(first posted 3/8/2011. I’m a bit reluctant to re-run it, as it really deserves a major do-over)
After being trapped six weeks in a 1971 time warp, I had the controls of the Curbside Classics time machine all set for the mid-eighties. But once again, fate interceded. Running some errands, I had my first encounter with no less than two 2010 Camaros. Then, on the way home, something called out to me as I tooled down Franklin Boulevard. I found it parked behind the old boarded-up Chevy dealer, and it had an important message for you and me: “beauty is not in the eye of the beholder; it’s in the object itself.”
I needed to hear that, after trying to make aesthetic sense of the new Camaro.
Which was going nowhere, until it hit me: the 2010 Camaro is the Pamela Anderson of automobiles: exaggerated proportions, desperately trying to evoke a (long distant) youthful past, cartoonish, crude, clumsy, and just plain stupid—Borat would love it (“you like?!”), although he would have a hell of a time trying to stuff over-stuffed Pamela into its tiny trunk.
The fact that Chevy picked the ’69 Camaro for its “inspiration” tells it all, because the gen-1 Camaro was a rushed, half-baked stylistic lightweight (Update: that applies even more to the ’67 & ’68s). Yes, it was cheerful and youthfully innocent, kind of like the high-school Pamela.
But it was hopelessly outclassed by the timelessly elegant, handsome, mature and universally praised 1970 version. Perhaps we should thank GM for leaving well enough alone, although I have a sinking feeling that if the Camaro revival doesn’t peter out quickly, its successor may well be a horrible pastiche of this 1970 Rally Sport.
I was never quite as stunned by a new car from Detroit as when I first saw the 1970 Camaro. One of the reasons was that Chevrolet managed to keep it a perfect secret right to the end: no spy shots in Popular Science or elsewhere. One day, I opened a magazine, and kazow!, that incredible front end was staring at me from a full-page ad. And such a complete break with its predecessor. Who saw that coming? It was quite the change from the three and a half years-long strip-tease we’ve just endured. Enough, Pamela, enough!
Obviously, Bill Mitchell had his Pontiac and Chevy design studios perusing old Pininfarina-designed Ferraris while they were fleshing out the 1970 F-body. If you’re going to crib, might as well go to the master. And when the master returns a compliment(which Pininfarina did) bask in it. But inspiration is one thing; to put it all together in a balanced, fresh, yet timeless way requires skill, time, encouragement and most of all, taste. Either you have it, or you don’t. Bill did, often enough.
The Camaro’s perpetual nemesis sure didn’t. Ford must been mighty nervous when the ’70 Camaro was released in February of that year. The Camaro’s ads even made references to it here. Because Ford’s ’71 Mustang, due six months later, was an ugly POS: overwrought, heavy, terrible visibility, cartoonish; umm . . . sounds familiar. And it was a sales bomb, as in the dirty kind. After a few more stumbles, Ford eventually got the formula down, and now sticks to it. Unlike Chevy, which couldn’t seem to ever find its way out of the trailer park since the 1970-1981 edition.
GM knew its ’67-’69 F-bodies were immature, which explains the lack of any stylistic carry-over. The 1964 Mustang caught GM totally asleep at the wheel, as usual. And its phenomenal instantaneous success meant rush, rush, rush. The two years it took to cram the ’67 Camaro and Firebird out the door showed.
So Bill Mitchell had Chevy and Pontiac studios working on a gen-2 F-body worthy of the Mark of Excellence right from the beginning. And, not surprisingly, it was the Pontiac studio that came up with the basic shape. But both versions received enough differentiation to make them each worthy of praise, interest and attention despite sharing the same basic body—kind of like Isabeli Fontana and Izabel Goulart. Take your pick; you can’t go wrong. Personally, I favor Isabeli and the Camaro.
This particular Rally Sport (which is actually quite likely a ’71 or ’72) is not exactly how I like my gen-2 Camaro dressed and made up: no two-tone paint job, please, and either Chevy Rally wheels, Z-28 stock wheels, or minilite type vintage mags. But then this is not a “garage queen”; it’s a regular driver, has numerous dings, and an interesting crude hood cut-out for the after-market air cleaner. I’ll gladly take this for a car parked on the street.
