powered “stripper” version. It will be 6 years or so before I’m buying another car but I would have considered that version of the Camaro.
The Challenger FYI has the youngest average age of buyers of the 3.
That average age? 51 years old.
I do however know a 22 year old kid that took his first paycheck from getting a job after graduating diesel mechanic school and got a Challenger R/T with 6 speed manual.
There’s hope yet!
That stat makes me ponder, could it be the Mustang and Camaro have too much historical baggage attached to them? It seems like when the Corvette turned 50 the demographic changed overnight into exclusively old men driving them to golf courses, and I can’t help but wonder if the same thing is now happening to the V8 Camaro and Mustangs. The Challenger is a wee bit shy of 50 but because it was on hiatus for so long, with so low production in its original run it’s not really an icon for the old nostalgic demographics who adore Corvettes, Camaros and Mustangs.
For me personally, the Challenger is better looking and more practical. As someone who keeps cars around forever, I for one appreciate the LX platform bloggers love to deride as “ancient” – the Fox was ancient too in 1990, and guess what? 30 years later it’s still cheap and easy to keep a 1990 Mustang on the road because of it. – growing up in the time I grew up I have learned that state of the art makes things quickly disposable, and I don’t know if all my peers share that sentiment but that’s what makes the Challenger appealing to me now more than ever. Plus that makes it an underdog, and everyone likes an underdog.
It’s not really been cancelled but the development of the 7th Gen car on an Alpha-II platform has been suspended. GM, like most other manufactures is trying to consolidate all of it’s platforms, and an Alpha 2 7th Gen Camaro isn’t in the mix. The current car is supposed to end production around 2023.
That doesn’t mean the car is cancelled. Lots can change, but GM could still:
1. Develop the seventh-gen Camaro on the VSS-R platform while either discontinuing the current 6th-gen Camaro in 2023 or extending its lifespan by a year or two, or
2. Take the Camaro in a whole different direction, re imagining the Camaro entirely.
There is more detail here:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2019/06/whats-really-going-on-with-the-future-chevrolet-camaro/#ixzz5y2h1QRU2
As for the Camaro going to a retro 2nd Gen car? I am not sure that’d work. Even young people today seem to vastly like the 1st-Gen cars over the 2nd Gen cars. I am just not sure the love would be there for a car based on the 2nd Gen (even though I would prefer it). They could work with the current styling theme, but they just need to make the car more livable.
And they take the ugliest gen 1 car to work with!
Yes yes yes!
Make it look good, have a trunk of a hatch I can use, and be comfortable inside, and I will get my wallet out in a few years. Until then, I will drive my ’18 Challenger Scat Pack 392 and smile smile smile.
I had a 1970 Camaro with the 307 V-8 and floor shifted automatic. Not the fastest car in my high school parking lot in 1977, but far from the slowest. One day at the local MacDonalds this older gentleman pulled up beside me in a ‘70-‘71 Camaro Rally Sport light blue in colour with a white vinyl top and white interior. The coolest part of the car was the 396 call outs on the front fenders. Very rare car. Never did see it again.
My girlfriend of the time (now wife)’s best friend had just gotten out of Jr. College and had her 1st job when these came out. She bought a new 70 1/2 Camaro the June after they were introduced, a complete stripper (the car, not the girl, though she looked good enough to be a good one! lol) with a 307, automatic (THM350?) radio, heater, that’s it. Had virtually no chrome on the side, a black vinyl roof, that lime green color, and all black basket-weave vinyl interior. The lack of chrome really bought out the gorgeous shape of the body and since then I’ve loved that basic model 2nd Gen the best. You almost never see one anymore, sadly, but I’d be sorely tempted if I did see a really nice one!
I’ve grown a real fetish for muscle cars with factory wheel covers in the last few years, so the SS with the PO2 turbines with the RWL polyglas tires is pressing all the right buttons for me. Polished torque thrust IIs? Yawn.
Vinyl roofs don’t wear right on this bodystyle to me, cars need broad shoulders with a clearly defined transition into the roof like the 67-69s had. Yet I’m glad to see one with it in tact
My brother bought a new 1972 Camaro Type LT. It was black, with a black vinyl top, and a two tone blue cloth interior. Cloth and tweed like inserts. It came with the “derby” style Rally wheels. It had the full front bumper and 2 barrel 350 V8 auto combo. He added a set of custom glass pack duals so it sounded pretty good. He had the car for three years and put almost 90,000 miles on it. He made an around the country cross country trip, all over the West Coast, and into Canada. It gave little trouble. Then he traded it in for a one year old ’76 Trans Am.
I think that this gen is the most attractive of the early Camaros. It has a very Ferrari-esque appearance though it echoed a 10 year old design. I wish that he new Camaro would move it’s styling more in this direction. Here’s apic of the 1960 Ferrari.
