(first posted 5/19/2015) It’s a well known fact that GM didn’t approve production for what eventually became the 1967 Camaro until six months after the Mustang was released, by which time it had already sold over 100k units. That doesn’t mean that Chevy hadn’t given the idea some thought over the years.
Internal GM advanced projects on a compact sporty four seater go back to 1958, which not coincidentally is the year that Ford introduced the groundbreaking four-passenger Thunderbird. In an article at holisticpage.com, Pontiac Designer Bob Porter is quoted. “I remember a four-passenger, sporty type car of the general size and weight class of the Mustang being worked on in an advanced studio. In the early ’60s, similar cars were developed from time to time. Everyone wanted to do one, but at the time there was really no corporate interest.” But various design drawings and clays continued to be generated, under the code name XP-836. The Camaro’s final shape was already well under way in this clay from 1963 or 1964.
As is the way with GM, that was hardly the only design that was thrown into the mix. Here’s a few others developed under the XP-836 program.
Given that Chevrolet had practically invented the compact sporty genre with its Corvair, and had its hands full developing and marketing the Chevy II and upcoming Chevelle, its rationale seems valid enough. It certainly never expected the Mustang to be the overwhelming hit that it turned out to be.
The Super Nova concept from 1964 (top) represents a similar if slightly different approach on Camaro design influences. Still based on the old and tall Chevy II architecture, it’s more of a glimpse at the new roof line and styling of the ’66 Chevy II, but Camaro influences are obvious too, especially that crease line down the side that came back for the ’69 Camaro. I have vivid memories of it in GM’s Futurama exhibit from the 1964 New York World’s Fair.
This more advanced clay is now closer to production, and looks almost exactly like the air brush rendering above. It’s probably from the time when the corporate green light came on, 1964. When the Mustang set sales records after its April 1964 introduction, and quickly passed the 100k mark, GM knew it had to move, and move fast. The final design was headed up by Henry Haga, and the interior by George Angersbach.
Although the roof line is still not finalized in this clay, what’s fascinating about it is that it sports the ’69 Camaro’s front end design almost perfectly. I’m guessing here, but I suspect it fell away to the production ’67-’68 front end as a cost cutting measure, and one that Chevy rectified for 1969. That would explain why the ’67 Camaro’s front end looks rather improvised, cheap and crude.
Various body styles were explored, including this “shooting brake” wagon.
And a shortened two-passenger convertible prototype was also built; shades of what AMC later did in turning the Javelin into the AMX.
The final and thorny problem to be solved was the name. Panther was used for internal and planning purposes, and one could imagine a wild panther taking down a mustang. But GM shied away from overly aggressive names, like the Pontiac’s Banshee.
A pre-release car here actually carries the “Chaparral” name, after the remarkably successful Chevy-powered race cars that were tearing up the tracks at the time. In the end, GM somehow came up with the Camaro name, and even dug up an antique French dictionary that showed it meaning “friend” or “companion”. Don’t try to tell me that “Camaro” is any less fabricated or better than “Camry”.
Here’s Chevy honcho Pete Estes getting ready to put some bang into the new Camaro name. Meanwhile, Ford found an old Spanish dictionary that defined Camaro as a “small shrimp-like creature”. And a journalist came up with another that defined it as “loose bowels”.
The Camaro was developed and built on the new platform intended also for the 1968 Chevy II/Nova. It was significant in that it took the unibody structure and married it to a front subframe using several rubber biscuits. The intention was to reduce noise and vibration from the engine and front suspension, and it became a standard technique going forward. It did add some extra weight, but the direction was to more powerful and heavier cars anyway.
The ’67 Camaro was given the privilege of debuting two new variations of Chevy’s infinitely adaptable small block V8. The soon to be ubiquitous 350 V8 was specifically designed to give the Camaro a unique engine, which it kept to itself for the debut year. Initially, it was the biggest V8 available, but after the Mustang’s introduction of its 390 V8 for ’67, Chevrolet had no choice but to follow the leader again, and Camaro was quickly approved for the Chevy 396, although in modest 325 hp trim, so as not to violate GM’s 10lb/hp minimum.