I could go on way too long talking about the elegant lines and proportions of this car. But the front end is brilliant; the contours of the hood and fenders as they drop to that protruding nose. And that unusual windshield compound curve with a hint of a dog leg. Nobody was doing that since 1961.
But my favorite part is that delicious front fender line as it tightly hugs the wheel and delicately nips and tucks into the head light. Unfortunately, that detail was ruined with the 5-mph bumpered 1974s.
The 1970 Camaro was anything but a poseur. It (not the Vega) set a new high for American passenger-car handling. The whole platform, and especially the suspension and steering were extensively re-engineered. The result was superb for its time. And not just in the race-track oriented way like the max-performance versions of Detroit’s pony cars, the previous Z-28 and Boss 302 Mustang. Ultra-stiff springs and a fast manual steering ratio are great on a smooth track, but in real world driving, especially on uneven surfaces, most muscle cars of the era were profoundly compromised.
Even the base version of the Camaro offered a level of balance, steering precision and feel, stout brakes, stiff body structure, and reasonable chassis compliance that finally brought US cars into world-class levels (of course, the ‘vette had been there since ’63). It was a huge step from the Falcon/Chevy II/Valiant based gen-1 pony cars. So good, that even at the end of its unusually long twelve year production run, the gen-2 Camaro was still being praised for its all-round handling competence, if not the performance from its de-smogged engines.
Chevrolet positioned the new Camaro much more as an all-round sports car/GT tourer than the ’67-’69 muscle/pony cars. You could still get a big-block 396 (actually a 402) SS Camaro, but it was no longer at the top of the horsepower pecking order. That would be the brilliant LT-1 powered Z-28. Whereas the previous Z-28 was a limited production Trans-Am race series homologation special, with a very peaky 302 engine, the new Z-28 essentially took the role of the old SS model. Even the THM autobox was finally welcome (if not preferred) in the Z.
The 1970 LT-1 350 cubic inch (5.7 liter) engine was the crowning glory of the Chevy small block V8, its ultimate evolution until the all-new LS-1 replaced it some twenty years later. All the goodies developed in the sixties for the Corvette were present and accounted for: four-bolt block, big-valve heads, solid-lifter cam, aluminum intake, 780cfm Holley, and that lumpy idle. It was rated at 360 hp (gross), but essentially the same parts in the smaller 327 used to be rated at 365 hp. It probably churned out at least 310 of today’s net horsepower. At 3150 lb., the Z-28 had a 10 lb/net hp ratio, resulting in a 0-60 of 5.8 seconds, and a ¼ mile of 14.2 @100 mph (C/D stats). Superb, for a small-block, non-understeering, great-handling car of the times (big-blocks need not apply).
And what has forty years of progress delivered? The porky 2010 Camaro has a slightly better 9.15 lb/hp ratio, and delivers the 0-60 in 5 seconds flat, and the ¼ mile in 13.5 @ 103 mph (Edmund’s stats). Stickier tires probably account for most of that. And GM’s sticky fingers account for the price difference. The 1970 Z-28 cost $3,412 ($18.7K adjusted) complete with the go-fast goodies. A new SS starts at $31K. In 1970, that was money well invested: Z-28s go for $40K-$80K today.
The timing of the gen-2 Camaro’s arrival was less than auspicious. The whole performance era was peaking and about to crash under the weight of insurance, smog-controls, and a change in attitudes, especially once the energy crisis hit. But it was exactly because of the gen-2 Camaro’s balance of qualities that allowed it survive, and actually prosper the whole decade, right through 1981. Well, it did almost die after the 1973 model year because the new 5-mph bumper and other safety regulations seemed like a huge obstacle especially in light of weak sales. But that’s the makings of another Curbside Classics.
