It’s easy to characterize a six cylinder Camaro as a slug and a painful reminder that not all classic Camaros came with hot V8s. But it misses a couple of key points, the most important one being that this Camaro six was quicker than many — or most — of the typical V-8 sedans and coupes of the times. And thanks to the six’s lighter weight, it handled significantly better than the V-8 versions. A buyer looking for a well-balanced sporty coupe at a rock-bottom price would be very hard pressed to find anything better, even though the three-speed shifter was a drag.
Although the 250 would later become the base Camaro engine, it was a $26.35 option in 1967, RPO L22. With 155 gross horsepower, the 250 wasn’t a recipe for a drag strip champion, but a minimally optioned Camaro sport coupe like this one had a curb weight of less than 3,000 lb, which made it reasonably spry.
A Car Life road test in March 1967 found that a 250/3-speed Camaro could do 0 to 60 in 11.4 seconds, better than some contemporary bread-and-butter V-8 sedans, and returned 19.2 mpg. For 1967, that was more than adequately quick and respectably economical. In fact, it was one of the fastest six-cylinder cars tested in that era. A 250 Camaro was decidedly quicker than the six-cylinder Mustang or Barracuda and only about a second slower to 60 than the four-barrel Pontiac Sprint six. It was also a bunch quicker than a Corvair Monza (yes, those were still available in 1967).
By sports car standards, none of these cars was an outstanding handler, but Car Life found the six-cylinder Camaro to be quite decent: The big six put about 100 lb less weight over the nose, so the front springs could be softer, which meant better handling balance with less understeer than the V-8 cars. Less weight up front also gave better braking with the standard 9.5-inch drums.
For buyers who wanted a good-looking commuter car and didn’t care about back seat space, a Camaro like this was a pretty good deal. It was infinitely better-looking than a Nova or a Falcon, but it was still affordable to buy — sticker price could be under $2,800, if you could do without power steering — and cheap to feed and maintain. That was what a lot of buyers of these cars actually wanted, and while most people ordered the base 327 and Powerglide, Chevrolet sold more six-cylinder Camaros in 1967 than they did SS350, SS396, and Z/28 cars combined: 26.6 percent of production.
Ordering three-on-the-tree on a Camaro had its pros and cons. The three-speed didn’t cost anything extra, it had a synchronized low gear, and it extracted better performance and economy from the sixes than Powerglide did. On the other hand, the column shift linkage was cumbersome and not very sporty; a decent floor shifter would definitely have improved the experience as well as the image.
A three-pedal car like this was also a bad choice for buyers interested in trade-in value. Say you ordered a six-cylinder, three-speed Camaro with a radio, but no power steering or big-ticket accessories, with a sticker price of $2,700. After two years, its Kelley Blue Book trade-in value would be only $1,175 — you saved $268.65 upfront by skipping power steering and Powerglide (or four-speed), but it would cost you $325 on the back end. An interesting alternative would have been the 250 with the wide-ratio four-speed, which was a factory option with the six, but rarely seen.
I must confess I never really got the appeal of the first-gen Camaro Z22 Rally Sport package. It sounds like it should have been some kind of performance option, but it was basically just a way to get buyers to pay an inflated price for concealed headlights. Listed on the order form as RPO Z22, it was $105.35 including federal tax. It included the same features as the Z21 Style Trim Group ($29.50 of bright moldings and body side paint stripes), plus a new black plastic grille with concealed headlights. There were also a few other minor trim tweaks you probably wouldn’t notice without reference to the catalog, and a bunch of “RS” emblems to tell the world that you’d paid a hundred bucks for concealed headlights and chrome drip rails.
Concealed headlights have always been a mixed blessing. They usually look cool when closed — the ones on the 1967 Camaro RS certainly did that, whatever my doubts about their value for money — but they sometimes look very awkward when opened, and older ones were often not very reliable with age. The headlight motors on the white car in the photos didn’t work at the time this car was sold in July 2024. (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 112, which requires that concealed headlamps stay open if the concealment mechanism fails, didn’t take effect for another two years.)