The other unique engine was the legendary Z28 engine, developed specifically to homologate the Camaro for the new SCCA Trans Am racing series. Using a trick similar to what hot rodders had been doing since the fifties, Chevy combined the four inch bore of the 327 with a three inch crank from the 283. Using the best components in its high performance arsenal, the Mighty Mouse 302 was very conservatively rated at 290 (gross) horsepower. Many in the know suggest that its true (gross) output was closer to 380-390 horsepower.
In the hands of racers like Mark Donohue, the Z28 was unbeatable on the tracks. Someone trying to sell you a ’67 Z28? Beware, only 602 were made, and the few that survive are worth very serious bucks. But they weren’t the easiest car to drive on the street, given that its wild cam made little power below 3,000 rpm. But it would rev to 7,000 and outrun a 396 Camaro once it picked up its skirts.
Despite its late start, the Camaro went on to have a decent run in its first year, although nothing near what the Mustang was doing. Despite the new competition, Ford still moved almost a half million Mustangs in 1967, while Chevy had to be content with some 221k Camaros sold. The pony car wars were now in full heat, and the epic battles to come would be the stuff…of legends, and although there were some truces along the way, it’s still going on today.
If it is war, the just-announced 2016 Camaro (above) is bound to win since it’s obviously an armored vehicle with gun slits for windows. Yes, they’re even smaller than the current Camaro’s.
I prefer the original Camaro and Firebird that was sold than what’s being sold today. I find it more attractive than what’s being sold today.
Almost anything made back then was/is more attractive then what’s being sold today. It’s sad, so many seriously quick cars, cased in ugly sheetmetal.
“Here’s Chevy honcho Pete Estes getting ready to put some bang into the new Camaro name. Meanwhile, Ford found an old Spanish dictionary that defined Camaro as a ‘small shrimp-like creature’. And a journalist came up with another that defined it as ‘loose bowels’.”
Naming and brand identity can be a strange business.
When Amtrak named its high-speed trains in 2000, it chose “Acela,” presumably a combination of “Acceleration” and “Excellence” (yes, Amtrak really said that). Somebody said that “Acela” meant “Armpit” in some other language. The French, from whose early TGV design the train’s mechanicals were adapted (into a carbody based on Canadian commuter train coaches), called it “le cochon,” meaning “The Pig” due to its bloated styling and excessive weight; the use by French and Canadian technical personnel stuck, and even now, fifteen years later, some Amtrak tech people call it “The Pig.”
Amtrak even got into trouble when it tried using the internet domain, Acela.com; a Los Angeles computer retailer already owned it (American Computers and Electronics of Los Angeles) and held firm when offered money to sell it. They wound up selling for a lot of money (the owner told me, “I could retire now if I wanted to”) and an agreement that the acela.com website would include on its homepage a reference and link to the new web address for the computer company, for a number of years.
One more surprise awaited, and this was for the logo chosen by Amtrak for Acela. On its unveiling, a longtime Amtrak employee was heard to blurt out upon seeing it, “It’s…It’s a TIT!”
In spite of all the hoopla & hype about the “restyled” Camaro, it still leaves me cold..amored vehicle indeed!
The 2016 is even uglier than the 2015.
I don`t really care for the new generation of Camaro. Too overdone with too many styling elements that just don`t work well toether,especially the smallish side windows.Chevy would have been wise to design it along the lines of the `67s to 69`s, which, IMHO were the nicest of the bunch.Though I was never a Challenger fan, the solid and heavy looks of the new Challenger seem to be the best looking of the new generation of muscle cars, I`ll take a Hellcat version anyday.
The current and upcoming versions of the Camaro are exactly what a bored 14 year old boy would draw in class as a customized ’69 while the teacher is droning on, and on, and on.
> I`ll take a Hellcat version anyday.
Good luck with that. Chrysler — er, FCA — is keeping production low and turning buyers away to make sure the Hellcats stay exclusive.
(Make mine a Hellcat Charger. I want my 707-bhp car to be practical.)
Just because it has 4 doors doesn’t make it more practical. The Challenger has a shockingly good amount of rear seat space and legroom for the segment, in fact it’s better than quite a bit of sedans on the market right now.
Plus I find the Charger’s facelift with the goofy horseshoe shaped LED running lights incredibly ugly.
I’d take a Mustang or Challenger over a new Camaro today.The 67 Camaro was a real beauty unlike today’s ugly sister.
