I have read in automotive news lately that the 2024 model year will be the Camaro’s last, at least for a while. This has given me strong déjà vu from 2002, when the fourth-generation Camaro was in what many of us believed would be its last-ever year of production. The difference in 2023 is that it’s easier for me to hold out hope that the Camaro will again return at some point as either Chevrolet’s four-seat sports car for the masses with updated, green technology, or as a sub-brand. (Hopefully the former.) Even if the current iteration isn’t necessarily my absolute favorite of all-time, I’m still sad to see it go. It’s like the loud, boisterous, funny person at the party who ducks out for the evening, and everyone misses his or her presence almost immediately.
Being a Ford Mustang fan for most of my life, I’ve had a complicated relationship with Chevy’s ponycar. I had wanted a Camaro at one point and got as far as test-driving a used-up ’79 as a high schooler in Michigan. The following might have to do a little bit with my status as the middle brother of three, but looking at the history of the Mustang and Camaro, it has often seemed that whatever the Ford did first, the Chevy copied and then tried to add a little extra. The exception to this was for ’74, when the little, jewel-like Mustang II was introduced. Camaro seemed to look at what was happening there and said, “Nope. I’m not copying that. Let the new Monza handle those duties while I stick with the original program.”
Fast-forwarding to January 1993 when the fourth-generation GM F-bodies arrived, they were knockouts and had me holding my breath for the introduction of the SN-95 Mustang for ’94, hoping for something out of Dearborn that would not only continue to perform really well, but also actually look exciting and beautiful again. (For the record, I’m back in love with the understated style of the latter-day Fox-platform LX and would drive one in a heartbeat.) That new Mustang was not as sleek, fast, or powerful as the concurrent Camaro, but I forgave it on account of its having reintroduced so much Mustang identity, even on the base cars. The Ford also appeared a little bit chic where the Chevy seemed only muscular.
I test-drove a new ’94 Camaro with a college buddy at the local Chevy dealer, pretending I was going to use my ’88 Mustang LX as a trade. That Camaro was, without question, the nicest new car I would drive for years afterward. It was modern, fast, dripping with cool, and absolutely gorgeous. It didn’t seem like just a so-called “ponycar”. It seemed more like the synthesis of a traditional ponycar and a Corvette. It had a jet-fighter profile and a comfortable heft about it that felt substantial, like there was a lot of car all around me. Getting back into my little four-banger Fox Mustang afterward felt anticlimactic and deflating, but I thought to myself that once I was no longer a young adult and could afford my own insurance payments, I would move up to a five-liter Mustang… or a Camaro.
Spotting this ’95 Camaro convertible downtown made me remember, for the first time in years, just how taken I had been with the shape of these cars when new. Double-parked in front of the Hyatt in the Loop, it stood in stark contrast to all of the other, much less exciting rush hour traffic around it. Once I had confirmed it was a ’95 model by using a license plate search, it dawned on me that this red Camaro convertible is as old now as an original ’67 Camaro would have been when it was new. (Read that sentence again.) Factoring out the Camaro’s seven-year hiatus between 2003 and ’09, this ’95 almost perfectly bisects the Camaro’s entire existence. It’s twenty-eight years old and eligible for classic plates.
Given the late production start of the ’93 models, which were all coupes, sales of the fourth-generation Camaro weren’t great at only 39,100 or so, but things came roaring back for ’94, with 119,800 sold, of which about 7,300 were convertibles. Sales inched up very slightly for ’95, with 122,700 sold, including 7,400 convertibles. This example is powered by the standard 3.4 liter V6 with 160 horsepower. Later in the year, a 200-horse 3.8L V6 would be available in the base cars, supplanting the smaller six as standard equipment for ’96. With the base ’95 convertible costing about 9% more than the closed-roof Z28 with its 275-hp, 5.7 liter V8, I wonder which of the two I would have chosen if I had the means. I was in Florida in ’95, so I might have leaned toward the fantasy of top-down driving along palm-lined boulevards that was planted in my mind by so many TV shows of the ’80s.
