(first posted 2/10/2017) What really puts the Mustang II Mach 1 in perspective is that in the very same issue of Car & Driver (September 1973) they also tested a Camaro LT Z-28, which was not only cheaper than the V6 Mach 1, but put it to shame in a number of ways. Let’s quickly start with the most extreme difference (other than front overhang): the Camaro, even with its de-smogged 245 hp 350, ripped off the 0-60 run in 6.7 seconds, and ran the 1/4 mile in 15.2 sec. @94.6 mph. That compares to the Mach 0.5’s 12.2 seconds (0-60) and 18.2 sec. @ 74.0 mph.
Ok, there’s more to a sporty coupe than straight-line acceleration. And the Camaro delivered them too, with very few qualifications.
But the really big surprise was the fact that the ’73 version of the Z-28 was actually cheaper than the ’71, due to the way the packages were re-shuffled. That 1973 price of $4066 adjusts to $22,314 in 2015 dollars. That included power steering, the RS package, Z-28 package, instrument package, custom interior, and the 4-speed transmission. The 1974 Mustang II Mach I with the V6 stickered at $4188.
Although the 350 (5.7 L) V8 lost the aggressive mechanical cam, aluminum intake and big four barrel Holley carb of the legendary LT-1 version, the difference in real world performance was very surprisingly limited. In fact, the ’73 ran the quarter mile within 0.10 seconds of the ’71. That may be due to a number of factors, including the intrinsic range of output variability of production engines as well as the track conditions and such. C&D did mourn the loss of the LT-1’s brilliant upper rev ban and its superb responsiveness, but the improved torque band largely compensated. It was now a much easier engine to use in daily driving, with a torque band “a mile wide”.
And there was another very important compensation: air conditioning could now be had with the Z-28, as the earlier versions were just too rev-happy to be trusted with it. That was hurting Z-28 sales in the warmer parts of the country.
The stats speak for themselves.
Was all perfect? Unsurprisingly, not exactly, as the instrument panel came in for some criticism, and the shifter buzzed. But the interior was improved with an adjustable seat back for the driver (an option, pathetically). And the pedal placement was less than ideal for heel-and-toe.
The interior was well sealed and quiet with the LT’s sound -deadening package, but the engine made itself very much known with the same low-restriction exhaust system used on the earlier Z-28. let’s just say it’s a sound Z-28 aficionados mostly loved and would have canned, if they could. Intake roar was also quite noticeable.
Handling, already a strong suit, was improved by a revised power steering system that had increased effort, to impart more feel. “the Z-28’s steering precision translates every minute correction at the wheel into a definitive action at the road”. It didn’t get any better than this for an American car in 1973.
The lack of radial tire supply meant that the Z-28 was still riding on 60-series Firestone bias-belted Wide Ovals, which probably provided more maximum lateral acceleration than the domestic radials of the time, but were decidedly less comfortable. The Camaro generated “high cornering forces, and stays tight and responsive to the limit”, and “although there is some initial understeer…but you can easily negate that tendency with the throttle…the Z-28 is perfectly content to corner with the tail hung well out”. Quite the contrast from the flaccid Mach 1.
C&D summed it up this way: The Z-28 is still a car with which you can have a passionate affair. because few cars at any price offer the Camaro’s refinement in going, stopping and turning abilities. And that refinement is housed in one of the most handsomely chiseled forms ever to roll out of Detroit.”
That last line reminds me of this picture, which shows just how sad the Mustang II looks in comparison, in terms of that huge front overhang riding on those little wheels and tires, although these are actually larger aftermarket ones.
Here’s my homage to the 1970 Camaro, although it’s in need of some updating.
Ya there’s no question ford dropped the ball on the mustang 2. Had it been on the maverick chassis instead it might have been a winner. Engine wise and in the looks dept. Looks are subjective, but let’s face it. The camaro stayed true to the camaro name. The mustang didn’t.
Ironically, the Maverick chassis was the old Mustang/Falcon chassis…
Looking at the sales figures it was a winner.
A real blast from the past as I owned one. It always seemed much bigger, heavier and more powerful than a comparable Mustang. It also seemed much better built. It was a very mechanical car to drive and from 30 mph to 90 mph was its sweet spot. A nice balanced car for the muscle car era and pretty easy to live with. The biggest issue was MPG and it swilled gas at what seemed 10 to 15 miles per gallon.