On the other hand, the RS package was a definite boon to resale value. Dealers really liked trim options like this — fancy trim was an easier sell on the used car lot than mechanical options like disc brakes (which even six-cylinder Camaros could really have used) — and KBB allowed an extra $50 on the trade-in side for a Rally Sport car. If this car had had the $73.75 vinyl roof, that would have been worth another $50 after two years. Sounds trivial, but a lot of people in those days didn’t buy these cars to keep indefinitely as future collectibles.
There was no allowance for the bright metal wheel covers (RPO P01), a $21.10 option, but they probably didn’t hurt, although one of the ones on this car has a nasty dent.
The white car is a “20-footer”: It was repainted at some point, and the paint and chrome still look pretty good, especially with the thorough detailing I assume it got for its auction photo shoot. Looking closer reveals a lot of rust around the edges, but nothing seems too catastrophic yet, and the buyer might well decide to just leave it alone for now, judging it good enough.
For me, that’s kind of the vibe of the first-gen Camaro in general, especially in its more modest forms. The rare Z/28 excepted, there was nothing that exciting about these cars mechanically, and the fact that the six handled and stopped better than most of the V-8 models just goes to show that the V-8 Camaro didn’t handle or stop very well.
However, if your priorities were basic competence and lots of style for low, low monthly payments, it was easy to see the appeal of the six-cylinder Camaro — and it’s always refreshing today to see one of these basic models that hasn’t been resto-modded beyond recognition or transformed into a clone of one of the more powerful buff book darlings.
Related Reading
Vintage CL Road Test: Two 1967 Camaros, 250 Six and SS350 – “Both Have Virtue And Plenty Of Performance” (by Rich Baron
The Fastest Stock Pushrod Inline Sixes Of The ’60s & ’70s – Faster Than Many V8s (by Paul N)
COAL #1: 1967 Camaro – Who Needs a V-8? (by Ed Hardey)
1967 Chevrolet Camaro RS Convertible With A 250 Six – Have It Your Way (by Rich Baron)
Curbside Classic: 1969 Chevrolet Camaro – The Last Unmolested ’69 Camaro Six Daily Driver In The World? (by Paul N)
So Just How Many Camaro Sixes Were Built (1967-1976)? And How Many Camaro Six Posts Have We Had At CC? (by Paul N)
I have always thought that one thing Ford did right with the Mustang that the competition muffed was that every Mustang buyer got a floor shifter. By the mid 60’s, that column-shift manual 3 speed reminded everyone of Uncle Clem’s strippo Biscayne or Valiant. My 68 Mustang was a 6/3 speed, but with the shifter on the floor (and even better, popping up out of a console) the car felt as sporty inside as it looked outside.
But I have to agree that the original Camaro was a nice piece of design work and the car still looks great today.
That complex, out-of-place, unloved column shift linkage in that car is Exhibit A of GM not getting it.
Agreed. But then on the other hand, this 250 six was significantly more powerful than the Mustang’s 200 six and would leave it in the dust despite the column shifter. And Hurst offered a solution to that.
Good call on GM missing the boat by using a column shift for the base 3-speed. I wonder what the price was for a floor-mounted option. I don’t know where the A-body Barracuda base transmission shifter was located, but since it was nearly all Valiant, I would guess it was a column shift 3-speed, too.
This whole thing reminds me of DeLorean’s OHC six and how that engine was just as heavy as the 326 V8, offering no real advantage when installed in the Firebird. If the unsophisticated OHV 250 offered the same (or even better) performance as the Poncho, it’s no wonder the latter was so short-lived.
And, yeah, that’s a little stiff for the RS appearance package, but it definitely helped. I never much liked the 1967 Camaro’s round turn signals. The succeeding years were much better looking.
I had a ‘69 Camaro rag-top, dog-dish hubcaps, with the 250 inline six. Plenty of power, surprisingly. Great car. Regret selling it.
Handsome car; too bad I-sixes never got much respect in this country, hindering development compared to, say, Australia. The /6 Hyperpak exemplified this consumer disinterest: Why buy a six, even a souped-up one, when a heavier V8 cost only a little more?
I wonder why the Detroit cost-cutting fetish was suspended when it came to those headlights.