Even if the 1960 Corvair Monza had been the first sporty compact from Chevrolet (and in the entire industry), the ’67 was the very first Camaro and the one by which all others that followed would be compared, even the stunning 1970 1/2 fastback. There would be no way for anyone, regardless of age group, to view a ’95 Camaro today in the same way as a ’67 as it had appeared in ’95, with the earlier car making its debut toward the relative start of the diversification of model lineups that increasingly included more sizes and types of cars. By ’95, the Camaro was one sport coupe of many available from both domestic and foreign makes. Ford even seemed to be hedging their bets in the sporty car market by continuing the front-drive Probe into a second generation, which was sold alongside the SN-95 Mustang.
A red Camaro is as all-American as anything, and I felt both awe and pathos looking at this one. It sat there parked at the curb by itself, with no other cars around it. Pedestrians on the sidewalk seemed to be scurrying past it on the way to the office from their buses, L trains, and commuter lines, ignoring this car whose mission when new, at least from a visual standpoint, had been to stop traffic with its looks. Its appearance seems almost as futuristic to me now as it was when new, representing the Camaro’s last, truly daring, modern shape before it was reintroduced with a throwback stylistic theme with the fifth-generation cars. Many of us would be fortunate to age as well.
Downtown, The Loop, Chicago, Illinois.
Tuesday, March 28, 2023.
Brochure photos were as sourced from www.oldcarbrochures.org.
It always irritates me when a car manufacturer ends production of a popular product or changes it to the point it is no longer desirable! Cases I in point for Chevrolet are Caprice and Monte Carlo. Had both back in the day. Caprice was a luxury vehicle at an affordable price. My 77 Monte Carlo was one of the most attractive personal luxury cars, again at an affordable price. The 78 Monte Carlo was a disappointment and each subsequent generation further reduced appeal. Camero has been popular for years. I always believe If It’s Not Broken, Don’t Try To FIX It! Yes, automobiles need to change with the times, but use common sense! Can’t WAIT to see a Convert cross over electric! 🤮 Old dog 🐕 does not like new tricks!
Like you seem to express, I’m also reluctant to embrace radically new ways of doing things. Having been through one major corporate merger and having navigated that really well, I know it’s not the end of the world for me when familiar things change or go away. I just want the new Camaro to bear some resemblance to the car I know and love.
Mary will take the Camaro name and slap it on another of her overpriced electric trucks.
With that said, I’m now wondering whether I better like Ford’s Maverick name attached to the old, ’70s compact car or the new truck…
It is funny the way a car impacts you and how that depends on your stage of life. Had I been your age when this car came out, I too would have found it an event (even if I was a Mustang guy). But as it happened, I was married with a growing family of small kids and this car’s reintroduction was a non-event to me as something completely irrelevant to my life. For reasons I find hard to explain, this generation does less for me than any of the others. Maybe driving one would change that.
Stage of life is totally relevant. This past weekend, I rented a 2021 VW Golf that ended up being one of my top-3 favorite rentals I had ever had. I started wondering if I might actually purchase one like it if I needed a car. This, versus the Camaro or Mustang of my dreams. Considerations: parking it, fueling it, utility, etc.
I also got to drive a ’92 Camaro 25th anniversary this past weekend… and it was a blast. It’s not my friends’ daily driver, but I can totally see the appeal, especially with the low rumble of that V8 and the sun beaming in through the t-tops…
“It’s like the loud, boisterous, funny person at the party who ducks out for the evening, and everyone misses his or her presence almost immediately.”
Perfect metaphor. You’ve got an endless bag of them, and they’re always right on the money 😉
I liked this generation of Camaro a lot, too, and indeed, my first car was a ’95 Firebird. It was not a great driver, but it sure looked awesome.
In my subdivision, there are several generations of Camaros, including the latest. One house has an immobile one that’s been parked in the driveway for the last ten years. It’s of similar vintage to the featured car. I always wonder what its story is and what it would take to wake it from its slumber.
