Vintage Car Life Review: 1970 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 – “Close To A Mild-Mannered Race Car”

 

Although the launch of the second-generation Chevrolet Camaro was delayed until the middle of the 1970 model year, it arrived in late February with a splash, earning rave reviews for its strong performance and Italianate styling. Car Life tested the redesigned Camaro Z/28 in May 1970, calling it, “merely great, improved to a degree that makes one hope for the eventual perfection of the automobile.”

The headline of this test suggests that the Z/28 had just expired, rather than merely having been delayed by more than four months by a lengthy UAW strike. In a sense, though, it was a case of “The Z/28 is dead, long live the Z/28”: The original high-winding 302 cu. in. Z/28, conceived for SCCA Trans-Am homologation, had departed in favor of the 350 cu. in. LT-1, shared with the contemporary Corvette.

 

Car Life explained:

The heart of the Z/28 is the engine. For 1970, it grows from 302 to 350 cid. thanks to the Trans-Am rule allowing de-stroking to make the displacement limit. There are some other changes, too; presumably in the interest of emissions control, the camshaft timing has been cooled on the intake side. It still has the best Chevy heads, the big carburetor and the strong lower end pieces. It will still rev as high. We followed the factory guide and imposed a 6500-rpm rev limit, but more is there if you have the nerve. … Forget that the factory rates this engine at 360 bhp in a Camaro, and 370 in a Corvette. Blot from your mind the actual power of 320. The LT-1 is the strongest mid-range V-8 on the market, by sheer power or by power to weight.

There was no question that the 302 was a very powerful engine — more powerful than its 290 hp rating suggested — but it had also been an exceptionally high-strung one by American standards, and you had to put the spurs to it to get it to deliver. Car and Driver had previously demonstrated the virtues of substituting the bigger, torquier LT-1 engine in a Sunoco Blue 1969 Z/28 they dubbed “Blue Maxi,” modified by Sam Eckerd and Mark Donohue of the Roger Penske racing organization that ran the Camaro in Trans-Am. (Remarkably, that car still survives in private hands.)

 

Car Life felt the LT-1 was more powerful than the 302, although the difference was less than the gain in cubic inches might suggest:

In 1968, a test of a Z/28 with dealer-installed headers, cold-air hood, four-speed manual transmission and 4.10:1 gears resulted in an E.T. of 14.85, at 101 mph.

The 1970 Z/28 had the same final drive, and a three-speed automatic transmission. That, plus cast-iron exhaust manifolds and the crash barriers built into the doors, upped the weight by about 200 lb. So the 1970 car ran a 14.5 E.T. at 98.79. The added 48 cid brings so much torque and low-end power that it more than compensates for the weight.

Note that while their quarter-mile elapsed time improved, the LT-1 car was 2.6 mph slower through the traps, indicating an erosion in its power-to-weight ratio. This was probably due in part to the greater power consumption of the TH400 transmission relative to the four-speed manual, as well as to the Camaro’s extra weight, but, as with much of the American performance market, the mechanical changes and bigger engines were becoming a holding action rather than offering any real gains. That would soon get worse — for 1971, the hotter Camaro engines would get lower compression ratios, beginning a decade-long downward spiral in power and performance until automakers finally came to grips with emissions control.

 

However, for the moment, Car Life welcomed the improvement in flexibility:

The automatic transmission shows how good this engine is. You couldn’t buy the automatic last year, because the 302 didn’t have the suds to pull it. The lack of power at less than 3000 rpm made the smaller engine an enthusiast-only item. But now it will idle uphill and chug through traffic. No steamer, but the only time you’ll notice is when the lack of snap off idle makes the LT-1 feel like just a plain Chevy V-8.

They also found the engine frustratingly difficult to start when cold, which they attributed to lean carburetor settings specified for emissions purposes.

The photo caption reads, “BODY roll is slight, but at low speeds the rear anti-roll bar doesn’t come into effect, and the Z/28 has moderate understeer. As speed goes up, the cornering becomes neutral.”

Car Life wasn’t altogether happy with the Turbo Hydra-Matic transmission, however: Although the high-winding LT-1 engine could pull to 81 mph in second, the transmission controls hadn’t been calibrated with such high revs in mind, so getting second gear for passing above about 60 mph required a manual downshift.

 

They were much more pleased with the handling, which benefited from a new front suspension, a redesigned steering linkage, a wider track, and a slightly lower center of gravity. The Z/28 had bigger bias belted tires and a rear anti-roll bar. Unusually for Detroit, even the Z/28 suspension had relatively soft spring rates, combined with firmer damping, allied on the test car to GM variable-ratio power steering. CL remarked:

All the above are supposed to give the Z/28 superior handling, and they do. The variation from year to year in tire size and type makes it difficult to compare steering feel now and previously, but you can tell what the wheels are doing, and the cornering grip borders on the fanatical.

