Given that this is one of my favorite CCs in Eugene, I feel entitled to update you all on its continued good health and daily activities. I first wrote it up back in 2012, and it continues to live at the same location. And I see its owner, a woman roughly my age, driving it regularly. And it lives out on the street. It’s the glorious antithesis to all those stereotypical resale-red ’69 Z-28 clones one sees on summer Sundays, with the stereotypical driver behind the wheel.
Yes, it’s got a six cylinder under the hood (confirmed by me be looking underneath it).
And a column-mounted shifter for the Powerglide. It’s utterly bone stock, except for the WOL tires. The big question I hope to get answered some day is if the current owner is the original owner. Did her dad buy it for her as a high school graduation present?
It makes an interesting contrast to the xB behind it.
I sincerely hope to continue providing these occasional updates on this car for a long time to come.
There were lots of these around when I was a kid, so they represent a big chunk of what people actually bought: a sporty, economical car to get to work.
I am completely tired of seeing 60’s cars with 1000 hp bolted into them. What’s so special about bolting 1000 hp into an old car? Anybody with the money can do it.
A sporty *looking* economical car to get to work.
The people who were actually excited about these cars 50 years ago wanted ‘1000 hp,’ but that wasn’t practical for them then. These cars would have been built as cartoony hot rods then, instead of sixes and 307s, if the original purchasers could afford it (in every way) and could live with the driveability. Now they’re weekend toys for people who can afford it and don’t depend on them to make a living, so they’re modified like the hot rods that the original enthusiastic owners imagined driving.
Really? I would beg to differ. The Camaro was offered with a variety of power plants, from the 230 Six right to the 427 V-8.
The vast majority of the cars I have seen with my own eyes were either the Six or some variation of the 307-327. Most were hooked to a Powerglide.
The fact is these cars couldn’t handle big block power in 1967 and most shoppers knew it.
They didn’t get the big engine because it was expensive to buy, expensive to run, expensive to maintain, and expensive to insure. It probably increased total operating cost by 50 percent, and it was mostly a rolled up sock down their pants that didn’t do anything useful. But they wanted it.
You’re projecting the desires of a relatively small group of gearheads. Sure, some of us drooled over a genuine Z-28, or even something wilder. But the great majority of pony car buyers were buying them because they were the hot fad at the time; the car to be seen in. A wild engine would have been scary to them.
As I noted, the “relatively small group” of enthusiasts/gearheads then and now are the reason these cars are collectible today. The people who bought six cylinder Camaros 50 years ago because it was the fashionable dress of the day don’t care enough to collect them. So the collectors today are mostly interested in hot rods (factory stock or not), the same way that modern hippie clothing enthusiasts are mostly interested in the most extreme expressions of that style. They don’t bother dressing in the ugly, poorly fitting, off the rack everyday clothing of the period, like they don’t much want to drive a 307/Powerglide Camaro with drum brakes.
They became collectible because those kinds of cars had become the anthesis to everything current in automotivedom during the 1980s and 1990s, and many of them were still genuinely fast cars during that time period, and relatively cheap at the same time. These days the hottest ones are pretty average compared to 201x cars, they’re still appealing as attractive cars and nostalgic purposes, but frankly no more than this sixer base Camaro if that’s your desire, and many enthusiasts are more than content with that. We’re not all racers.
I’ve driven a 307/Powerglide Camaro with drum brakes. It was miserable.
I take my clothes off the rack and I’ll take my Camaros with the ability to accelerate AND stop.
Your average ’67 Camaro was a 327/Powerglide. Normally would come with a floor shifter and console (despite Chevrolet making you pay extra for them, at least Ford would give you the floor shifter standard on the Mustang).
Column shift Camaros were very rare in my youth, I’ve actually seen more of them in car shows during my middle age and early senior years than I ever saw back in the day.
Now dad was thinking resale enough on ours to spend the extra money for the Rally Sport option with the hidden headlights, and the optional interior. But that was pretty much it.
And when he sold it and bought the ’70, once again it was basic 2bbl V-8 (350 I would think), automatic (three speed), and the Rally Sport option with the optional interior again. Only this time I got him to pony up the bucks for the optional suspension (not a lot, definitely under $100.00). Boy, was that an eye opener for him!
After that car, any car that was ordered got whatever suspension option was available.
yeah, that’s how i remember them being equipped, too. they were for people who appreciated a little more power and sportiness. people who didn’t care about sportiness bought a column shifted six cylinder nova or a malibu.
By that logic current CUV buyers aspire to go off roading in them if they had the time and money.