Good article , I await the comments .
-Nate
Gun-slit indeed! That newest Camaro looks like an ungainly lump with tiny slits for windows. How on earth can anyone even see anything from inside the car? How on earth can the driver rest his or her arm on the windowsill? Those tiny side windows are deal-breakers for me.
Maybe they want to make sure the interior stays nice & cool when you park in the sun.
Hmmm, a plain white one with mirrored window tint and white interior should be as cool as a walk in fridge then!
I drove one of the previous gen Camaros…a plain base model, white with a 6 cylinder and a stick and owner installed big wheels. Borrowed it from a neighbor lady who borrowed it from her boyfriend who was out of town on a fishing trip. Her car was in the shop. She hated the stickshift and wanted to drive my car instead which at that time was a bench seat Ford Taurus. He never knew I had it and I beat it like a rental car. Impressive car as far as handling goes. Pretty darn good power for a six. I did not care for the extremely high window sills, high center console, and high dashboard though. Made me feel like a little kid in need of a booster seat. The over sized wheels look a little cartoonish to me.
If the last Camaro picture is the 2016 Camaro or whatever, it just plain looks uncomfortable. Interesting issue if an average person could not crawl out a window in an emergency.
Picture 5 sports what is essentially the 1970 Chevelle two door greenhouse. I’m always amazed out how various elements from the idea bin eventually make it to some production car.
Nice write up.
I think I would be just as happy with one of these stone age originals. The 230 was a great engine and the floor mounted manual was slick shifting.
Of course when I went to the drags the excitement was in watching the 396 and 427 models. Don’t know if most of the 427s were original or not but they sure were there. Watched at New England drag strip the whole time I was in New London. Then I sort of went overseas and lost the chance to follow the drags.
The comment on the Z28 was just as true for the drag strip genre. No good for the street.
In the Camaro v. Mustang wars, I come down on the Mustang side more often than not. There are some notable exceptions (i.e. the entire decade of the 70’s.) The original Camaro was a very nice design, and holds up quite well in unadorned form, but I just prefer the ’67 Mustang.
And while the new/current Mustang took me a bit of time to warm up to, I actually quite like it at this point. They found a way to break free of the overtly retro theme (which worked quite well on the 2005-2009 car, but had started to grow stale in the 2010-2014 version) while still keeping the overall proportions and some styling continuity intact. The 2016 Camaro posted up there? That one leaves me cold. The 2010-2015 cars’ retro design worked well, and they were wise to leave it behind after a single generation, but this new one looks to me like a bad Chinese knock-off of the 5th-gen car.
I do not care for the first gen Camaro. Mustang had it beat until Ford screwed up with the 69 mustang and then I would call it a tie for that one year. GM and Mopar then became better pony cars for the 1970 model year. I would say Mustang did not get back to number one until about 1984.
See, the ’69 Mustang is my favorite year. The notchback models were less attractive than the ’68, but a fastback with the Mach 1 package is in my dream garage.
I never cared for the third-gen Camaro, so for that car’s entire run (which was rather long, ’82 to ’92 I think?) the Mustang had It beat. Even if the base Mustangs of the late 80’s looked like economy cars, it “cleaned up real nice” with something like a 5.0 hatch.
+1
In my mind the 67-68s were the best all around Mustangs, the coupe fastback and convertable all looked good, but 69 was by far the coolest looking fastback with just a killer looking front end treatment, and I like the interior best of all the first gen Mustangs hands down.
The new Camaro is in line with the other modern muscle cars, bloated and ugly.
+1
Having been in a 2015 Camaro recently, I cannot imagine the windows of the 2016 being any smaller than they already are on the 2015. If someone gave me one of these cars I would have to sell it. I cannot stand being claustrophobic, and these cars are simply too confined for me. Plus they are downright dangerous as you really cannot see what is going on around you. The entire car is one big blind spot!
Well stated. What was GM thinking?
Does anybody ever know what GM is thinking? Personally, I think GM doesn`t even know what itself is thinking.
Definition of hell. A claustrophobic like myself sitting in the back seat of one of these.
Somewhere in the hype about the new Camaro that was published this weekend, I read that GM asked current Camaro owners if they were worried about visibility. The owners said they were willing to sacrifice visibility for styling.
