Reading the comments of the last eBay find I shared with you I noticed reader MT noted that, while finding an original mustang was rather impressive, it would’ve been a lot more impressive if I had found a Camaro of similar vintage with a six under the hood, as those are supposedly really impossible to find.
Challenge. Accepted.
Yes, call it luck or probability, but here it is. A bona-fide example of a “The spec people actually bought back then” 1967 Camaro six, and it’s a minter. Finished in gold with an equally Gold interior and having done 91,000 miles, with nary an SS or a headlight cover in sight. Power is provided by either a 230 or 250ci straight six (seller didn’t specify) through a (presumed) four-speed manual gearbox (I’m assuming it would have a column shifter if it was a three-speed). The four speed was available optionally with the six, but it’s probably a particularly rare combo. The pictures don’t have enough detail to give any more specifics and the seller doesn’t go in much detail about the car either. Although he does mention the important bits (no rust, no patches, one repaint).
I’m not sure about the seller, my suspicions were raised the second I noticed he wrote his number as “(6l9)..889..9Five79….” and when I noticed the pictures seem to come from a circa-2008 phone. Nonetheless looking at them I’m inclined to believe him when he says that it runs just as well now as it did back in ’67, somebody has been taking good care of this Camaro all these years.
What the pictures do show are those stunning looks. I had forgotten just how good-looking the first-gen Camaros really are. With their sleek, curvy profile and those bulging hips it looks purposeful and, dare I say, elegant at the same time. It’s hard to enjoy them in the traditional “Pace car replica” replica white/orange Camaro RS restomod that everyone seems to want these days. And don’t get me wrong, that variation is also desperately pretty but some of the subtler details are lost to the loudness of everything else.
There isn’t a Buy-It-Now price but the price (at the time of writing) is $19,000. The listing is here and I know what you’re thinking: “Yes, it was a six Camaro, but what if I want a Convertible?”
No problem, this is also for sale at $19,900, an Automatic this time. What does the description say?
“In very good condition and has been garaged for ever. NOT RS or SS.”
That’s perfectly fine with me.
Camaro sixes found curbside in Eugene:
CC 1969 Camaro Six – The Last Unmolested ’69 Camaro Six Daily Driver?
A 250 with a 4speed would be a nice find. I do not believe a floor shifter proves a 4 speed. I could be wrong though.
My father had a 68 purchased new. 250 with a 3 speed manual floor mounted shifter.
My neighbor had a ’68 Firebird 350 with a 3-on-the-floor manual transmission.
My sister bought a brand new 67 camaro with the rs front bumblebee stripe in marina blue with a 6 cyl 3 speed manual on the floor back in the day she was known as AJ after AJ Foyt for her driving prowess and ability to dust Mustangs even 289 mustangs be cause she was very quick at the line.
The 1967 Camaro brochure states that the three-speed (except for the HD unit available on the SS350) was column-shift. And the the optional four-speed (available on all engines), came with floor shift.
It’s possible that there was some deviation from that, or that changed later in the production year. But the three-speed’s normal location was on the column.
Option code M11 was a floor shift option and was available for the three-speed six cylinder cars. The option MSRP was a whopping $10.55, and this option came standard with cars that were equipped with the console option.
I’ve got a 67 L22 250ci with a two speed on the column. Thinking of selling. My grandmother bought it new, it now has 47,000 mi. Just took off bias ply tires and replaced with radials, what a difference.
I really like the clean looks of this original, an exemplar of mid-late 60s styling.
This “low spec” Camaro really shows the styling the way the designers intended. Too many “tribute” (fakes) out there, I find these original equipment cars much more interesting!
Agreed that the styling stands out with the lack of any other gingerbread on the car. I’ve never been a huge fan of 1st-gen F-bodies but this could make me change my mind; it works really well!
Though I do wonder what it might look like with one modification–if the base model had been equipped with the hidden lamps of the RS model. That would have given an already clean design an equally clean grille profile.