For the brief golden period of 1970-1973, new Camaros graced us with their svelte elegance. And a few are still at it today, giving us a lasting lesson on how ugly and malformed way too many new cars are today. Raw attraction is all too often crude, hormonal, and indiscriminate; but true beauty is self-evident and timeless, like good art, a beautiful woman, or an inspired car.
As I got ready to leave, the Camaro had a parting thought for me: “Folks who can’t tell the difference between attraction and beauty should be held accountable for their bad taste.” Like getting stuffed into the trunk of a 2010 Camaro, perhaps, I suggested. “Yes,” it replied, “along with Pamela. That should teach them a lasting lesson.”
I’ve never noticed the enormous tumblehome below the waistline. The wheels are virtually free off the bodywork where the body tucks in under. Also note the trademarked Pininfarina crease lengthwise from front to rear, neatly folding the tumblehome in an up and down curve. Notice how the play between light and shadow separates the car in a lower/upper half.
Another interesting detail is the enormous door. Has there ever been a bigger door in car history? That and the fact that there’s no side window behind it makes for a very clean but unusual side profile. I’ve tried to imagine the car with a shorter door and a side window, but it wouldn’t be as beautiful. The end result would be something like a sleeker Chevelle. The only car I cant hink of with a similar side profile is the Lotus Elan +2S. Interestingly, the Lotus have a similar dogleg/compound curved windshield, making the greenhouse look strikingly similar, except that the Camaro has a faster fastback.
The two-tone paint makes it have a waistline, but the one interesting thing about the design is that it really doesn’t have one. It’s just one single sculpted mass from front to end, top to bottom. Like a slightly used bar of soap.
There are other Pininfarina cribs as well. The quad round rear taillights, from the Ferrari Daytona. The rectangular and vertical grille, cribbed from the Ferrari 400 Superamerica. The quad headlamp/vertical shieldlike grille makes me think of the Princess version of the Austin “Farina saloons”, the Princess 3-Litre. And, in an unlikely line of thought, the Volvo 164. Though, I’m sure the Swedes cribbed the English in that case, for the luxury connotations.
There are some Jaguar in it too. The front, of course, again the quad headlamps/vertical grille, but also how the front is sculpted into the protruding headlamps. Also, the XJ6 has a similar lower tumblehome. The front fender makes me think XJS, but that came later, of course. Most of all, the Camaro and the Jag is alike in the way they are so neatly tucked and muscular, like a leaping cat, waiting for prey. Like a muscle about to flex.
So, the Camaro was very contemporary in its styling cues. The Jaguar XJ6, the Ferrari Daytona, and the Volvo 164 was all presented in the fall of 1968, the Lotus a year earlier. Of course, the whole is larger than the sum of its parts, and the beauty of the Camaro is that it works on its own, as a complete and comprehensible whole. It’s a finished design, ready to take aim on its own terms.
http://www.acroney.com/A_C_Roney/Lotus_Elan_+2S_files/IMG_3363.jpg
The doors were a tragic flaw. They were too heavy for the hinges, too heavy for the structure the hinges were mounted to, and too heavy for the humans that drove and rode in the cars. Any time you see a MKII Camaro, look at the character line crease running along the sides. It will ALWAYS have a kink at the back of each door where the door has fallen relative to the rear fender. Otherwise, it was a great design. Can you imagine that there used to be a GM that came up with new and better ideas instead of trying to reconnect with past successes?
Yeah, those doors… even on my 1975 Monza, the door started sagging after 20-30k miles. The bushings were a quick and easy fix at the dealer but not enough people bothered, and a Camaro or Firebird that had been driven long enough with sagging doors also would ruin its door latches.
That was one of the points I checked carefully when I bought my 1980 Firebird in 1990 or so (can’t remember exactly).
Ferrari tail lights? hmmm, considering the Vette was wearing dual round tail lights for longer; I always just took it as a nod to big brother. Interesting how your perspective on design changes depending on your country of origin.
side note: in the sates there were plenty of cars with longer doors. 70s Monte Carlos, Grand Prixs, Eldorados, Toronados, and so on…
The curved sides are one of the things I love about ’70s styling. It’s 3 three dimensional, rather than being slab sided. My ’72 Pinto is also like that. The rocker panels are way back in past the tires. And if you measure the roof above the doors from one side to the other, then measure the top of the doors from one side to the other, you’ll find that the tops of the doors are way further apart than the sides of the roof. The side glass has a very large curve to it as well.