Different strokes, I guess. I’m not in the target demo for either car, but given only those two choices, I’d opt for the Mustang.
I don’t think the Camaro needs to have an E9 sized greenhouse but the 2016 is just comical.
The thing is I don’t find it aesthetically appealing, there’s an odd dead space below the quarter window where the fender kicks up as well as between the door handle and weatherstripping that just looks wrong, as if from the cowl back it was designed to be a significantly lower body than what the final hood height allowed. I wasn’t fond of the 5th gens cartoonish design or it’s poor visibility but it was cohesive and shockingly true to the concept(very rare for GM), I’ll give it that, the 6th gen looks like a hasty rebody of the same car onto a different platform, ala Lincoln Mark VI
Indeed. My BIL has a 2012 Camaro. V6, manual. Decided to try one, after years of owning Mustangs. Been a good car, reliability wise. But he said he would never buy another one. Been in it several times. Viability just stinks. Awful. I feel like I should drag my woman by her hair into this cave. And despite the wide trunk lid, the actual opening can barely pass a bowling ball.
We had a 2013 Camaro convertible as a rental for our honeymoon. If you think the trunk is small in the coupe, give it a try with the top down on a convertible–you basically can’t fit *anything* in there other than maybe a pair of grocery bags. We had to keep our suitcases in the back seat when traveling to and from the hotel. And I agree, visibility with the top up was atrocious. To top it all off, it really didn’t *feel* like 300 horsepower. Sure, they’re heavy, and it’d go as fast as you wanted it to, but the off the line kick wasn’t that impressive.
On the other hand, traveling top down on US 1 through the Florida keys in a yellow Camaro convertible isn’t a bad way to fly at all. 🙂
I actually quite like the current crop of muscle cars. they’re as close as some of us young folk could get to what was available back then and have some lovely coupe’s.
As far as the Camaro’s atrocious visibility, they actually deliberately went with it, and were prepared for a thrashing by saying that all models came with a standard backup camera. Turns out people weren’t willing to give away the look for pesky things like being available to see out of it.
Having said that, the Challenger is the current muscle car for me, if only you could roll down the little back windows it’d be perfect.
My friend showed me pics of the 2016 on his iPhone the other day when it debuted and I thought the pics were old stock pictures of the current design, I really was squinting trying to tell the difference and low and behold it was they indeed made the windows tinier lol.
I love how there was so much hype between the Mustang and Camaro becoming lightweights in 2015 and 16 respectively, HA! Well they might weigh a few grams less than a Crown Victoria now I guess.
I see some Studebaker Avanti in some of the early clays, especially around the rear quarter glass.
The interesting thing about both the Camaro and Mustang is that neither made much effort to hide the fact that they weren’t much more than re-skinned compact coupes. A quick glance under the hood of an early Mustang looks a whole lot like a Falcon, same with Camaro/Chevy II. It’s interesting how well they sold, given they were parts-bin exercises, for the most part. Me, I’d take a Falcon or a Nova over either.
That’s true of the 68 Chevy II, but the 67 Camaro was actually relatively unique in using a separate front frame member, it was basically 1/3 body on frame. The 62-67 Chevy II were entirely different. They had a bolt-on front clip but it was more of a true unibody with shock shock towers, in fact if you look under the hood of a 1967 Nova it bears a pretty significant resemblance to a Falcon, look under the hood of a 1967 Camaro and it looks more like a Chevelle. The 68 Chevy II essentially adopted the F-Body layout from that point on but out the gate the Camaro was quite unique under the skin.
My mother tried to talk my aunt into a Camaro when she bought her first new car, my aunt bought a end-of-year showroom ’67 Malibu instead. In the late 70s mom talked of wanting a Camaro Berlinetta, Father bought a Citation instead. Fast Forward thirty-odd years and while my five-year-old daughter chanted “buy the convertible grandma!” that’s exactly what mom did, buying a victory red 2011 Camaro RS convertible. Dropping the top pretty much takes care of the blind spots….except for the A-pillars.
She likes the car, but I think she still misses her Bonneville GXP.
What a cool grandmother! Now you must hang onto that car by whatever means* for your daughter.
*Probably best for the family if your mother first agrees to the deal in principle, she’ll feel less threatened.
We’re working on that. Mom always picked out more interesting cars than my father did.