Probably. In their dreams, anyway.
They like the capability, even if they don’t plan to use it. Otherwise, the take rate on 4WD for CUVs and SUVs would be about 15 percent, mostly in snow country, instead of 50 or 60 percent.
Of course…finding one on a lot WITHOUT it is basically impossible. (Just like finding a 2wd pickup in this area is nearly impossible.)
Some interesting statistics:
Total ’69 build = 243,085*
6 cylinder = 36,248 (14.9%)
standard V8 = 151,603 (62.3%)
SS (higher performance V8) = 34,932 (14.4%)
Z28 = 20,302 (8.4%)
So 77.2 % (over three quarters) were innocuous sporty models and not high performance. BTW, ’69 was a long build year, Sep. 1968 until Dec. 1969
* Source – Chevrolet RPO codes
Camaros.org has a good breakdown of production by engine.
Base L6
L26 230ci/140HP 17,588
Optional L6
L22 250ci/155HP 18,660
Base non-SS V8
LF7 327ci/210HP 44,746
L14 307ci/200HP 68,487
Optional higher hp non-SS V8
L30 327ci/275HP 21,686
LM1 350ci/255HP 10,406
L65 350ci/250HP 26,898
Even better.
I think something is off, there was no 327-275 HP (L30) engine manufactured for the ’69 Chevrolet model year, in anything, Camaro or otherwise. Its swan song was 1968 and the GM Heritage Center Vehicle Information Kit for the ’69 Camaro verifies this.
The Camaro started 1969 with the 327-210 HP and 350-255 HP engine as standard and optional engine choices. Midway through the year, the 327 was dropped in favor of the 307 CI and the 350-255 HP (LM1) was replaced with the 350-250 HP (L65) motor).
I wonder if I saw this Camaro in Springfield on Friday at the I-5 interchange near Shari’s?
Thank you Paul for the update.
Yes, sixes were not at all uncommon in Camaros and Mustangs and Barracudas. My 68 Mustang was powered by the 200 cid six and a 3 speed and it made for a nicely balanced little car that, while not overpowered was not slow either. Of course that 3:25 axle didn’t do it any favors in top speed – 90 was its all out maximum. Or so I understand.
The whole idea of the “pony car” was to provide an economical second car “for the wife to drive” that didn’t look dowdy like a Falcon or bizarre like a Valiant.
I saw loads of six cylinder pony cars when I was young. I’d wager to say that at least half of them sold in Canada were sixes.
Even in the US there were gobs of 307/Powerglide Camaros and 289 2 bbl/CruiseOMatic Mustangs. The big sexy engines were rarely seen out in the real world back then.
Agree 100%. So many ‘casual car fans’ think all Mustangs and Camaros are/were/should be “muscle cars” and don’t grasp the concept of ‘Pony Car’ as a commuter car. And, also assume that were only sold to men.
Parents had a ’65 Mustang, I6 with 3 speed manual, was a fun, stylish commuter/errand car.
I’ll put myself out on a limb and claim that my father was pretty much an average car buying guy with a fair sense of style (or at least a good understanding of what would trade in/sell well once he was done with it). His first three personal cars after he left the dealership were all fairly stylish two door hardtops for the day:
1967 Camaro RS
1970 Camaro RS
1973 Monte Carlo
All equipped with the basic 2bbl V-8, automatic, and a one step upgrade on the interior. Crank windows, AM radio, optional suspension on the latter two cars.
I’ll venture that was a pretty normal progression, no matter what the brand, for car buyers back then.
Actually, the Pony car concept, at least as originally conceived by Ford, was designed to appeal to a number of formerly separate market niches. Ford knew that there was a sizable group of youths and women who wanted to own something distinctive and sporty with a bit of foreign flavour. They decided to capture this market they needed a stylish small maneuverable car that seated four people. Through their analysis, they saw this new market to be made up of four separate types of buyer, as follows:
1) The two car family that had a surplus of cash to spend on a new car purchase.
2) Young drivers (boomers) with hardly any money to spend but who wanted a new car.
3) Women who wanted a car that would be easy to maintain.
4) The sporty set in search of a new toy (ie the gearhead)
So while the majority of Mustangs were not performance oriented, performance was always a consideration even from the get go. And while they only made up a small portion of the Mustang sales, of these four groups defined, the performance oriented “gearheads” are obviously the biggest group of car enthusiasts. This is why these performance versions today are the most revered today. While I am sure many young woman and men from that era loved there six cylinder Mustangs and speak fondly of them to this day, how many are willing to go out and buy one today or spend the big bucks to restore one?