A good looking survivor .
I’d rock it as – is .
? Was the 230 CIT i6 the base model engine in 1967 ? .
-Nate
As I remember in 1967, the 194 cubic inch 6 was the standard engine in the Camaro with the 230 and 250 cubic inch sixes being optional. I got ahold of an sales brochure for the ’67 Camaro, it had some pictures of a base Camaro-with skinny blackwall tires, dog dish wheel covers, a cheap looking interior and a three on the tree it was not exactly inspiring. It looked totally cheap.
Are you sure about the 194 as the standard engine? Although it would match up better to the Mustang’s 200 six, all I can find is that the 230 L26 was the base Camaro engine.
I wonder if this is one of those situations where the brochure’s info was printed prior to production.
The 230 was the standard engine.
I’m a fan of inline six-cylinder engines, and I think the first generation of GM F-bodies are attractive cars. After checking out this Camaro at the Chevy dealer, I’ll probably head up the street and talk to the Pontiac dealer to test drive a Firebird with the OHC I-6.
Nice find, looks a little rough around the edges but still solid. Amazing it survived this long unmolested.
A guy I knew had a ’68 with a 250 and a Saginaw 4 speed, very nice combo but I don’t know if it was factory or not. It wasn’t an obvious hack job so it might have been.
He was smart enough to ignore our suggestions that he drop a 350 in it. Most of these cars came with 6 cylinders or very mild 2 barrel V-8s and they are much happier cars this way.
You could get the wide-ratio 4-speed with the six as a factory option, although I think it was quite rare. Too bad, as it would have been a good match with the six, and it didn’t get hammered on trade-in value the way three-speed cars did.
This 6-cylinder Camaro RS holds so much appeal for me: sporty and somewhat understated, decent performance, and decent fuel economy. I love the RS package and the aesthetic goodies it adds. I don’t think the non-RS ’67 Camaro has a particularly great face. By no means terrible, but slightly generic. I like a manual transmission, but don’t know if I could get past the three on the tree and learning those motor movements.
That two-year depreciation cited in the article was brutal. Back then, I might have wanted to own a vehicle for the long haul versus an anticipated trade in after a couple of years. Yup – I’m frugal that way. This car sounds more and more like the first-gen Camaro for me.
Aaron, your articles are something I never miss. Thanks again for such great content.
I am tired of every Camaro being turned into a Z-28. Everybody does it and to me it seems like a real waste of a good car. The inline six was very common in Canada, probably more so than in the USA. I saw plenty of them back in the day.
Love the first gen Camaros, I even prefer the non r s version.
I think the plain ones are just perfect, I would prefer a V8 automatic, but a 250 is a good size engine for this car, then you get the handling advantage.
But to think these were a bargain buy back then almost makes me cry.
When looking at what is available these days, and there is absolutely nothing I want.
I had a ’71 C10 short bed pickup with no options. Different type of vehicle, but same powertrain (10hp less due to emissions regs) and had a surprisingly low unladen weight under 3500 lbs. Good performer until the engine got tired, but with 3.73 gears and brick like aerodynamics, gas mileage was as low as 13mpg. Column shift linkage was absolutely horrible. In some ways, driving dynamics may have been better than the Camaro, even if it was a truck. Rear suspension was coil with two trailing arms and Panhard rod. Front brakes were non-boosted disc.
Don’t tell Mark Stielow or Kyle Tucker (Detroit Speed) about this Camaro!
The irony with these often being such desirable fodder for z/28 clones or restomods is after they’re done they’re driven about as gingerly as any original 6 cylinder one would be suitable for. Everyone wants the street machine they wanted in high school in the 70s-80s but ultimately when they achieve them they drive them like grandpas and grandmas …because, well, they are!
What I like about this sort of car is you get the looks (which is 95% of the appeal of this era car, let’s be honest) but you also get modestly good efficiency and one of the simplest and easiest to service engine layouts you can imagine. Yeah you can’t do great peel outs from the only cars & coffee event you drive it to, but you can put the pedal to the metal all the time, maintain it with ease and everyone will be taking out their phones for pictures as much as if it were a $200,000 restomod or a Lamborghini.