Seems like I read that the hidden headlights could be ordered on any trim level.
Completely agree with you. The lines look so harmonious without any extra adornment. I even like the hubcaps. I also like the standard grille, with turn signals that resemble fog lamps. This one’s a work of art – and it’s in amazing condition, considering 91,000 original miles.
Same as with the Mustang Ive never seen a 6 nobody brought any over always the V8 high spec models were the only ones imported used in fact you’d be hard pressed to convince most downunder petrol heads 6s were ever made.
That three quarter rear view really shows off Chevy’s design language – you can clearly see the shared elements with the Corvair, Chevelle, and Impala.
Back in 1970-71 I looked at a “sister” to this car. It was also gold over gold with a 327 and a 3 speed on the floor. Just as GM saw fit to make the column shifter (be it a manual or automatic transmission) the standand, a floor shifter does not guarantee a 4 speed transmission. Since the vast majority of 6 cylinder Camaros had Powerglide, the likelihood that this car has a 4 speed manual is extremely slim.
Still, it’s a sweetheart of an example of a nice low powered Camaro.
Well spotted, Gerardo! I love it, what a beautiful time capsule.
Isn’t the phone number written like that in order to avoid bots snatching it up? I would imagine so – like when people write “[at]” instead of “@” or use spaces in email addresses.
Yes that is why people put their phone numbers and email addresses like that on craigslist and ebay.
Man oh man, I wish I could afford this – just what the doctor ordered, even if it isn’t a color I like!
Very nice. However, I don’t ever recall seeing a Camaro with those Nova wheelcovers. Can any of you (other) old timers weigh in on this? But a swap at the dealer or by a long-ago owner would not be unheard of.
And boy, were gold cars ever the rage in the late 60s.
Those wheel covers were originally used on the ’68 Impala and were “passed down” to the ’69 Nova. My family bought a new Nova in 1969 that had the same ones. I don’t recall ever seeing any Camaros with these, but they do look better than the “dog dish” hubcaps seen on many base models.
Agreed. These were the full covers for any non-Caprice ’68 full-size. They did move on to the Nova as I recall.
Very nice car.
They came to Australia as well. Holden HJ Premiers wore them as
standard.
Those full wheel covers were not ’67 Camaro issue. If this were a 250 six, it would have a little 250 callout badge on it. In ’68, there were some spring specials that had the full wheel covers, deluxe interior, stripe on the front, bumper guards, white sidewalls and a three-speed floor shift.
I’m going to say this ’67 has the standard 230 but with a floor mounted 3 speed.
Now it’s time for a poverty-spec ’68 Charger.
Done.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1968-dodge-charger-six-rarer-than-a-hemi-charger/
Hmmm, did they offer a /6 charger with a one piece bench seat and 3-on-the-tree manual shifter? If so that would be quite the conversation piece to have.
“Hmmm, did they offer a /6 charger with a one piece bench seat and 3-on-the-tree manual shifter? ”
They did in 1974, my college roommate’s Dad bought one at 4 years old for the kids to drive. Add rubber floors, no radio, and fixed rear quarter windows. It was really not a pleasant car to drive. A Duster with that setup could feel moderately nimble, but the Charger made you feel like you were driving a stake bed truck.
There is at least one six-cylinder ’67 convertible still in existence.
Pure Chevy! The Mustang forced GM to get into high gear and they really came out with a winner. Way too much gold for me (I like blue) but there were a bunch of these around. Some seemed to last forever like this one. Others suffered terrible abuse and were ruined rather quickly.
I’ve always preferred six cylinder Chevys over V8 engines. The only options I’d appreciate would be disc brakes, stronger drivetrain, and proper gauges, not the stupid warning lights that are so common with GM cars.
Sweet ! .
As this is a total stripper it’s almost certainly the three speed Saginaw tranny , he’d have made mention if it was a four speed .