My ’65 Mustang convertible that I had in college used the same drivetrain, except first gear on my car was non-synchromesh.
I’ve written about this in other posts, but my parents had a ’66 Mustang with a 200 six, and I cursed that clattery little POS every time I had to drive it. Yes it was a grocery getter, but the six only provided marginal economy gains over the V8. Also, the sixes used flimsy early Falcon running gear, everything from the spindles, brakes and wheel bearings to the rear axle was weak and breakage-prone. The extra fuel consumption of the 289 was well compensated for by the extra durability, IMHO.
I always knew that the sixes used lighter duty components (like the 4 lug wheels). All I can say is that my 68 was 10-11 years old when I had it with around 90K on the odo. Other than a bit of a blue cloud at idle due to some decaying valve stem seals, it started stopped and drove just as it was supposed to. I think the stick shift and the short axle were the keys to making it pleasant to drive.
I always felt this – 1969 – was the least attractive Camaro iteration.
I thought I was the only one, I’ll never figure out why the masses seem to favor that year of Camaro so much.
Take to a cruise night and some “casual car guys” will say “I didn’t know they had optional 6’s” or “Why would they offer this motor in a muscle car?” As if all 1st Gen Camaros were performance optioned.
Tell them it’s a rare COPO 427-ZL-1 Aluminum Block option with the even rarer
COPO 427-ZL-1 Aluminum Block delete option. Conceived by then Chevy manager John Z. Delorean to do an end run around GM policy related to selling engines to outsiders. The 427 was installed on the line, then removed 2 line stations
later and a six installed. The 427 was then drop-shipped to Jim Hall’s Chaparral
factory in a bizarre scheme of subterfuge to obtain engines after GM top management denied selling engines to Hall. Of course, GM management got wind of the scheme and kiboshed it after only one car was built, and you my friend are looking at it!
Get someone to print up a certificate of authenticity, and you’ve got yourself a $500k six-cylinder Camaro.
Almost made me snort my coffee! Some guys out there would believe this stuff….
LOL!
Appreciate the funny reply!
Another ‘casual car guy’ annoyance is not believing there were Chevelle 4 doors or wagons.
…and unchopped 49-51 Mercuries.
Our high-school guidance counselor had one of those four-door Chevelles, with a 307 in it IIRC. I tuned it up a few times while in auto shop class. I had the same reaction the first time that I saw it – “they make 4-door Chevelles?”
Want a weird reaction, I have three words: SLANT SIX CHARGER.
Funny that the fact that it is a plain Jane, 6 cylinder, column shift car is now what makes it unique and oddly desirable. How many of these were either sacrificed as clones or recreations, restomods, or other now run-of-the-mill overblown variations on the SBC/4 spd/fat tire ones you see over and over and over at the shows?
That’s what makes me like it. It’s ordinariness makes it a unique specimen in 2018. Who woulda thunk it? Seeing a ’69 Camaro with its ordinary stuff still on it and in it 49 years later. Seeing hot rods, restomods, pick another kind of ” -mod”, doesn’t interest me in the least.
My automotive enthusiasm for old cars rests firmly in the “plain Jane-ism” camp.
I’d be nervous about leaving this on the street. I don’t know what the crime rate in Eugene is like, but I’m surprised this thing hasn’t been stolen yet.
Or run into by an errant driver. I’d feel a lot better if it was parked in a driveway. Or in a garage. OTOH, I’ve never been there, but I’ve heard a car parked outside in Eugene deteriorates less than a garaged car anywhere else.
What a great looking survivor that even has its original steelies and hubcaps, and is even more rare because it’s daily-driven. People forget that something like 50% of the original ponycars came equipped with six-cylinder engines and was a big reason for their success. A lot of buyers (mostly women) weren’t interested in scorching performance and were perfectly happy with an attractive, sporty-looking car that had a practical six-cylinder engine and easy to drive automatic.
The least they could have done was make them all floor shifts.
Kudos to Ford, they were the only pony car maker to do this.
All others, Camaro, Firebird, Barracuda, Challenger, Javelin, could have been had with column shifts of either 3-on-the-tree variety and/or autos in various stages of their existences. NO Mustang, of any year, or any pre-’74 Cougar, ever had a column shift.
Column shifts are more practical. Why waste space on the floor or console when it isn’t a performance car.
if the car in question has bucket seats the space is unusable anyway
But that’s where the ladies would put their purse! (I’m serious too)
Given the high center tunnel, it’s not even usable for that.