It’s a shame the owner or previous owners messed this car up so bad. Without the spoilers, the 2 tone paint, and the oversize wheels (original ralleys would look great) this would be a downright gorgeous car.
While the current generation Camaro certainly doesn’t have the beauty or the class of the ’70-’73, I wouldn’t be to hard on it. For being a new car, it is still one of the best looking cars on the road. It’s just that styling in general has gone to pot since 1970. I would actually like to have one. No way can I afford a first or second generation (I once had a ’79 Z28 back in ’84. Beautiful condition and I only paid $6K for it) but no more. Rusted out bodies are going for more than that now. I don’t really care for the third and fourth generation, you can still find them at reasonable prices, but they are all trashed. A nice V6 powered version of the fifth generation can be found for an affordable price, but I suspect insurance would likely double that.
For the brief golden period of 1970-1973, new Camaros graced us with their svelte elegance. And a few are still at it today, giving us a lasting lesson on how ugly and malformed way too many new cars are today. Raw attraction is all too often crude, hormonal, and indiscriminate; but true beauty is self-evident and timeless, like good art, a beautiful woman, or an inspired car.
Wow, well put. Did you know that a little part of me dies whenever I’m asked to drive my mother’s ’07 RAV-4 whenever the folks are down visiting?
You’re right Paul about the Camaro loosing its way. I was raised in a GM family and while I can picture myself in many of their current products the Camaro isn’t one of them. (Now the Mustang…. heck yes!)
I could never figure out what all the love for the 67-69 Camaro was about. Sure they were neat but after a little seat time in a friends car back in the 90s… Ouch!
For a guy my size there was no engine powerful enough to overcome the fact that there was NO room in them.. I fit better in my MG Midget than this car.
I can’t even look at the “new” Camaro without reaching for the Tylenol. It’s like a caricature of the gen 1 cars rather than a tribute.
I remember the original “Titanic” Camaro print ad. I was in 8th grade and it was all over the car buff books. That 1970 Camaro is an amazing car then and now…I’ll take a ’71 RS with a transplanted LS-3 and 6-speed…that would make an amazing driver…
I’ve always loved this generation of Camaros. Don’t care too much for any of the others. The first car I bought myself was a mint ’78 Z28 with four speed manual gearbox. I couldn’t afford an early car as they where starting to rise in price by then. Speaking of the later 70s cars they have one of the best examples of integrating 5mph bumpers.
I had the non-golden period ’74 model. Get this…six cylinder and three-speed on the floor. It still handled fantastic.
My first memories of Joe Romania Chevrolet in Eugene were during the early 60’s, they displayed the Mercury space capsule (John Glenn) in the garage in the picture. In the early 70’s my parents test drove a Vega for about 10 feet before the Vega died in the parking lot of the aforementioned dealership.
Did you notice the picture of the Romania showroom in its earlier glory the other day: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/auto-biography/getting-religion-auto-biography-part-3/
I’m sorry I missed it in its heyday.
I did. Beautiful showroom. I remember a lot of folks in Eugene preferring to drive the short distance to Guaranty Chevrolet in Junction City. The only car I ever purchased at Romania was a 1974 AMC Javelin AMX. I had it for an entire week, then returned it to the dealership because the car had been totaled in an accident prior to my purchase. They initially refused to take the car back, but since I was only 17 at the time, they were compelled to because they accidentally sold the car to a minor (me).
The sand man you have on another post was derived from the Holden range built on this platform it outsold the Falcon and Valiant easily down under. Now days Chevys sold outside the US and your Caddy cts and Camaro are built on a Holden platform. Isnt it ironic. This Camaro was GMs swansong as after this what was good enough to export ………………………………………. nada
Gotta be honest: I never liked these. Stylistically, yeah, it’s probably better than the ’67-’69 and the ’70-’73 actually is a good-looking car, but it just does nothing for me. Probably has to do with what a cheesy, malaise-y mess the ’74-’81 cars were.