(Incidentally, there’s a typo in the text: As the data panel reveals, the Z/28 had F60-15 tires, not E60.)

 

The editors were annoyed to find that even with the LT-1 engine, the new Camaro was still excessively nose-heavy — with just the driver aboard, weight distribution was 56.4/43.6, and it was even worse with the optional 402 cu. in. engine.

 

Combined with the much stiffer front anti-roll bar included with the Z/28 package, this weight distribution made handling something of a mixed bag:

At low speeds and slip angles, as when you’re driving around town, it goes immediately where it’s pointed. Two notches faster, at low speeds and hard cornering, there is more understeer than we expected. There isn’t enough weight working on the back, at this stage, so the rear bar isn’t in action.

One more notch and the Z/28 is balanced. When you come into a 60-mph turn at 60, the front end will push, and you can either use more steering lock to keep the car in line, or use more power to hang the tail out. Both techniques are effective. Another clear improvement here, in that there are two ways to drive the car at speed. It’s like having two correct answers to the same math problem.

In the upper speed ranges, the car is very nearly neutral, and all you need to do is turn the steering wheel.

 

As Car Life had previously found with some other tail spoilers in this period, the Camaro’s duckbill rear spoiler worked, but that wasn’t necessarily a good thing:

At around the century mark, the front end begins to feel light, as if air pressure was beginning to take effect. This is likely. The small lip on the trunk works, and it rocks the back down and the front up. The factory says that a front spoiler and larger rear lip, identical to those on the Trans-Am Firebird, will be offered later in the year, and that they should provide downforce at both ends of the car. This will be good to have, although the car in its present form is stable enough to make 100-mph cruising more illegal than unsafe.

On relatively smooth roads, the new suspension provided a reasonably compliant ride. However, rougher roads still revealed the Camaro’s substantial unsprung weight:

Some work remains. On a rough road, the weight of the tires is enough to throw the car around. A washboard corner will not send the car skittering across the high spots, but you can tell the rear wheels are following the lumps in the road. This would be hard to cure without considerable revision of the entire suspension. As long as the factory uses the springs to both spring and locate the rear axle, the car will be too stiff for some conditions, and too soft for others.

For carp two, the F60 tires evidently were added to the package after the fender shape and size couldn’t be changed. On a sharp dip, the soft front springs let the big tires bounce off the insides of the fenders. It’s harder on the driver’s nerves than on the car, but it shows a lack of planning.

All 1970 Camaros got single-piston, floating-caliper front disc brakes, which worked well with the big tires to provide short, controllable stops with good fade resistance. Maximum deceleration rates were only average for the time, but their test car managed to stop from 80 mph in 256 feet, which was quite good. “The last stop in the braking sequence came in less distance than many of the cars we test need for the first stop,” the editors remarked. “The Z/28 brakes are equal to the LT-1’s power.”

 

Car Life was impressed with the new Camaro’s noise suppression, which was good enough that one of their testers, caught in 75-mph desert crosswinds, didn’t understand why the car’s steering suddenly seemed so squirrely until he turned on the radio to hear the wind advisory. I suspect the quiet interior probably contributed materially to the editors’ positive impressions of the new Camaro’s ride and handling: a quiet car feels more solid regardless of actual torsional rigidity or spring rates.

The editors found outward visibility unexpectedly good and the seats not bad. However, they were frustrated that there was still no lateral support, remarking, “we can only hope for the real bucket seats the engineers say they are trying to pry out of staid old Fisher Body, which controls such things.”

The photo captions above read, “BIGGER Z/28 winds as high as the 302 did, and is much happier in town. It’s the strongest mid-range V-8 on the market,” and “INSTRUMENTS are where the driver can see them. The plain steering wheel doesn’t suit the image of the car.”

 

Although CL didn’t like the test car’s two-spoke steering wheel, they found the dashboard improved insofar as it allowed the (still-optional) additional instrumentation to be mounted in the instrument panel. “In the older Camaros, the extra gauges went into the console, and were never seen again,” the editors remarked.

 

To readers over about 35, the second-generation Camaro back seat doesn’t look very inviting, and may trigger flashbacks to being stuffed into the backs of friends’ cars in younger days.

 

However, compared to the original Camaro, Car Life found the accommodations greatly improved:

The rear seats are much, much better than before. Notice the plural here. The driveshaft tunnel was raised so the rear suspension travel could be increased, and there is room for two people only, each on his side of the tunnel.

The people portion of the car has been moved back in relation to the wheels, and rear leg room has been increased. Provided everybody cooperates, with those in front moving their seats forward, two grown men can ride in back.