I wonder if it was a simple marketing decision by the non-Mustang ponycar manufacturers. They could tout their cars as having a more practical column shift. It’s not like it would cost them any extra to offer it since ponycars were all based on something much more prosaic.
OTOH, Ford could, conversely, say that there’s was the only car that had a floor shift as standard equipment and didn’t cost extra. Although a bench seat eventually became available in 1967, the shifter stayed on the floor, and the take-rate for a bench seat in a Mustang was low.
Actually the bench was offered from true-1965-69.
True means the 9-64 and later. The real early ones
didn’t have it.
My ’69 Camaro (327/PG) had a column shift. I envied my friends who had Camaros with the cool looking floor shifter and console.
You guys are absolutely correct about these mostly being cars for the wives, mine belonged to the wife of a local lawyer. If came with the vinyl roof and houndstooth checked interior and a/c. The wives didn’t want the monster motors. In fact, only one of my Camaro driving classmates (there were 5 or 6 of us) drove anything more powerful than a 327. One had a 230 and a bench seat. The exception was a ’70 350 equipped Z-28.
“The big question I hope to get answered some day is if the current owner is the original owner.”
Several years ago now a friend-of-a-friend helped his 90 year old aunt sell her 1967 Mustang on eBay. She had bought the car new in 1967 and it had been her daily driver ever since. IIRC it did have a V8, but if I had to guess it was likely the most basic V8 they offered that year. She only gave it up because she was getting too old to drive anymore.
I can only hope whoever bought it didn’t “resto-mod” it.
Purchased my 66 Mustang coupe from the original owner in 1992. As a six with Cruise-o-magic it was a relaxing pleasure to drive and gave me little issue. Too bad a rear collision could engulf me in flames.
I know it’s winter in mud country — but if she were in my care, I’d do 2 things:
1. Treat the Camaro to a solid wash & wax in April.
2. Switch the raised letter tires for a set of whitewalls.
Excellent find.
There are a lot of people who hate clones and tributes because they devalue the real examples, but I’ve grown to dislike them because they make them out of these near extinct plebeian models, which have a lot of interesing little details you don’t see.
The high performance ponycar thing has always been a bit of a myth, then and now – most modern Mustangs are V6 (or now turbo 4) powered – but because of the need to stay RWD on essentially bespoke platforms they’ve all evolved several steps dynamically from their more economical beginnings, to the point today where the Camaro is borderline redundant with the Corvette, plus two little seats. Between this and the preserved survivors being rare/exotic examples, clones of them, or restomods, the REAL appeal of the ponycar has been completely lost to the generations.
That fits in with what I observed in the 80s with third generation Camaros. The RS models with a body kit and a 4 cylinder far outnumbered the IROC-Z on the street. I’m guessing the majority of survivors have been V8 swapped like their forbears.
Actually the 4-cylinder F-Bodies are extremely rare. Substitute that statement with 2.8/3.1 V6 and you’d be right.
Not quite sure, but the Iron Duke was maybe dropped after ’83 in F bodies?
Note that many RS models actually had 305 power. (As I recall, they had no external sign of it unless they had TPI.)
Love this! Like the 99 year old still running marathons, it has managed to outlive almost all its contemporaries while still being used.
I would rather see it garaged, but then we wouldn’t see it at all and Paul couldn’t photograph it regularly.
Well now, a Camaro I’d actually like to own! Who knew? I so despise ’69 Camaros because for one thing they’re like flies on poop at car shows and it seems that every ’69 Camaro owner thinks their poop don’t stink. I’d LOVE to pull up next to some chromed out big block ’69 Camaro in that lowly 6 banger! I wouldn’r restore it either, I like that it’s a survivor!
Come to Cars and Coffee Richmond some day. There’s a guy who shows up every meeting with a ’68 like the pictured car, only not nearly as cosmetically nice. To the point that the fender edges have enough rust to fail Pennsylvania state inspection back then (not sure if the rule has changed). He keeps it running perfectly, does whatever mechanical maintenance is needed to keep it in good shape, but absolutely refuses to fix up anything in the appearance.
And he always parks it in the middle of the line of all those “baby boomer dream machines” in the Camaro line. Much to the quiet disgust of some of his neighbors.
There are nastier things you can do than parking a Porsche 924S in a line of 911’s.
Thanks for the update, Paul. Love every one of these “survivors”, regardless of make/model/year. I’m happy for those being taken care of and want to adopt all of those that are not (which is why I’m no longer allowed in pet rescue centers).
Reminds me of a used ’71-’72 Mustang that was for sale in Lima, OH in the late 70’s. It was painted bright green (probably a repaint), was a hardtop, and had a 6-cylinder 3-speed stick. I’ve never seen another.