Thank you Scott. And I often ask the same question when I see an otherwise desirable car or truck sidelined.
Owning a Mustang and a Firebird, I exist in the no-man’s land between the Ford and GM pony cars. Coming from a Ford family, however, I was envious when the ’93 Camaro came out because it was simply much more capable than a Mustang. A test drive in a ’94 Z28 was revelatory; it was simply miles ahead of Dad’s 5.0/AOD Mustang. Of course, a little home team pride kept me from fully admitting it to myself back then, but these days I’d prefer a ’95 Camaro to a ’95 Mustang.
“Much more capable” pretty much summed up most reviews I remember reading about these Camaros versus all but the top-shelf SN-95 Mustangs, like the Cobras. As far as today, though, I’m not a need-to-go-fast guy. I’d love a nice SN-95 convertible over a Camaro only because I loved those so much when they were new.
It seems a lot of us went and test drove the new Camaro almost thirty years ago… I did so as well, in my case as a 24-year-old I went with my co-worker friend’s husband and claimed his new Boyd Coddington modified Silverado as my own and perhaps “looking for a change”. 🙂
We drove a dark green Z-28 with the 6-speed manual with that huge cueball shaped shiftknob and took it up and down the 101 near SF Airport with a few aggressive standing starts up a few on-ramps. Wow, it was quite the performer, and I spent the next few weeks avoiding the salesperson’s phone calls. Thanks for the ride, San Bruno Chevrolet!
Then they kind of fell into ubiquity and then beaterdom and its association with various stereotypes, yet now many of those beaters have been weeded out of the system and crushed, leaving a greater percentage of decent-looking survivors to enjoy again. Your convertible here and the normal non Z-28 Camaro are starting to look quite attractive again and dare I say, somewhat head-turning in their slightly less aggressive form. With a GM 3800 this wouldn’t seem an unattractive ride on a decent spring evening outside of town.
It’s still somewhat shocking for me to see one of these in beater condition, aided by the composite body panels that don’t rust. I’m also glad to know I’m in good company having taken one for a test drive with no intent to buy. (With my apologies to the car salespersons in the CC readership. I’ve grown now. I’ve changed.)
I have such little experience with Camaros that I am reluctant to comment.
But I will!
In the late 1970s I was dating a lovely lady who drove a relatively new red 6 cylinder automatic Camaro, maybe a ’79 or ’80. Riding in it was like riding in any mid sized American car, not great, not terrible. Besides, being smitten with the driver probably occupied my mind more so than did the car.
It seemed to be just the type of car that a young professional woman with a Rutgers masters degree in computer science might choose.
But on one occasion I was asked to drive the Camaro some distance alone (forget why) and I was able to pay full attention to the car. It seemed like every nut and weld was coming loose, the steering wandered with no precision, and stepping on the gas or hitting the brakes just made the car’s looseness that much more obvious.
And the huge doors seemed to droop when open and had to be slightly lifted when closing; at least that is how I recall it.
At that time my DD was the ’78 280Z, not a car known for its smoothness or quiet luxury ride, but it was alive where the Camaro was dead, and solid where the Camaro was loose. I’ll not even discuss the power or the brakes comparison of the two cars, that wouldn’t be fair.
I’m sure there are many reasons to love Camaros, but once bitten, twice shy.
For me it was an ’82 or ’83 rental Camaro. It was shockingly bad, with an interior of ill-fitting hard plastic pieces that all seemed to jiggle and bounce over a bump. No trunk to speak of; the rear seat was essentially useless, the 2.8 L V6 was gutless, and it rode like a go-cart.
I’m afraid I’ve never been able to look at a Camaro in a positive way ever since.
And I generally don’t like loud, boisterous people, so good riddance! 🙂
That sounds ghastly. At least it didn’t have the Iron Duke.