That, and the price was held down due to no real investment in a new or heavily revised platform. The cost per widget stays the same or goes down over time as the fixed costs for design are already paid for, and the manufacturing cost is either the same or lower due to efficiencies gained over time. All in all, a much better overall car than the Mustang, but when you factor in the gas mileage penalty and the insurance conundrum that penalized the V8, you suddenly have a case for the Mustang.
Now, throw in the Mopar contenders from 74 and we have a true comparison test!
There was a sad Motor Trend article with the ’74 cars, Challenger (318 engine), a Javelin with the 304, a Firebird with the 400 2 Barrel carb(?), and a 350 Z-28. It was like they had to make Chevy happy by making it the “winner” by stacking the deck. And that’s exactly what I think happened. No Trans Am was available? No Challenger or Cuda with a 360? No Javelin with a 360? Really? I don’t think so. The surprise of the test was the 318 Challenger was almost as quick as the Z-28, a 360 would have surely been quicker, as I can confirm as I owned a ’74 Roadrunner with the 360 4 Barrel engine, with specs almost identical to the 350 in the Z-28, and it ran 15.20’s stock. That MT article really made me question what was in magazines from that point on. Probably a good thing.
Odd lineups for comparison tests like the one you mention are typically the result of limited availability from the local manufacturer test fleet, not from any desire to stack the deck. Despite what the wording of road tests sometimes implies, it’s pretty rare for magazines to actually be able to special order a model with the exact equipment they want unless maybe it’s for a long-term test.
The magazine editors would prefer to compare like to like — I’m pretty certain the Z/28 was not what they asked for — but sometimes when they call the local press fleet office, the conversation becomes, “Do you have an X with Y?” “No, don’t have any like that at the moment, but how about an X with Z?” Press deadlines being what they are, the answer often ends up, “Yeah, I guess so.”
I tend to agree with Ate Up with Motor, it was likely press fleet limitations that ended up with this selection of cars. I also don’t think MT had a Chevrolet bias in this era. I have quite a few MT road tests, and there were lots that Chevrolet lost.
I do have a copy of this test, and I would hardly say the Challenger was almost as quick as the Camaro. The Challenger ran the 1/4 mile in 16.9 seconds @ 80 mph. Decent time for a 318, but it also had the lowest trap speed of all four cars tested. The Camaro ran 15.4 secs @ 90.5 mph considerably quicker than any of the other cars. I agree that a 360 Challenger would have evened the playing field and would have been as quick as the Camaro.
The Maverick chassis was based on on the Falcon IIRC
Yes it was.
The Falcon platform lived on through the 1980 model year in the Granada and Monarch. Ford definitely got their money’s worth out of it.
’73-’74 Z28 had good Net HP ratings, the 0-60 times show it. So many ‘casual fans’ still go on and on about “after ’72 cars lost hundreds of HP” with the change from gross to net ratings.
Sure, v8 HP went down overall by 1980, but then crept back up to 300 + and no one in the ‘malaise’ era could have predicted that.
1972 was the first year that required SAE net figures. A 1972 LT-1 was rated at 255 net hp. A 1973 L82 was rated at 245 net hp. So really only a 10-hp difference.
A 1971 LT-1 was rated at 330hp gross an 275 hp net.
There was a big difference in driveability in ’73 thanks to EGR, timing, etc. for emissions. In 4 years, I don’t think we ever got our Century to stop stalling when cold. And the engine felt like it had a cold. My used ’74 Fleetwood shook so badly when cold, it broke two exhaust manifold bolts.
Yes, but those things were easily addressable post purchase.
Very impressive performance for a 1973 car, that is easily close to par with the 1960’s Camaro’s IMO! I’ve always liked the 1973 Camaro/Firebird’s a lot more than the Ford Mustang’s of the same year (never cared much for the 1971-73 Mustang’s).
I am generally a fan of muscle cars, but I find the typical muscle car guy is so closed minded. Some don’t care, if the car was built after 1971 or 1972 they aren’t muscle cars. A 1973 L82 Camaro will easily outperform a 1969 350 Camaro, while having better braking, and far better handling. Yet, the 1973 car only has “245” horsepower and so it must be a slow smog era car. Low 15 sec quarter mile time as fast or faster than many “true muscle cars” and it didn’t take too much work to make them even quicker if that was your thing.