Great piece. Interesting to see the Astrovette roofline in some of those early clays. I’m a big fan of the first Camaro shape; it’s clean and beautiful. I also like the early Mustangs which are not necessarily prettier than the Camaro but seem to have a more distinct visual personality. The 67 Camaro has a quiet beauty.
Also interesting to see elements of the Tjaada for Pininfarina Corvair Rondine in the rear end of the first clay picture.
To add to the other name issues, “Camero” is probably the most frequent automotive misspelling (rivaled only by “Volkswagon”).
One of the things that I’d like to know is how the big-block 396 and 400 managed to fit into their respective f-bodies so well in 1967, when the 390 in the Mustang and 383 in the Barracuda were such tight squeezes that the small, restrictive exhausts required sapped out any horsepower advantage that might have been gained by weight savings over the same engines in larger intermediates.
Of the first generation big-block ponycars, the 396 Camaro came out as the clear winner, with the pooch 390 Mustang coming up the rear. It’s hard to believe that GM just happened to be lucky in how that all played out since the Camaro was a brand-new model.
As to why it took until 1967 to get the GM ponycars to market, well, Ed Cole, a big force behind the Corvair, was still running the show and I would imagine he was hopeful that the sportier, redone-for-1965 Corvair would carry the day. Unlike today when a new model gets dropped almost immediately if it’s not an instant hit, Ed was a guy who would stick with a car and give it time to blossom (i.e., the Corvette). But, just like in 1960 when the Corvair got slaughtered by the boringly typical Falcon, so, too, did history repeat itself when the Mustang (a rebodied Falcon), again, stomped the Corvair flat in the small, sporty car field. Even Ed Cole couldn’t save it, and the greenlight for the Camaro was given.
Regarding today’s Camaro, it’s just baffling why no one can seem to build a sporty car with decently sized side windows. Besides the issue of not being able to see out of those gun-slits, I don’t think they look all that great. It reminds me of the time a year ago I was walking out of a restaurant when I saw a nice 1967 Plymouth GTX motoring by on a nearby elevated highway. It was remarkable how much of the driver you could see, nearly down to his elbows. Granted, he might just have been a tall guy but, man, it’s quite a difference from new cars where you can barely see the head of the driver through a side window.
F-bodies don’t have shock towers since the front end is effectively BOF design ahead of the cowl with LCAs and shocks bolted to frame rails and nothing but fender liners to cover the tires. Ford’s Falcon platform and Chrysler’s A and B bodies(C bodies were actually like the Camaro/Firebird in that they had bolt in frame rails up front) on the other hand were true unibodies with an integrated structure, including wide tall shock towers, from bumper to bumper, and that’s where the fitment issues from big block engines come in. GM never had that problem with the F body since the engine compartment was just as big as an A or even B body, in a 1962-1967 Chevy II/Nova it’s a different story though.
Thanks for the explanation. What were the drawbacks to using what, I’m assuming, was a much less modern design than the Plymouth and Ford? Was there a weight penalty, or was it some sort of compromise in ride and/or handling? I know that the rear suspensions didn’t hook-up on the dragstrip nearly as well as the competitors, but it was mainly due to GM using a monoleaf set-up versus the stouter multi-leaf rear suspensions of the other two (GM intermediates had problems in this department, too, but that was due to using coil springs in the rear). In fact, on the highest-horsepower cars, Chrysler would actually install an additional leaf on one side to compensate for the high engine torque.
Regardless, GM really lucked-out by going with the older design front suspension for their ponycars, at least with regard to getting big-block engines to fit properly, a very important consideration in the late sixties.
I’m no engineer so I can only really speculate but I suspect GM picked a more conventional front end layout in order to keep commonality with the other platforms, which, with the exception of the moribund Corvair, were all full framed with almost identical front suspension designs. What the F body used wasn’t at all different than what a DeVille was using other than the size of the components, and I’m sure some minor parts like bushings were shared between F/X/A/B/C-bodies as well. There was probably some desire to have engineering dedicated to a basic front end for every car to minimise development and refinement costs over the years.