I’ve never driven a Z car before. With that said, I have been watching old episodes of “The Bionic Woman” with Lindsay Wagner, on DVD, and I thought it was a curious bit of car casting that they gave Jaime Sommers a 260Z instead of a domestic sports- or sporty car. I do remember not being too terribly impressed, or turned off, by the ’79 Camaro I had test-driven as a teenager. The ’70s seemed to have been when more imports were cast in shows with their seemingly better prestige, build quality, and dynamics. Diana Prince drove an M-B SL in “Wonder Woman”, for another example.
She did live in Ojai (close to the coast between SoCal and Central California), so the 260Z was pretty appropriate for the era and location. I’ve been watching some old episodes of The Fall Guy which is pretty terrible but all of those shows have some great old car-spotting.
Great points, Jim. They couldn’t use a Celica, because that’s what Dr. Bruce Banner flipped over in the opening credits of “The Incredible Hulk”. Another import coupe I could see Jaime driving: ’76 Capri II.
If I was going to buy a Camaro convert this would be the generation for me. With the top down these are very sleek. The freaky sister Firebird just had too much of Pontiac’s slapped on scoops, bumps, flairs and spoilers.
I am a Ford guy but I agree these cars were better than the Fox Mustangs.
I do like the Firebird base and Formula models of this generation, but the T/A has one toe over to doing too much visually, for my taste. The Camaro, though, is pretty much close to flawless looking. Maybe in 7/8 scale, I might like it even better.
My mom drove Camaros.
So I don’t find them appealing – just “Mom’s cars”.
It seems all I remember about them is cleaning up the driveway where they were parked, cleaning up all the leaks. Trying to fit myself inside to do minor mechanical things like change a fuse, or trying to fit my hand anywhere under the hood. The backseats were never used, except for her grandkids.
Mom’s cars.
I suppose that the context in which we experience cars does absolutely have a lot to do with how we perceive them. I never knew of any of my friends’ moms with a Camaro (though one friend’s mom had an ’82 or so Trans Am).
That green ’76 in your picture has immense appeal for me, though a ’95 like our featured car (even if a closed coupe) would probably have more appeal for me only because of much better performance / efficiency, etc., even if the 4th-generation cars weren’t nearly as popular.
I never was impressed with the 3.4 in these based on my friends Firebird when we were in school, but stepping up to the 3800 and LT1(and later LS1) made the Mustangs seem like a generation behind. Stylistically as well, I’m defender of the SN95, I still like them more than the larger modern Mustangs and with mods more than F bodies, but Mustangs in showroom form look like 4×4 eagles with their jacked up suspensions and narrow tracks in comparison. I’m not crazy about the fourth gen’s pointy style from certain angles, and working on them is NOT fun with that overhanging cowl covering a third of the engine but I do appreciate the progression in design rather than the retro flavor of the SN95 draped over the same old circa 1979 chassis. Mustangs had that great dual cowl dash though, the Camaro’s unmemorablr dash looked like it could have been used in just about any other mainstream Chevy offering.
As for the Camaro’s future, the immortal words of Fred Gwynn summarize my feelings best – “sometimes dead is better”. Sadly there’s enough corporate greed and consumer apathy that I suspect more and more every classic nameplate of the yore will someday adorn a crossover SUV long after their legacy bodystyles are gone – Mustang Mach E will eventually just be the Mustang, same with the Corvette, Camaro, Challenger, Charger et al. Already is happening to Jaguar with the SUV bodystyles being the only models with a stay of execution. I’m going to be sad to see it go, but if it can’t profitability exist within the segment it’s always existed it shouldn’t exist
Excellent points as usual, Matt. I hadn’t even thought about the challenges of working on these given the length of the cowl / getting to the engine bay. Also, I wonder if the large, steeply sloped windshield would have presented any challenges.
The SN-95 Mustang’s twin-cowl dashboard was and still is iconic, IMO, even if it’s a throwback. There was no way any other car in its class was going to have that kind of visual style, but I did like the Camaro’s dashboard and thought it looked appropriately high-tech and all-business.