+1 I actually find the Muscle cars from this transitional period the more interesting and desirable for the reasons you mentioned.
Other ’73 cars that were still powerful: Firebirds with 455SD, Javelin 401, Buick GS with 455 Stage 1 [yes that motor was still around].
Mopar 340/360 and 440. Ford 351-C Q code.
The SD455 reference point in the CD article is bogus. It’s now well established fact that that particular car (also as tested by HOT ROD magazine) was a “pre-production” model fitted with the planned RA IV cam (never made production due to emissions issues), milled and ported heads with port matching, functional cold air induction, a larger carb, more aggressive distributor and so on. Actual production cars were closer in performance to the ’73 Z28 than they were to the prototype SD455 car. The Z28s were also lighter, in part due to the small block Chevy vs subtanally heavier Pontiac 455 engines.
Wow, I can’t imagine why anyone would buy the Mustang. How did they compare in terms of insurance?
Perhaps Ford Management thought buyers would find Camaro to 60s with high fuel consumption and insurance payments. “Mustang 2 marked a new era of small, more economical European performance cars of the 70s”. Were Mustang buyers bothered about performance in the era of 55 mph speed limits and high fuel costs?. They really just wanted a cut price Thunderbird?.
Yes. people did want a cut rate T-Bird. Ford thus provided the Torino Elite. Then reskinned the Elite and actually called it a T-Bird. (That’s a whole ‘nother tale). Ah, the ’70s!
The ’73-’74 Z-28 engine was the L-82 which was also used in the same vintage Corvette. Basically an LT-1 with a cast iron intake and quadrajet, and a hydraulic cam. You got the forged crank and pistons, 4 bolt mains and the good rods. It actually had better low end torque than an LT-1, but wouldn’t pull the same rpm. A very nice street engine, and one that was built to stay in one piece.
A buddy’s girlfriend had a ’73 non RS with a 4 speed, and with nothing more than headers and some ignition advance work at ran 14.50s at just under 100. The ’73 was a gorgeous car, I passed up a similarly equipped ’74 because I hated the silly graphics and new bumper treatment. You don’t see many of either year around any more, but they were actually a better street car than many better known cars from the muscle era.
I’ve never seen this particular report before, thanks for posting it.
GM did bring out its own Mustang II, in the Monza H body family. Originally meant for GM’s Wankel motor that got dropped. But, the F body prevailed as their sporty car, and led to the ’82 restyle. While the 78-80 Monza ended up as a Vega replacement and then the J car.
I’m very surprised that the torque figure is so low for a 245hp 350. But it seems like it was still a good revving V8 despite the loss of the Holley and the increase in smog equipment. I grew up around the late 70’s to 90’s small blocks and they seem to run out of breath above 4000 rpms, yet they usually had at least 300lb-ft of torque.
It wasn’t until the Vortec engines and the later 90’s LT1’s that I experienced a 350 that would rev past 5000 and keep on pulling. I always liked the sound of a high-revving V8.
This Z28 is still pretty impressive for a ’73 model but then again, I have a collection of mid to late 70’s Road and Track and Motor Trend magazines (my wife will never understand) – they used to make little insinuations that test cars from GM were “slightly massaged” if they were quicker than expected.
They often were. The C/D guys are still bugged at how they were duped by GM over 35 years ago at the FWD X-body rollout, when the “massaged” cars GM gave them to drive led them to declare them a “REVOLUTION!” on their cover that blew their competitors into the weeds. Then they got around to testing normal production Citations and they had awful brakes and torque steer,
The 1970-73 Camaro’s are probably my all time favourite Camaros. I like these so much more than the much loved 1st generation cars. I never understood why these cars haven’t garnered more respect over the years. They have far superior road-ability compared to 1st generation cars, better styling, and had strong performance until 1974 (last year for the L82 in the Camaro). My father was enamoured by the big open grille on the RS versions of these cars. When he was car shopping in 1972 he was strongly tempted to buy one, but the back seat was just too small to be useful for family duties (as was the tiny trunk), which is why he moved up to a 2-door intermediate.