Chevy was on a bend trying to emulate some Ferrari design cues during the mid to late ‘60s. Most evident was the “eggcrate grille” seen on a number of Chevys during that time. Look at the ‘69 Impala, for instance. I knew the 2nd generation Camaro was a knock-off of a Ferrari design, and this picture nails it.
Into the mid 70s as well. The Monza 2+2 greenhouse was clearly lifted from the Ferrari 365 GTC/4
That started a bit earlier than the “mid-late 60s”. The GM Design Center constantly had Ferraris and other Italian sports cars sitting around for inspiration.
I’m more of a styling/design guy, so I may not know if this following factoid is true.
My uncle built and drag-raced a number of cars, all Chevy. He and his brothers were also a very accomplished body and paint men. I remember in the early ‘80s I found a severely wrecked ‘67 Camaro he bought for $50, rebuilt, raced and sold for a mint. But that aside, he once asked me to keep an eye out for wrecked 2nd generation Camaros, too. He particularly wanted the ‘70.5 models. He claimed the front sub-frame was a carryover from the 1st generation, and was updated for the ‘71 models. Being a racer, he claimed the different sub-frame weighed 400 pounds lighter on the earlier iterations. Whether this is true or not is for the CC community to weed out.
Not a chance. That makes no sense. All G2 F-Bodies are “front steer”, meaning they were standardized to then state-of-the-art GM steering gear mounted ahead of the front wheels. This is the subframe that the X-Bodies (NOVA) cars
got in ’75.
The ’69 down F-Bodies and ’74-down X-bodies had “rear steer”, where the steering box was mounted behind the front wheel axis center line.
I was born in 1951 so it was me and my contemporaries that sort of drove the market for these when new. While I never owned a Gen I or Gen II Camaro I had friends who did and got to spend plenty of time in them. In all honesty 95% of the Camaros (and Mustangs etc) that got sold had the “cooking” engine, either the base six or the first option V8, and these were the ones that were on the roads in their thousands. The first Z28s were high strung and fussy and not really a good choice for commuting to work or school, or anything really except for going fast. That is just one of the reasons why it is so refreshing today to see a Camaro that has not been rodded to death or made into a faux Z28.
I am sorry but I think the front end of the 70 to 73 Camaro must have been designed by a last minute committee.
The thin bumper on the SS were pretty bad but the worst was the one on the regular Camaro. It looked like chrome colored boomerang under the headlights.
The 70-73 Firebird looked good
I like the 74-81 Camaro the best. Yes people whined about the bumpers but they made the look so much better
I think that the tribute of imitation was paid to the gen-2 Camaro, just not since about 1978. In addition to the Vega mini-Camaro there was the swoopy, colonnade A-series and even the 1971-76 puffy B and C bodies from GM (particularly the earlier Buick B and C cars).
Unfortunately, the bigger implementations of Camaro’s broad, curving surfaces resulted in huge cars that weren’t particularly space- or weight-efficient. And may have killed off the appetite to use the Camaro’s look for anything, including its original, better-suited purpose.
Leaving aside the broader issues that industry people worry about, it may be time for the retro 2nd gen Camaro: after all, Ford has moved from the 1965ish SN95 Mustang through quite a few modern Mustangs that take cues from up to 1973. So, why not?
Your comment led me to visualize how second-generation styling cues could translate onto the current Camaro’s platform. My head exploded.
That’s partly because I don’t know if GM’s designers could do subtle, tapered curves anymore. Consider the new Corvette, with its exaggerated sci-fi look. Is this what excites today’s kids?
Now this is the Camaro I like, not the overhyped 1969 model, and of course the inspiration for all 2009 and later Camaros.
Interesting about the vinyl roof. My brother and I helped our mother special-order a new 1973 Monte Carlo; we passed on the vinyl roof, and the car looked great without it in dark blue metallic.
I’m of the age that I clearly remember looking at an early 2nd generation Camaro fresh, for the first time, in 1970. I was at the town library after school, and it pulled into the front driveway. Its perfect front end design knocked me out. Literally unforgettable.
In my opinion the 1970 split-bumper RS Camaro (without vinyl roof) is the best looking Chevy ever built, period. Exciting and beautiful from every angle. No question it belongs on the podium with the ’55 Chevy hardtop and the ’63 split-window Sting Ray.
My sentiments too. I had the same experience when I first saw it. Compared to its competition, it was in a completely different league.
Jim, if it took my retirement for you to finally appreciate a ’70 Camaro, you’ve re-affirmed my decision (not that it was needed).