Paul since you’re open to suggestions about the new site and its content, and this seems as good a place as any to make it, any chance of an “Automotive Histories” piece at some point explaining the details and examining the impact of oft cited 70s regulatory changes like the “5-mph bumper”?
These apparently seismic shifts in requirements for car design in the states are often alluded to here and elsewhere, and I’m fascinated to know more but can’t find any good sources. You’d seem the man to ask.
No rush, but if the suggestion grabs you it’d be good to learn more.
This would be an excellent idea–an aside on the 5-mph bumper, and how it all but ruined at least American car design for several years, is a great place to start.
splateagle: very excellent idea indeed. I’ve been needing a new inspiration for the next AH since the last idea went bust. The intense regulatory climate of the seventies had a huge effect, and of course, much/most of it was lasting.
It’s fodder for a full book, but I’ll try to condense it (I have no choice 🙂
Thanks for the suggestion.
I liked this generation of Henry Haga designed Camaro, but I liked the Firebird much better. I particularly like the Formula versions of the Firebird, all of the punch of the T/A but with less graphics and spoilers. I will say, either one of these cars were a handful in the rain and the snow, though.
When I saw the 1970 Camaro for the first time, I was angry, because, well, you know all too well – no rear quarter window – at all. Just a three-windowed coupe. The reason for those long doors was to make up for the lack of side windows – the longer door window would and pretty much did make up for it – but to also allow easier access to the back seat. When walking out of my barracks one day, there, in the parking lot, sat a brand-new 1970 Camaro. Tan interior, tan exterior, base model. It was stunningly beautiful in its simplicity and I admired that car and its clean lines and wanted one of my own just like it! I came to love that generation of Camaros after all! The next time I was in town, I just had to visit Daoust Chevrolet in Marysville, Ca. to check one out and I was impressed all the more.
The 74-81 F bodies were sales hits and the bumpers looked better than usual cars of the day. Looking back with 20/20, it’s too easy to dismiss them, but they carried the sporty car torch. And there’d be no late model V8 Mustangs or others if not for them.
I would bet any amount of money that the designers fought very hard to make a door/window large enough to eliminate the token window for the rear passengers, while being small enough to be openable in everyday use. Eliminating that filler window is a feature, not a bug, for a stylish coupe that isn’t marketed for everyday carpooling and family hauling.
As noted, the door proved too large/heavy for the standard GM hinge parts.
My favorite of the camaro’s is also the last of the full body styles. The 1981 Camaro Z28, with it’s classic paint job, elongated front end, and, yes, the world’s largest door is still at the top of my fav list of classics. Who could fault that “tear-drop” hood scoop and the classic 1980’s T-top fashion statment! Although, as interior’s go….it had a lot to be desired. Still one of the best lookers of the ’80’s though, in my humble opinion.
Browsing through this linked thru the July 4 Caprice CC. Noticed the discussion about 5-mph bumpers-was this ever extrapolated upon in a longer Automotive History? Would be a great one!
That’s a good idea. I think they deserve their own Automotive History. Get on it, someone-other-than-me!
This was the high point of GM, IMHO. It looked great, handled great for it’s time, and 43 years later, it still looks fantastic. Unlike the hideous present day Camaro. I’m hoping the new one will be at least decent looking. Whoever designed, well created the present one should not be allowed any input into the upcoming one.
A friend introduced me to a reverse flow from GM to Ferrari theory.
Look at the ’68 Ferrari Daytona. Then look at the ’66 Toronado. Note three things: one, the low, low beltline running through the wheels, not above them. Two, note the continuous, unbroken surface from the sail panel into the upper fear quarter panel. Third, note the way the rear of the car is simply, cleanly chopped off.
All three of those design features appeared on Toronado – and those first two were possibly unique to Toronado. And all three appeared on the Daytona two years later.