Functionally I don’t know if I’d put the F body at a disadvantage though, it was a true SLA suspension with well located shocks and springs, unlike Ford’s Falcon platform that had a bizarre SLA/pseudo MacPherson strut setup, with tension struts and the spring and shock mounted high up between the upper control arm and huge shock towers (the 62-67 Chevy II also used a similar layout, as well as AMC with the Rambler if I recall correctly), now a days with restomods(I know, I know) the way to fix the shortcomings of first generation Mustangs for modern day high performance is to pretty much replace the whole thing, eliminating the shock towers in the process, and the end result from most aftermarket companies isn’t all that different in terms of layout to how the GM framed suspensions were. Chrysler had about the best performing setup of the bunch early on with the torsion bars but as time went on its seems like Ford and GM caught up with and surpassed the performance. Second gen F-bodies and 75-79 X-Bodies were known for being quite good handlers.
Well, for a change, GM’s sticking with the same old suspension that they were using in everything else (save the Corvair and first gen Nova) for the new f-body really seems to have worked out for them. I’m surprised that there wasn’t any kind of major detriment, relative to what the other guys were using. All things considered, if I were in the market for a big-block V8 ponycar in the late sixties, GM would have been the obvious choice. Unfortunately, the reality was that they sold a whole lot more small-block V8s (and sixes) than the big-blocks in the entire ponycar demographic so the Mustang kept their market dominance.
In fact, in an odd twist, Chrysler seems to have tried to try the same thing with the 1970 E-body, but it turned out very differently. I guess the problem were those huge cylinder heads of the 426 Hemi which almost certainly required a really wide engine bay (relative to the normal ponycar width). GM didn’t have a V8 anywhere near as wide as the Hemi so the f-body was able to maintain a much more narrow width.
As I understand it the B and RB engines(383 and 440) were the motivating factor for the wide E body engine bay, changing spark plugs on one of those engines in a 69 Barracuda was a very tight and unpleasant job for what was usually a very easy and common task back then. The Hemi was wide up top but one other benefit to the torsion bar Chryslers was that the unibody shock towers were very low and unintrusive, since there was no large coil spring to clear, the A-bodies frame rails were simply too narrow for the Big block V8s which have the exhaust manifolds and spark plugs tucked right next to. A Hemi A-body would actually be ok in that regard since the plugs are accessed through the very top of the valve covers.
Definitely true though, the E body was essentially created out of the same requirement, only difference was Chrysler took it a step farther and essentially shortened the whole intermediate(which in reality was more full sized-light) B body platform for it.
It wasn’t just A bodies. Changing plugs in my 77 New Yorker was a nasty job, which required accessing 3 of the 8 plugs from below. I can only imagine the nastiness of that job in an A body.
My opinion is this is a non issue because the first gen pony cars should not ever have a huge engine. These cars are meant to be midway between a sportscar and a muscle car and to maintain low weight and proper front-rear weight distribution, they need a small light engine. 300 cubic inches is about the upper limit in my opinion, and it should be designed for low weight.
Although the roof line is still not finalized in this clay, what’s fascinating about it is that it sports the ’69 Camaro’s front end design almost perfectly. I’m guessing here, but I suspect it fell away to the production ’67-’68 front end as a cost cutting measure, and one that Chevy rectified for 1969. That would explain why the ’67 Camaro’s front end looks rather improvised, cheap and crude.
Mustang was exactly the same way – many of the details (tail lamps, grille, fake side vents) were cheapened on the original, with the 67 being more faithful to the studio concept.
I did some research on the history of the first-gen Camaros for a project; we have a ’69 in the family that has been with us since new. I love the car but I know its faults as well.
These were interesting cars. If you check some of the early articles – C&D just posted a “first drive” review of a ’67 – there are a number of comments that suggested that these cars felt unfinished. And we’re not talking about fit and finish here, more about the overall driving experience. By the time the Camaro was released, it was late to the party. The Mustang had been enjoying a prime market space all to itself since ’65 (well, ’64 1/2). GM had suspected that Ford had been working on something like this, but didn’t expect the car to be such a success.
So, from the outset, GM was racing the clock to get this car to market. Some people argue that the early grilles – before ’69 – looked a bit, well, simple. Owners will complain about how hard it is to (inevitably) replace the heater cores on the cars, an eight hour job due to the fact that the bolts for the assembly are tucked beneath some of the body panels on the car. GM was really playing catch-up to Ford here.