The twin cowl dash is so intrinsically tied to the Mustang nameplate I give it a pass for the throwback, it’s as part of it as the triple bar taillights. Though ironically the SN95 dash looks like a throwback to the C2 corvette than the more square edged first gen Mustangs haha. To GMs credit they never until the fifth generation favored a specific design, each of the four generations were fairly clean sheet redesigns with only subtle continuity carrying over, so they had a freedom to evolve things like the dash design. Ford, and many buyers and fans alike seemed to always hold reverence for that original 65 design and for better or worse only broke the formula for the fox generation
I don’t dislike the Camaro dash as a design mind you, it’s just not as memorable as its exterior and though I’ve been around probably an equal amount of Camaros and Mustangs, I could probably draw a Mustang’s dash right down to small details from memory, whereas I’d probably get a lot wrong attempting to the same with the Camaro, it would look like some weird AI rendering! GM used a similar layout in quite a few cars, so some stuff jumbles together in my head. As you said it’s all business, sort of like the later fox Mustang dash which I also appreciate. These were definitely a huge step up from the 3rd gen’s interior which reminds me of VHS cassette tape casing, I still like the Mustang’s textures and materials better but that’s subjective.
LOL – the cassette metaphor for the early Fox Mustang dashboard is sticking! Totally resembles a cassette or VHS tape down to the screws in the corners.
I remember reading about how the ’94 Mustang dashboard (to your point) looked more like a C2’s. The closest Mustang dash to the ’94 would have been the 1969 and ’70 models. Still, I liked that the ’94 had real retro flavor and a certain design cohesion that just looked fantastic. Still does.
Those are the only bodystyles that (currently) sell, at least for manufacturers that can’t seem to build other ones profitably. If you see the market shifting back towards everyone buying two-door coupes (fat chance) then you’ll see your favored names continue on those and others jump back on that bandwagon with long dead names such as Celica, 240SX, Coupe GT, Barracuda, etc. And if a manufacturer thinks that they can sell twice as many of something by naming it X-recycled rather than naming it Y-newname then good for them. There are likely plenty of people who owned Mustangs for example and had a favorable impression but are unlikely to ever buy another low two-door coupe since they’ve moved on in life. You’re in the minority being a (presumably) single middle-aged male without a family or much stuff to cart around and to top it off you aren’t interested in buying anything new anyway so why would they cater to you? But they do still make 2door Mustangs and Challengers. If you and all your buddies and every other keyboard warrior lamenting the demise of these things all stepped up and had bought new Camaros maybe that would have been the tipping point to keeping it around. Same with the others going forward.
It does seem that you have accepted the Charger being a four-door sedan already, when in reality it should just be a coupe, no? The same will happen with the others. It’s a no-brainer to make that one into an EV of some sort though…
It isn’t corporate greed, it’s responsibility towards the shareholders but you know that. GM, Ford, and in your example Jaguar could just keep on building what they always have, not do anything new, and then just ride it down to nothing. Some of those companies have already done that and are wary of doing so again as there may not be someone to bail them out the next time. Some of them are making what seem to be very poor decisions that will likely bite them going forward but that’s just my opinion too. If they can’t figure it out then they will be gone but staying the (original) course was clearly not working long-term.
As with everything, change is inevitable. Better to see the silver linings and enjoy what you’ve got and maybe explore some of the new things than to go down with the ship. Or do your bit to keep the world the way you want it, in the case of cars you and everyone else have to buy them. Camaro would not be getting cancelled if they sold 300,000 of them every year… The world’s a big place, go explore some of it and experience new things and new cars in other places, you’ll just depress yourself otherwise.