I don’t care for the color but it’s a nice car and would make an excellent Daily Driver even now .
I can’t get my mind around $20 K though .
-Nate
The 1967 Camaro brochure states that the three-speed (except for the HD unit available on the SS350) was column-shift. And the the optional four-speed (available on all engines), came with floor shift.
It’s possible that there was some deviation from that, or that changed later in the production year. But the three-speed’s normal location was on the column.
O.K. Paul ;
I don’t remember very many stick shift i6 equipped Camaros , usually imported from Southern poverty States like Mo. , Ga. La. , like that and always hammered ~ I’d have to overhaul the tranny and make them run properly before the used car place would re paint & re trim therm for retail resale .
The guts were the same old Saginaw although the tail housing was different .
-Nate
Undoubtedly many Camaro three speeds were converted to floor shifts.
I worked at a large Chevrolet dealer in New Orleans from 1966-70 and the floor shift was a $20 or so option from the get-go, with the six or the 327.
I found this very comprehensive factory options list here: http://www.camaros.org/pdf/options.pdf
It says that the option M11, shift lever, floor mounted, (for the M15 three-speed), entered production in March of 1967.
So this Camaro might have been built after that date.
It is nice to see a low spec all original Camaro. Most that are still around have “faux” SS or RS treatment(same as the LeMans and GTO conversions)
One cannot fault the younger generations for thinking that GM and Ford only made and sold Camaro SS and RS, Formula and Trans Am Firebirds and Mustangs with V8’s due to the exposure in TV and Movies (after all Rockford is not driving a v6 powered Firebird to evade the bad guys nor is Bullitt going to have that famous car chase in a Mustang with an I-6 in it)
The reality is that while a lot of the high spec versions of the Pony Cars were sold, an even higher amount of base Pony Cars were sold.
Take the 79-93 Mustang, nobody remembers that they sold versions with a 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder engine in them and from 1987-1993 Mustangs with the 2.3l i-4 engine in them out sold the 5.0 V8 versions due to high insurance premiums on the V8. But you hardly see any 4 cylinder Mustangs around anymore even though about 70% of the 87-93 Mustangs made came with this engine.
Good point. As an example, I had a college classmate with a ’79 Mustang coupé, & it had the Pinto engine. She wanted the style, not performance. Does anyone have stats for the engine take rates? That they re-introduced the Falcon 200 ? because of limited Köln V6 production capacity implies the latter must’ve been very popular with customers.
BTW, how well did the 4-spd sixes perform in the Camaro?
The girlfriend of one of my college roommates had a 4-cylinder Mustang, as did another college friend. So did an Aunt. My driver’s education car was an I4 Fox Mustang as well. They really were everywhere. And honestly, with the notchback styling, wheezy 4-cylinder engine, low-rent interior, and hubcaps, they were basically economy cars with a Mustang badge. A far cry from the original, which offered the exact same style no matter which engine was specified. At first, anyway.
The notchback seemed classier to me, an obvious copy of the Benz SLC. At least they didn’t make a point of that. The hatchback looked heavy.
I don’t think the engine limited what trim options you could get in the initial Fox model, same as with the ’65. I think my classmate had the Ghia, it didn’t feel stripped.
Ah, but Ford DID make a point of comparing the Fox-body Mustang to the Benz SLC, at least in the ads that appeared in 1979…
I’m glad I missed those then, I was already disgusted by the Granada/Benz comparisons!
Nice glad it’s not been turned into a fake SS or worse still monstered with a 500″ motor,loud paint,huge wheels and rubber band tyres.
Pure Camaro, refreshing in its simplicity and true to its mission, mercifully devoid of fake spinners, fake wood, fake hood scoops, fake brake cooling inlets, and any other boy racer nonsense. This car shows how hysterically over styled the current Camaro is.
Anyone who has sampled the “joy” of driving a six-in-a-row-that-don’t-go and the 2 speed “slip ‘n slide” PowerGlide powertrain combo will understand the appeal of this car’s 3/4 speed manual transmission.