I’m a fan of the RS btw. Base 67-68 Camaro front ends both look like afterthoughts to me, where the hidden headlights and cleaner grille look more like the car it was always supposed to be, at extra cost of course(because GM). I agree concealed headlights don’t necessarily look as nice opened, but who cares? If they’re operating properly when they’re opened all you see are the blinding orbs you shouldn’t be looking directly at anyway. When they’re closed it’s just so so good
That pedal operated parking brake is definitely a minus. Makes starting on a hill a pain.
With a hand release it’s pretty straight forward, you just set the parking brake at the stop, get going modulating the clutch/accelerator and release the hand release once moving. Modern 6-speed manual Challengers are the same way, Autos have push on/push off pedals where manuals have the hand release. Once you get used to it it’s not much different than a handbrake
I’m 60 years old and have driven manual transmissions all my life; including the 13 speed Kenworth I currently own. Why would you need a parling brake to start on a hill?
I always liked the first generation Camaro. In my last year of high school (67-68) when walking to school, I passed through a wealthier area. This was in a suburb of Toronto. There was a house that had a double drive containing 2 Camaros, both RS, but one was red and the other green. I have no idea what the power trains were, but they did look nice in the drive.
I had a good friend and neighbor in high school whose first car was a ’68 base model Camaro 6 cylinder with a 3 speed on the floor. My best recollection is that it was the 230 base engine, but I am not sure. He was/is several months older than I, therefore he had his license before I did. So I rode with him a lot in his car. It got around just fine, and was an all around good, fun car, and plenty for a teenager.
Good article, Aaron, although the RS package did include special tail and backup lights as well.
Thanks, Patrick.
That was what I meant by “a few other minor trim tweaks you probably wouldn’t notice without reference to the catalog.”
Well, I suppose that is the car spotter in me. I have always been able to tell the difference from a block away.
When I lived in Italy in 1978-1979 a friend of my father had a late 1960’s (no sure of the year) Camaro with the 250 CI six and a four on the floor. The speed limit in Italy was 140 kph or 87 mph back then and so one could cruise at 90 mph to 100 mph without any fear of being stopped. What amazed me as a car guy was that Camaro did exactly that. It cruised the autostrada at 90-95 mph – which I know because we followed him in our Alfa while going on vacation. It was a high mileage car by that point and burned some oil, but it ran near 100 mph for hours without any problem.
I’ve rather under-appreciated what an excellent piece of styling that was – so very class of ’67 and it could almost pass for European. There’s a lot of Sunbeam Rapier in that nose!
My only nitpick is the windshield top rail seems a little flat – not quite Kaiser, but just a fraction too straight.
Nevertheless, GM were long-brilliant at surfacing – something that CAD seems to have totally lost.
The RS was really popular because it did look better. I think a Hurst shifter would help, and although I doubt many people did it there were hop up parts. I find this more authentic and hones that the sheep in wolve’s clothing 3rd generation RS which had a Z28 body kitand an Iron Duke 4.
My ambivalence about the RS package is not about the looks — the grille treatment does look cool — but about its price (which was inflated) and its reliability. The BaT listing says the white car’s headlights wouldn’t open at the time it was sold last year, so either the motors had failed or corrosion jammed the doors in place. Fixable, I’m sure, but not confidence-inspiring, and the number of concealed-headlight cars I’ve seen over the years with the headlights jury-rigged to stay open because the motors or servos have failed isn’t encouraging in this regard either. (Even with a pampered classic, you might want to drive it after sunset without getting a ticket!)
This engine is the Turbo-Thrift and it’s a kind of straight six LS. It was the pinnacle of decades of GM improvements on their in line sixes and doesn’t have the recognition it deserves.
In Brazil this engine was so successful that was produced until the 2000s. The infamous Chevrolet Opala got its fame from this great engine.
Tailshaft length on the Saginaw 3 and 4 speed were identical, along with input and output splines being the same. I put a Saginaw 4 speed in my old Chevy 1970 C10, direct bolt in. Hurst shifter and hole cut in the tunnel floor was all that was required.
Would have been a easy upgrade and a big improvement for not much money.