Ironically, I have been sitting on pictures of a black ’70 for years now. The Camaro that I shot in my CC (the one linked at the bottom of your post) was bought by a guy a year or two later, and he did quite a bit of work to it, including painting it all black. He got in touch with me to shoot it and do a post on it. I was going to do either a follow-up or update my CC with it. But the day I shot it the sun was too high and strong, and I was not happy with the pictures.
It’s almost identical to yours but no vinyl top, thankfully.
These are my favorite Camaros. I remember R/T testing a 1970 Camaro, with a 350-4bbl (300 hp variation, not the Z/28) and a 3-speed auto. They loved the car and called it the first serious effort at making an American GT since the ’63 Corvette. They also called it the best American car they had driven to date.
What made these cars better than the 1st generation cars wasn’t just the styling, but drastically improved suspension. The front suspension had a big improvement in geometry and moved to a “front steer” setup. Combine that with a fast ratio Saginaw steering box, well match front and rear springs and shocks that aren’t the usual wallowing mess of American cars of the era, and you’ve got an excellent road machine.
Mind you, it’s not all perfect. As we now know, the body structures on these Camaros were far from rigid, and R/T complained about the poor brakes. On top of that, while the styling was excellent, it made for a tiny back seat and trunk. And it was also a pretty large car, within fractions of an inch of the “bloated” ’71-73 Mustangs (styling just made the Mustang look a bigger).
Yet, despite all these faults, I really like the ’70-’73 Camaros, and they are without a doubt my all time favourites. I also like these better than the 2nd Gen Firebirds. I don’t understand why the first generation cars are revered so much more than what I believe to be a superior car.
Oh, and Jim, your production numbers are correct for the 1970 cars. The 1969 model year was extended due to the 1970 Camaros not being available until 1970. While some of the 1969’s were probably sold in early 1970, they all have 1969 VINs.
Yeah, I had a 73 as a first car. I’m not going back: to heavy as heck doors, pot metal door handles, cardboard door panels, valve guides lasting 50K miles, rust, wind noise, hardly adequate brakes, front ends needing rebuilt to often, low mpg, etc. Nopes!
A fantastic piece and perspective on one of my favorite automotive shapes (of all time).
Nothing to add outside of noticing that while I do generally like the shape of the new Dodge Challenger, seeing it juxtaposed against the sleek Camaro makes me think that modem styling has gone seriously retrograde.
IDK if this is possible; but I have always wanted the wrap around rear window (stolen from the ’53 Studebaker Starliner) 1975 Camaro with the split bumper 1970 1/2 front cap transplant.
Definitely possible, the front end is basically a bolt in affair, the hood and fenders even interchange. The rear end would be considerably more involved to change though, bodywork would be required because of the 74s wraparound taillights cutting into the sides.
I could accept the 1975 tail lights and bumper. It’s the split bumper and exposed grille that “makes it” on this body, for me.
#IIRC: The ’75 and up Camaros had a slightly softer ride and more interior insulation than the earlier models?
There is no such thing as a “1970 1/2 front cap”.
If you are talking about the RS front end with the circular turn signals and the two small bumpers, this is simply the RS front end. Available on ANY Camaro, 70-73, with any other package (SS, Z/28, or even a base 6 cylinder)
A family friend had one of the first Camaros in the Toledo area in ‘late 66, a car she kept until it was almost dust. I liked it well enough, but when a neighbor came home one day in a blue ’70+1/2, WOW, it went up near the top of the “Cars I want” list. A friend of mine bought a 307 auto Camaro in late ’72 and it was quicker than I expected it to be, and after he added the rear spoiler (I think the car absolutely looks wrong without it), and mandatory Cragar SS wheels, it looked great. Sadly, he never did any power enhancing to it and he eventually sold it to his little brother, who trashed it. As the 70’s went by, I was more and more liking the Trans Ams, and bought a ’79 after not being able to find a ’77 or ’78 without T-Tops or that wasn’t trashed. Later on, I had an ’86 Iroc and for a quick turnover, a ’78 Z-28. If Chevy thought the horror show that appeared in 2010 had any chance of getting me to buy one, they, as they seem to be anymore, sad and mistaken. I have the money to buy a Vette, but don’t want one. I want to buy a Camaro, but until GM’s “Styling” comes back to Earth from the Bizarro Planet, I’m not interested. Until then, it’s Challengers for me, and I’ve been very happy with two of them since 2010.
These are among the most beautiful automobiles ever. Bill Mitchell was still in charge of design at GM at the time, although he probably had little to do with the design other than giving it a go ahead. At the time these cars were in production I always read about the design and styling being strongly influenced by the Italian design firm, “Pininfarina” and resembling various Ferraris. (A lot of GM products were described as being influenced by Pininfarina, though.) When I squint I see a lot of 250 GT Lusso and 250 GT swb Coupe.