One curious detail about the above page is that the car pictured in the photos isn’t the same as the one pictured on the earlier pages of this article: It has the standard Camaro bumper, whereas the other photos show a car with the RPO Z22 Rally Sport package, a $168.55 option that included separate “bumperettes” and turn signal lamps on either side of the grille, along with concealed wipers and various other minor appearance items. It wasn’t uncommon for the car pictured in road tests of this vintage to be different than the one testing, but mixing photos of two different cars was less common. For comparison, here’s a non-RS Z/28 in the same color:

 

Another discrepancy for specifications-readers: The rear wheel rate listed in the data panel is wrong; the AMA specifications list it as 125 lb/inch.

The photo captions above read, “SMALLER trunk almost overflows with larger spare wheel and tire. It’s the new car’s only leap backward,” and “ANTI-ROLL bar is stiff, so the springs can be soft enough for comfort. The bar is supported by legs that come down from the trunk floor. They pivot on their mounts, so that the bar can travel with the axle, but still reduce body roll. Very clever, and it works.”

 

One of the editors’ biggest complaints about the new car was its doors, which aside from incorporating side-guard door beams were 5 inches longer than before:

They are that long to improve access to the car. They do, provided the car is all alone in the parking lot. When the car is parked in a garage, or in a lot with cars next to it, the length of the door limits the opening width. Win some, lose some.

Here are some highlights from the data panel performance figures:

• 0 to 30 mph: 2.9 sec.
• 0 to 60 mph: 6.5 sec.
• 0 to 100 mph: 15.1 sec.
• Standing ¼-mile: 14.51 sec. at 98.79 mph
• Top speed: 119 mph at 6,500 rpm
• Test average fuel consumption: 11.8 mpg

Both the performance and the fuel consumption have to be considered in light of the test car’s 4.10 axle ratio, which had the engine droning along at 3,550 rpm at a legal 65 mph. The Z/28 was also available with a 3.73 axle, sacrificing a bit of initial acceleration for a slightly more relaxed pace. Car Life concluded:

Overall, the 1970 Z/28 gains. Despite the added weight and the tougher emission controls, it’s faster than ever, and in a way that makes the car drivable by anybody. The handling is at least as good as it was, while the traditional harsh ride that comes with most handling packages shows up only on bad roads.

The Z/28 is as close to a mild-mannered racing car as the industry has come.

From a modern perspective, the 1970 Z/28 was probably the most desirable second-generation Camaro, offering formidable performance with little sacrifice in comfort or tractability. Other than the short gearing and cold-starting headaches, the Z/28 was mild-mannered enough, and yet quick enough to take on a lot of contemporary big-engine Supercars. However, sales totaled only 8,733 cars, just 7 percent of 1970½ Camaro production.

 

One reason was that it was fairly expensive. The RPO Z28 package listed for $572.95, but once you factored in the mandatory options that had to be ordered with it, its actual list price was more than $900. The CL tester cost $4,518, almost $1,700 more than a base Camaro V-8, and even if you could swing the monthly payments, you might need a third job or a second mortgage to afford the insurance on one of these oft-crashed, oft-stolen cars. Little wonder that many Camaro buyers of the time settled for the 307 or the L65 350-2V, which were cheaper to own.

 

It’s taken me a long time to see the appeal of the second-generation Camaro. By the time I became aware of them, they were no longer in production, and while survivors were still fairly numerous, most were clapped-out dinosaurs, showing the effects of hard living and too many facelifts. The effect was something like first encountering the heartthrobs of a previous generation in their late-career TV appearances — even when you see images of them in their pinup-fodder prime, it can be hard not to remember them as they eventually appeared on Murder, She Wrote. (Given the enduring popularity of the first-generation Camaro and the comparative obscurity of the longer-lived second, I have to think I’m not the only one who feels that way.)

 

I think calling the 1970½ Camaro a “mild-mannered racing car” was a bit of a reach, and I’m not convinced that “mild-mannered racecar” is a worthwhile aspiration for most production cars. However, in its original form, as it first rolled onto dealer lots back in February 1970, the second-generation Camaro was a striking design, one of the more successful of Bill Mitchell’s attempts to emulate Italian style, and — at least in Z/28 trim — about as close as Detroit ever came to producing a genuine American GT.

Related Reading

Curbside Classic: 1970 Camaro – GM’s Greatest Hit #1 – Even Pininfarina Praised It (by Paul N)
CCOTY 1970 Nomination: 1970 Camaro – Is There Any Other Choice? (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1970 Chevrolet Camaro RS – A Fresh Look (by J P Cavanaugh)
Car Show Classic: 1970 Chevrolet Camaro – With Turbo Thrift Six-Cylinder Power! (by Tom Klockau)
Vintage Snapshots: Camaros On The Road – 1960s-1970s (by Rich Baron)
Vintage R&T Road Test: 1968 Chevrolet Camaro Z-28 – “7500 RPM Is A Good Shift Point” (by Paul N)