Virtually identical to the (iirc) 68 camaro that I did several round trips from the Great Lakes to Wichita back in 1970. I really did not know that the 250 was an option because all I ever saw were 230s. Also never saw a four speed with a six but they probably were available. Standard was a 230 and a three speed floor manual. Economical, dependable and fun to drive.
Times have certainly changed.
Notice Lee says ‘ fun to drive ‘ ~
Those who didn’t like how old i6’s almost always had them tuned wrong as they made decent power for such a light vehicle .
Unlike Ford’s crappy i6 , GM’s versions were peppy right out of the box and easy & cheap to hop up too .
-Nate
Umm…as much as I have respect for the Chevy six, the 240/300 Ford six is in some respects an ever better engine. Its 12 port head gave it better breathing and more intrinsic power than a comparable Chevy six, and made it very amenable to performance upgrades. The difference between the two is not great, but I’d give the Ford the nod.
And FWIW, the seven main bearing Falcon six (200/250 CID) has proven to be very amenable to performance upgrades, and with an Aussie or aftermarket head, make some very serious power.
Sales numbers have the V8 Camaro outselling the 6 cylinder by 3 to 1 in 1967. By 1970 the V8 was selling at 5 times the 6’s rate. Over the years the V8 outsold the 6 by varying numbers…as high as 9 to 1.
Unfortunately, because of the way Ford structured the Mustang model line up, getting numbers for V8 versus 6 (and 4) is a bit more difficult.
Probably THE rarest Camaro is the 4 cylinder, sold from 1982 through 1986.
A guy in high school had an 84 or 85 Camaro with a 4 cylinder. I remember being blown away when he popped the hood and I saw that little engine tucked way back in there! At least it was a manual transmission.
Actually, numbers for the Mustang are available. For the 1965, 53% were V8s. That dropped very slightly for 1966, and from then on, the V8 percentage increased steadily.
Re my question above, what were percentages for the early Foxes? I bet they look very different.
In high school a friend’s Mom had an ’82 Firebird with the 4-cylinder, automatic, upgraded seats & gauges and Pontiac dog dish hubcaps. Never seen another like it…
I had a stripper gold 1967 Camaro coupe, too…black interior with the base 327 V8 and Powerglide (I’ve commented here about how it burned up clutches in the Powerglide with alarming frequency). The “austere restoration” that this EBay car received unfortunately did not include the proper masking of the grille when it was repainted. It should not be all-black: the silver in the headlight panels should continue all the way across and there should be two thin silver bars, one above and one below the round parking lamps.
“Conversion” of a plain-jane Camaro to a phony “RS” is complicated; it requires installing the retractible headlight doors and RS headlight assemblies. Conversion to a fake SS is easier, as only the “SS” badge in the grill and other cosmetic changes will make the exterior look like an “SS.”
(Wikipedia Commons photo of a proper 1967 Camaro non-SS grill)
A “Slant six” 68 convertible Barracuda, spoted at “Águas de Lindóia” the biggest Classic Car Meeting in Brasil. 2013
I had a friend in high school in ’74 who had a similar ’67 but marina blue with a 327 2bbl and the 3 speed on the floor. i cannot guarantee it came that way from the factory. I’ve always preferred the front of the ’67 without the RS hidden headlights. To my eyes the cleanest of all the first gen Camaro’s. Wasn’t the Camaro/Firebird the first factory car with wide oval tires?
Looks so smooth and non cluttered in base trim, really brings out the nice styling. I like the gold paint and interior, makes it look up level even though it’s a stripper. Really bad hood, trunk lid and door fit, however.
I like seeing bone stock original Camaros, as opposed to the common “mid life crisis” resto-modded red 69’s seen every summer.