Interesting.
It´s a good overall form and I liked the DLO graphics. It´s a pity the door shutline lands right on the radius going up the B-pillar. And that the chrome trim doesn´t match up. Pininfarina were a bit stingy in their praise. I ´ve seen some early 70s American cars with sculpting beyond verbal description, really subtle and evocative and utterly non-obvious.
This car was the cause of considerable angst for 12-year-old me. After immersing myself in car rags touting the New! ’70 Camaro, come September when all the new cars were introduced there was the same old Gen1.
I was crushed! To this day I still think of the first Gen2 as a “1970-1/2”. As I recall even the car rags called it that.
I wonder why Chevrolet didn’t put the 454 engine under the Gen2 Camaro? I knew then aftermarket specialists like Nicky, Berger, Baldwin-Motion did some Camaros with the 454 engine. I’m surprised then Yenko didn’t made a Camaro 454.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/1970-chevrolet-camaro-once-an-addict/
http://www.superchevy.com/features/sucp-0704-1970-berger-454-camaro
Unlike Ford and Chrysler, GM had figured out early on that their biggest engine would never be a good seller as an RPO in the Camaro. Plus, there was that whole Corvette thing (Chrysler and Ford had no such top dog sports car to compete with internally). As close as they got were the special-order 1969 COPO 427 Camaros (and they were real expensive, as much as a Corvette). With the second generation f-body, if you just had to have the biggest engine in a GM ponycar, you got a 455 Trans Am.
As it was, the 396 was still available through the 1971 Camaro but, again, it just wasn’t a big enough seller. A 2nd gen 454 Camaro would have sold even less.
That is a good question, Especially since you could get it in the Chevelle.
I can’t look at these without thinking of the rattling of the lowered window when you closed the door. They really should have done something different for the first Vega fascia, too.
It should be noted that this terrific front end with the cool parking lamps is a Camaro with the Rally Sport package. Other ‘70 Camaro front ends weren’t as nice with different parking lamps tucked down low.
Sometimes, everything just falls into line and GM just scores big. So it went with the second gen Camaro. Unlike Chrysler and Ford which gambled with intermediate-based ponycars to be able to take their biggest engines, GM went with a somewhat smaller size, sticking with the Nova platform (which could still take a big-block, if sales materialized).
When the competition all bailed on the traditional ponycar, GM was right there to take all the leftover sales, and it paid off handsomely. The 2G Camaro kept the right size with attractive sheetmetal, even during the fuel-mileage-centric seventies.
It wouldn’t be until 1982 when Ford upped their game by bringing back a decent performing 302 in the Mustang to compete with a brand-new 3rd gen Camaro that had some significant quality issues that it would start losing its edge.
It should be noted that this terrific front end was unique to the Rally Sport version. Other models had a different bumper and rectangular parking lights down low. Not nearly as nice.
Funny this popped up today. I’ve returned to this post several times over the years to read your take on the design Paul, and have grown to admire it even more.
I saw a 1970 Z-28 at a cruise night in Ottawa 2 summers ago and snapped a photo of the engine bay, as it had the LT-1, but I wish I had gotten a few different profiles too. Loved the colour of that one.
Haven’t been on the site much lately so I missed your 10 year anniversary – congratulations and thanks to you (and the regulars) who’ve kept things interesting over the years. Can’t imagine the work it takes to keep things fresh, but you manage to. Thank you.
Thanks. I’m not totally happy with this tribute to this car, but I think I’d have to start from scratch. Maybe when I find another one I’ll be inspired.
Don’t think the first photo attached
That’s lovely.
Those Camaro-‘birds are another example of great design let down by a lack of precision in the build. I’m thinking also of the B and C bodies of the time. Starting in ’70, with the Camaro and Vega, and in ’71 with the B and Cs, the bodywork just got sloppy. Gaps you can run your little finger through. It’s a shame, because as Bob Lutz once wrote, all that’s needed is for management to drive the assembly plats to pay attention to that kind of detail. Gorgeous designs, let down by casual construction.