I’m not lamenting the potential loss of any of these models, which I believe I made pretty clear with the quote “dead is better”. I think it is utterly contradictory to lecture me in one breath to move on and explore new things, and then in the other defend the continued usage/recycling of these names on vehicles in a wholly different category with wholly different styling because they possibly can sell twice as many as otherwise hinged upon the notion buyers find the names meaningful…. In other words nostalgic! To be the cool Dad dropping the kids and teammates off at soccer practice in a “Camaro” or a “Mustang”. Maybe it’s the companies and shareholders and buyers clamoring for these nameplates that should move on, rather than sully these names for short term buzz before they inevitably blend into the ether of identical mainstream vehicles – which is exactly what the ponycars broke out of in the mid 60s
And I would move on just fine if the names Mustang and Camaro were banished to history like the great names Cougar, Barracuda, Firebird, Javelin and countless others are. Plastering their emblems onto family SUVs only keeps the name familiar enough to remind everyone they *used to* mean something. And when I say corporate greed I mean that if the companies and/or shareholders weren’t so hellbent on cashing in brand equity for short term gains maybe they’d hire some competent car designers and marketers again and create a new sensation like the Ponycars were in a whole new paradigm. Tesla did it, I give them all the credit in the world for creating a brand so strong and distinguishable in the modern era defined by watered down “memberberries” in reboots and retro fashion so well that the Mustang Mach E is more far noteworthy for being a Tesla imitator than it is for being a Mustang to most consumers, much like the Camaro et al were imitating the Mustang.
You are correct that I’m not that interested in taking on payments on any new vehicles, but that doesn’t mean I’m denied an opinion on what’s out there. I mean what, did you consider it your personal obligation to buy the Tesla to do your bit to change the world? That each time you buy a new vehicle you renew your ability to spout off your opinions such as this? Hate to break it to you but in the context of this topic on this site we’re both equally “keyboard warriors”. I’m not on any new car blogs or YouTube or whatever mouthing off in the comments lamenting the departure from the “good old days” and trying to convince everybody they’re wrong like troll, I’m commenting on a site (mostly) about old cars on the side of the road and the stories, memories, histories and perspectives that go with them. Older cars are where my interest in cars lies, has since I was a little kid long before I had a license to drive or had internet, I’m 34 btw, not quite middle aged yet, just curmudgeonly and have baby boomer sensibilities(I love classic rock too)
We all have opinions on cars featured here, most of us called the 86 Eldorado mean things the other day, but I didn’t see any pushback; “well that’s what the shareholders wanted” or “well you should have been there back then to buy a C body Fleetwood brougham to voice your displeasure at the downsizing”.
Finally, note that I never said EV once. That’s you putting words in my mouth, EV isn’t synonymous with tall crossover, and I’d be exactly as vocal about my dislike of the Mustang Mach E if it had a 5.0 gas engine. The Charger is still a sedan with a trunk, and frankly the 4 door proportions help it keep that long low profile of the originals that modern coupes don’t often have with their close coupled proportions(the clickbait 2-door Charger concept renderings showed several years back). I do think the 07-10 Chargers were dumpy looking and not worthy of the name though, in case you’re you’re concerned I’m going off brand with the 4 door concession, if it looks right it looks right. If the next Charger is like the Tesla Model S I promise won’t say a word about the worthiness of the name, if it’s like the Model X or Mustang Mach E though…
A name is a name is a name – nothing else. The legend is the vehicle (or is not) …
At a certain age, especially in one’s early 20s, cars can evoke strong emotions and become part of one’s generational zeitgest. For the author, it was a 1995 Camaro; for older Boomers, it’s a 1957 Chevy. For me, it was all sorts of early to mid-1980s imports, especially VWs, Audis, and BMWs, which still turn my head on the very rare occasion when I see one still on the road.
I’m drawing a blank as to whether I ever rented a Camaro or Firebird of this generation, whereas I do remember piloting several Fox Mustangs off the Hertz lot. The most memorable time spent in a fourth-gen Camaro was a cross-town ride to a training session with a coworker, who kinda looked like the stereotypical Camaro driver of the day, complete with a mullet. He was a nice guy, though, and I recall fondly several long car conversations with him, even though our tastes in automobiles were very different.
I really like the idea of what kinds of cars generally appealed more to a given demographic, over different periods of time. You’ve got me thinking.