This car instantly makes me think back to 1979. One of my close cousins wanted a new Firebird in the worst way. She begged her Dad to let her get one for graduation. He told her she could get one as long as it was a basic Firebird, nothing fancy and she agreed. She could pick the color, and he would pick the options. Well when they ordered that car believe me it didn’t take the salesman very long at all to write it up. It was Cameo White with blue vinyl bucket seats. It had 4 options, and I mean literally. I remember looking at the window sticker in disbelief! He ordered an automatic transmission, deluxe wheel covers, luxury cushion steering wheel and an AM/FM radio (not stereo) which she also begged for – he wanted to just get an AM radio but she fought and won! I still remember the total cost of all the options was a mere $560 dollars! I bet there were a lot of base Firebirds equipped with not many options, we just can’t seem to remember them all that well. I asked her one day why her Dad spent $20 bucks on a luxury cushion steering wheel and he told her the salesman thought it would be a nice touch for not that much money. Granted, she kept that car for about 10 years, right throughout the 80’s. Believe it or not, a lot of her friends were jealous of that car. It was the looks and coolness factor of it, just simply being a Firebird. I can’t tell you how many places we took that car and had a great time in it. It was nothing fancy, but it was a Firebird and it made her and her Dad happy at the same time. So it goes to show you that a stripped car can also be cherished, enjoyed and envied too!
I’d guess the rarest six cylinder pony car would be the E body Barracuda/Challenger with a slant six.
That is a nice Camaro. The flat hip/deck section has been carried to ridiculous extremes on the latest model. The original has such a light lithe look. I well remember when lots of cars were purchased with just base equipment levels.
For those folks that have owned or been in a first generation or second generation Camaro or Firebird, how was the room inside? Was generous for somebody of 6ft plus height? my 1999 firebird is longer and wider then the neighbor’s 1999 Accord but has no room at all in it. I know the 82-92 F-Body had decent drivers side room in them.
IIRC, the first generation Camaro had seats higher off the ground than the current models. I’m 6-1, don’t recall any legroom issues in the first Camaro.
Well… three of us were in a friend’s 1967 Camaro back in 1969. I’m 5’10” and I sat in the back, because I knew what was coming:
His Camaro had a 427 in it with 10″ tires on back, a full-race cam, VW tires & wheels on front and no traction bars, yet.
Needless to say, he stopped at an intersection one night, floored it, popped the clutch, and the front wheels may have left the ground for a split second, because all I saw was the winter sky through the windshield!
As it was, yes, I had plenty of room in the back seat, and plenty of room to holler my guts out because I was thrilled and scared to death at the same time!
He only drove the Camaro on weekends – it got all of 6 mpg! His daily driver was a VW beetle!
Yes, it was the single, most powerful vehicle I have ever been in.
Case closed.
I had a ’67 RS in the late 1970’s , it was pretty worn out by then , I was still 6’1″ back then , 165 # and it was comfy with plenty of head room , I have a 32″ inseam , most of my height is in my trunk .
It still had the original interior , not sure how bad the seat buns were but not on the springs by any means .
-Nate
At first glance, people might think these sixes were slow, and they’d be right. Trouble is, you had to go to the top engines to get anything that much faster, and the four-speed ensured the six could get out of its own way at least.
For decent performance out of a six, you had to go to Pontiac and get an OHC Firebird Sprint.
The interior is basic, but higher trim levels weren’t much more luxurious. My brother had an SS350 in the same gold color and the only obvious addition was a console. Both Camaros and Mustangs offered style as standard equipment, which was central to their appeal. Compare a base Mustang or Camaro interior with that of a Falcon or Nova, for example.
There was a base model ’68 convertible at a local show last summer. 327/PG, center console, gauge package, AM radio and not much else. Hubcaps were whatever was one step up from dog dishes. Really showed off just how clean the lines were on those cars. It was newly restored and the owner got a lot of kudos for not going with the faux SS and/or RS look.
I have a 67 250 with the 3 on the tree it doesn’t run yet as we are rebuilding the engine and looking at restoring it