“Even the base version of the Camaro offered a level of balance, steering precision and feel, stout brakes, stiff body structure, and reasonable chassis compliance that finally brought US cars into world-class levels…”
The front suspension engineering of the F-bodies introduced with this generation lived through model year 1996 in updated form. What started with a subframe holding various bits and pieces–control arms, steering knuckles, rotors, calipers, steering gear and linkage–went on to form the front suspension of the ’73-77 “A” body in full-frame guise; the ’73–’77 “A” body got a redesigned body and a lightly-revamped chassis to become the ’77 “Downsized” “B” body. The Downsized B was facelifted and revamped through the “Whalebody” model-year ’96. The original “F” body subframe-style chassis with minor mods was also used on the ’75–’79 N. O. V. A line–Nova, Omega, Ventura, Apollo; and with some extra cushions and reinforcement, on the first-generation Caddy Seville.
Mostly, these vehicles used “F-body” style steering knuckles with “11-inch” disc brakes, but there was a 12″ rotor with matching knuckle/caliper mount on some. The knuckles were redesigned around 1978 using “computer-aided design” to reduce weight while maintaining the same steering geometry. There were some variations in wheel bearing size, too. Steering gears could have a variety of ratios with greater or lesser steering “feel”, but they’d all interchange as an assembly. And the rubber bushings holding the works together might be softer or stiffer depending on application.
The general design of the F-body front suspension lasted far longer than the Camaro/Firebird generation that originated it. For a time, it was a popular retro-fit for the ’64–’72 “A” body. I have “1975 Chevy Nova” steering knuckles, calipers, rotors, and (I think) outer tie rod ends, mounted to my ’68 El Camino. A pair of “special” lower ball joints, four longer bolts for the upper control arm-to-chassis bracket, and a giant heap of alignment shims is about all that’s required.
A friend has a 70 1/2 Z/28, LT-1 and close ratio Muncie. Completely stock except for the obligatory B.F. Goodrich Radial T/A’s. There is just so much ‘right’ about that car, looks, driving experience, and sound. I have had the pleasure of driving a lot of different domestic performance cars from that era, and the 2nd. gen. Z/28 handles worlds better than any of them, except of course the Firebirds. The steering is light and precise, the brakes are good. The LT-1 350 isn’t much at low r.p.m.’s, but these cars were geared accordingly which made the engine ideal for the application. My brother owned a ’70 Challenger T/A, probably the best handling Mopar E body, and even it was clumsy compared to the Z/28. The platform did indeed age well, I drove a ’77 Firebird Formula 400 that despite having a less willing engine (403 Olds in that one) and slightly softer suspension still had a lot of that Z/28’s feel.
This gen of Camaro / Firebird was a surprise to me back then and still is. So unlike other American styles. It stands out as a beautiful, elegant design, which was not usually the case for the US.
Yes. To my eyes the 1st generation looks simpler to the Ford Corrina. A typical mid sixties box, edge design. Now this second generation….. Ferrari GTO inspired?. Years I go this model featured in a American sports car book. The owner said it was all the car he would ever need and he would drive it into the ground then restore it. The third generation looked flimsy with the world’s cheapest looking interior. Fourth gen,well coping the first. ,
The near-vertical windshield and A pillar have always looked a bit “off” to me, but they do make the hood longer and the car more instantly distinctive. Not very aerodynamic, I’d say.
It is an amazing car and your presentation of it is still very worthy.
https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/CC-37-071-800-crop-vert.jpg
I’ll take the top half – or any gen Camaro! – over that one on the bottom, any day, simply because of its cartoony proportions and complete absence of tire sidewalls wrapped around wheels big enough for a 737-2!
B-b-blecchh!
I am not allergic to the appearance of sidewalls, as are most car makers and car buyers now-uh-daze…
Childhood, 1970: My mother trades in her classic fire engine red ’55 T-Bird for a silver 1970 Camaro with black interior and black vinyl roof. A horrible woman gifted with exceptionally good taste in automobile purchases.