One of the really interesting things about the Camaro was that, in 1969, you could order it with your choice of 13 different engines. I don’t know of any vehicle that offered more engine choices (except maybe another GM from the late sixties!).
Those who lacked self respect ordered the 140ci “Turbo-Thrift” straight six. There were many variants of V8s available in the Gen1 Camaros, with the first “hot” engine being the 350 for the ’68 model year. The 350 in SS Camaros packed a Carter (or Rochester) Quadrajet rated at (I believe) 300 horsepower. Carters had two sets of fuel nozzles; one set was always in operation for “normal” driving, and the second set acted as secondaries. The secondaries only kicked on when you really booted the car, allowing for surprisingly efficient operation under normal conditions. The only downside was a bit of extra fuel line plumbing – the secondaries always had fuel flowing to them, and this was returned to the fuel tank (return line) if the secondaries were closed.
There were a number of V8s available. There was the very mom-and-pop 327. Two versions of the 350 were offered, one in standard models with a two-barrel carb, and the SS version with a four-barrel. Above that was the top-level SS396. The more famous Z/28 ran the 302, which insurance companies didn’t really appreciate. Being oversquare, the engine tended to whip up to speed quickly (especially compared to the torquey 396), sending many Z/28s into the ditch. Some cars were equipped with iron 427 engines, and the most famous Camaros (the “COPO” Camaros) packed aluminum 427 engines.
The 1970 Chrysler E-body (which most consider a clone of the ’67-’69 GM F-body) had nearly as many engine choices:
1. 198-1v
2. 225-1v
3. 318-2v
4. 383-2v
5. 340-4v
6. 383-4v
7. 440-4v
8. 340-6v
9. 440-6v
10. 426-8v
I prefer to think of if as a “perfected” F-Body design, at least the Cuda was. Anyone who would buy an E-Body with either the 198 or 225 was, IMHO, not quite sane. The 340 4 barrel was the sweet spot. A friend of mine bought a yellow ’70 Challenger right after he got married, and I wanted a Cuda (I just liked it better) very badly after the first time I rode in it. I missed out back then, but I did buy my present car, a 2010 Challenger, and let’s face it, it looks more Cuda than Challenger, which is a plus in my opinion.
and let’s face it, it looks more Cuda than Challenger, which is a plus in my opinion.
I see it too, the original Challenger looked longer and leaner, whereas the Cuda somehow had a shorter close coupled appearance which the current Challenger definitely possesses in comparison. If I had one I’d get a shaker hood kit and a 71 Cuda style grille I’ve seen for them, the resemblance is uncanny
The current Camaro’s gun slit windows are terrible. It’s hard to believe they would have made it worse. Actually one article says that the cowl/dash line has been simplified and lowered some and the former hood bulge taken down some so frontal visibility is a little better thought I need to check this out to believe it. Lets not forget that Chrysler and Mercedes and Buick and VW are also guilty of this silly styling exercise.
Introducing the 2016 Chevrolet Bumper… I mean Camaro.
Tired of the ultra-thick bodies and 60-inch rims.
An interesting sales comparison: Ford sold 500,000 Mustangs in 1967, Chevrolet 221,000 Camaros. As I recall, when the Camaro was released in September 1966 there was a lot of criticism from some quarters that the largest engine in the Camaro was a 350 c.i., while the Mustang could be had with a 390 c.i. engine (this was the sixties). There was also a lot of criticism about the Camaro using the single leaf springs from the Chevy II.
I remember from my college days that after a few months Chevrolet started referring to the Camaro as the “hugger” for its supposed handling ability. During the ’67 year the local Chevrolet dealer was advertising in the college newsrag, a version with the 230 c.i.
a version with the 230 c.i. six with 3 spd. floorshift as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I have no idea if this created a sales rush, but I doubt it.
At least that Chevrolet dealer could have put a 4 speed with that 230…or upgraded it to a 292 with a 4 speed. Building a ’67 Camaro to be as light as possible with a handling suspension and decent brakes was possible, I suppose, but why bother when you had Pontiac with their OHC Sprint 6 right on the showroom floor?
When was the last time a man under 50 wore a coat and tie in a car ad?
This ad might be the last one with a a guy wearing a coat and tie!
The new Camaros need an optional periscope to see out of them.