Nor, for that matter, have i ever seen a ’69 Camaro with a straight 6.
I remember my Aunt looking at a similar Mustang at the dealers when she was looking at trading in her 66 Valiant.
Plain jane two door sedan, green with an automatic and six cylinder. I was absolutely insulted when we looked under the hood and found a six in a Mustang!
Then she bought a yellow Toyota Corolla.
Enough said ?
One day, this car will be painted in some bright garish candy color and have low profile billet wheels and have an SBC under the hood…cherish it while it exists because it won’t for much longer…just fuckin’ watch…beergut mcgee who thinks his best of ac/dc and zz top cds are the pinnacle of music will molest it.
Hopefully the current owner and/or their heir will see to it that that Camaro never becomes anything other than what it is now. That car is a treasure. I love hot rods and musclecars but in 2018, any classic that’s still intact deserves to be left that way. When I bought my base model 318 ’69 Charger, I had to promise the seller, which was the original owner’s widow, that I wouldn’t tear it up and make a hot rod out of it (and I kept that promise!)
Wow is that side shot of the Camaro and the xB fascinating. I always think of the xB as being small but it looks huge next to the Camaro.
It’s not small. It’s more like a micro-van. It’s huge inside, except for a fairly small cargo area behind the rear seat. The back seating area is bigger than any car by a mile. Interior dimensions are essentially the same as a double cab pickup, except for width. In other words, I’m driving a double cab pickup without a bed and a very short hood. 🙂
Scion xB. The double cab pickup for the stable genius in you.
Ive still never seen a Camaro six, all the Camaros out here were privately imported and I guess nobody wanted to waste shipping costs on a non performance model, there are a few six cylinder Mustangs around also private imports but driving around my local city its hard to credit Mustangs were never sold here new until recently
Love that Camaro for many of the reasons given, to which I’d add that super-basic versions of a given car can be the most attractive. They show the design unadorned.
However, the wheezing dissonant moan of a Powerglide n’ six, the straining lack of forward movement would have dragged long, long ago for me. Unlike the brakes, which, if drums, wouldn’t. An unpleasant way to move about.
But a nice, no doubt storied, artifact.
I would be the heretic and admit I would not have been able to resist the temptation to modify it (see justy baum above. Standard spec 250/Powerglide is just not it) but retaining a six – there is a lot one can do with the 292 – and the current appearance.
“I would be the heretic and admit I would not have been able to resist the temptation to modify it”
OK, can I be “that guy” and argue that the reason so many 50s and 60s Chevys are modified is because they were . . . Chevys? As you say, who really wants to drive something with a Powerglide? For most it was no answer to just get a Barracuda or Charger or Fury, so they did the next best thing – swapped a better engine in for the tired 283 or 307 and gave it a real transmission, whether a 4 speed or a THM. And decent brakes. And some gauges. And an upgraded suspension. With enough money and substituted parts these could be great driving cars. 🙂
You are definately that guy lately. At least show up with donuts when you say stuff like that 😉
It’s nice to see this old girl in everyday use and completely stock. Yes, I love to see the tastefully resto-modded ’69 Camaros, but it’s good to see not all of them have gone that route. I wonder how many miles it has covered, and if it is still on its original engine and transmission.
Didn’t realize that the 69 Camaro had a column lock. This was an fmvss requirement after Dec 1969; Mustang and Cougar waited until 70MY to phase it in.
Interesting discussion of column lock from a small history of the ‘69 Corvair (which didn’t early upgrade for ‘69 Because it was going to die.) :
“A new feature introduced by General Motors for its 1969 passenger cars did not appear on the Corvair – the steering column mounted ignition switch & lock. An anti-theft measure required by federal law starting January 1, 1970, it was further indication that the Corvair would soon be discontinued. All ’69 GM cars used the larger key which was necessary with the new switch design. The Corvair got the large key too, though it really didn’t need it.”
Link for Paul:
http://www.corvair.org/chapters/69corvair/
“a column lock. This was an fmvss requirement after Dec 1969; Mustang and Cougar waited until 70MY to phase it in.”
The Ford Falcon never got the column lock either and Ford kept building “early 1970” models without it right up until the end of calendar year 1969, at which point they discontinued it. This was how (and why) the (American) Falcon outlasted the Corvair, if only by a few months.
Also early Mavericks, and so-called 1970 Shelbys. The latter were leftover ’69s that were retitled with the permission of the federal government.
All ’69 GM cars except for the Corvair had the column lock.