And to your point about your co-worker, sometimes a positive association between some person I liked and respected and something unrelated has ended up making me like something I otherwise wouldn’t have considered. The more I think about it, the more I realize this has happened more often than I’ve probably been aware of. It’s how tastes are shaped outside of what we’re inherently drawn toward.
Another well-done essay, Joseph, and it makes one think about the relentless passage of time. For example, when the 1993 Camaro was introduced, I was several years younger than you are now. I can also remember when the first Camaro came out and especially so when the 1970.5 model was introduced. I still think the early 70s Camaros are the best-looking of all time.
However, I must admit that when I first saw the 1982 model with its large wraparound rear window, it really turned my head. Also, my brother in SoCal still has his 1986 black IROC-Z that he purchased new. It has something like 400,000 miles on it now and still looks great, given the benign climate, although as I recall, he’s replaced the engine once and automatic transmission twice.
As JPC mentioned when the 93 Camaro was introduced, I really didn’t pay it much attention, as family cars were a priority at the time. Still the styling of the 4th generation still looks good some 30 years later; our next-door neighbor happens to have one as his fun car.
As for the Camaro of the 2010s and later, I have zero interest for two reasons: the claustrophobic greenhouse and the fact that its styling harks back to the 1969 model, which to me is overhyped and overexposed. Therefore, the passing of the current Camaro doesn’t bother me. If I had to choose among the Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro, the Mustang would be my overwhelming first choice, with the Challenger second.
Thank you so much. I had read this comment before walking to my evening train, and I happened to pass a very recent Camaro, paying attention to its greenhouse. It’s a very nice looking car, but to your point, looks claustrophobic from the outside, without even sitting in it. Maybe the effect is different inside the car.
The third-generation cars looked very European to me when I had first seen them as a kid, and quite beautiful. I had a middle school science teacher later pick them apart by detailing for our class what terrible cars they were from a reliability and build-quality standpoint. I sometimes think of Mrs. Lewis when I see one of these, but not all the time. Driving my friends’ ’92 this past weekend left me with a thirst for more of the same…
And I agree with you that the Camaros of the early ’70s have an enduringly flawless style.
The fourth-generation cars 0.338 and even the 3rd are more aerodynamic than the present hi-tub style one . (0.34 drag coefficient for the 3rd gen Camaro) . If there is a next gen one I just hope they put decent sized windows in it.
I’m not that surprised to learn that the fourth-gen cars were more slippery in the wind tunnel, even just looking at both cars in profile. And yes – good window area and greenhouse is important to me, as well.
I currently own a 95 Z28 convertible, triple black with the 6-speed manual transmission. It’s a survivor, has just over 40,000 miles, I am the second owner. It’s a blast to drive.
Beautiful car. And I have a definite preference for the sealed-beam headlight models over the refresh.
I kind of know what you mean. Jaguar is to stop making the F-Type. That the end of all Jaguar sports cars (and Grand Tourers). At least for now.
SS90, SS100, XK120, XK140, XK150, E-Type / XKE, (XJ-S & XJS) XK (X100), XK (X150) and F-Type (X152).
Admittedly Ian Callum’s F-Type, was messed up.
Not being the rival to the Porsche Boxster, that the late Geoff Lawson had designed in 1999, before his tragic death. (Ford then messed about talking about making it a mid engined, and then wasted a $1 Billion, buying Jackie Stewart’s racing team and going Formula 1 Grand Prix Racing instead, despite Jaguar only ever taking part in endurance racing at Le Mans, etc)
But not being good enough to take on the Porsche 911, as Callum wanted.
(The front and rear of his XJ 351 design, was terrible. Front looked like a big Volvo S80, rear reminiscent of a Citroen C6. Side profile, nice though).
this was last week before going on the first cruise in a couple of years, 70K original, it must have a great chip in it as it will break the wheels loose at 35mph
Beautiful Camaro. Loved these in that factory purple.