Although I am not a fan of the Mustang II, it probably was a good marketing move for Ford at the time. Although it lost the real performance buffs, it seems there were lots of people on the market who wanted a small car that appeared sporty and or had something more than a basic interiors and trim of the typical compacts of the era. With Ford abandoning the performance end of the market, I think this is a big reason the F-bodies survived the mid 1970’s. If Mustang would have continued to be in the same theme as the 1971-73 cars, maybe none of the cars would have survived the mid 1970’s.
+1000. I’m really not a GM guy but these gen II F-bodies were stunning, I never understood why the ultimate classic Camaro is the 69, and I felt that way even before the cartoonish 5th and 6th generation 69 on steroids tributes hit the showrooms.
The thing that gets me about the Mustang II, maybe this post would be more appropriate in the other thread, the rationalization people make for the total abandonment of performance would be akin today suggesting the way to boost waning 2016 ponycar sales is to make them all into CUVs. Good marketing move!
Prescient comment!
And people wonder why I’m a pessimist!
Whatever its advantages, the Camaro (and Firebird) was very unsafe in a collision, and, as the article notes near the end, you couldn’t even order radial tires on Camaros for 1973, so active safety wasn’t a great priority either.
I know they didn’t do well in crash tests, but I’ve seen F-bodies wrecked where people walked away with minor injuries from crashes where I didn’t think they had a chance. There was an infamous case in Las Vegas years ago where some scumbag stole a ’79(I think) Z-28, and ran into and through a rental Nova, cutting it in two, killing all the occupants. The perp attempted to walk away, but his ankle was broken. That was about all that was wrong with him. I’ve seen other bad wrecks of 2nd generation F-bodies where the occupants walked away and the people in the other car didn’t. I never felt unsafe in my ’79 T/A.
Of course there are contrary examples, like that of my parents’ friend who died in a one-car crash he ought to have survived, driving south on the Atlantic City Expressway in spring 1974 in a new Firebird – he was a Pontiac sales manager, too.
The irony of this story, of course, is that the Nova with fatalities is basically the same F-body under the skin
Having said that though, I’m curious about what makes these less safe than anything else from the era. Statistically speaking I’d wager any above average fatality rate could be linked to the fact that these kinds of cars are more recklessly driven, just as this story goes. The conclusion I’ve come to with the safety prospects of old cars is that they’re unpredictable, almost all safety advances, outside of cabin fortification, are measures to make the car and occupant go through their motions in a repeatable manner, whereas old cars you hit (get hit by) something just right you may walk away, most of the time it’s the inverse.
These days I would not think twice about fitting a roll cage in one of those cars if I thought about driving it hard for any period of time.
A Camaro better than a Mustang in every way? That’s music to my ears, and the way it should be. Of course I totally agree!
I highly approve of this article.
I think the comparison outlined in this article is ridiculous, taken in historical context.
Despite Paul’s assertion that the Camaro was superior, the marketplace did not agree.
Mustang II outsold the Camaro in ’74 (over 3 times the sales), ’75 and ’76.
The Mustang’s smaller dimensions, greater economy and styling flair had a broad market appeal for those times, that the Camaro could not match.
Simply put, the Mustang II was not aimed at the same market as the Camaro, despite the Mach package, so any direct comparison is misguided.
One is a performance car, and one is any upscale economy car. So its asinine to condemn the M II for failing at a mission it was not intended to do.
I like the 2nd gen Camaro just fine. Unusually, its sales grew as it aged, because fuel prices decreased, and people wanted more traditional performance cars.
I drove a new Mustang II a friend’s mother bought and I couldn’t understand why anyone, let alone a 40+ year old woman, would buy one over any number of other cars. It was cramped, slow, and really ugly, IMHO. And it was one of the few Ford vehicles of the era that I didn’t actually hate the styling of.
C&D is an enthusiast’s magazine so, of course, the Camaro is going to come out ahead of the Pinto-based Mustang II. If, say, Consumer Reports had compared the two, the results might have been different.
Which leads to something not mentioned, and that’s the timing of this particular Car and Driver. It’s the September, 1973 issue, which meant it likely came out in August, 1973. The Oil Embargo would hit a scant two months later. Virtually overnight, gas rationing meant fuel mileage would become the paramount metric on every new car, and that, alone, meant the much better (which is not to say great) fuel mileage of the Mustang II (particularly the four-cylinder versions), coupled with its mini-Thunderbird luxury feel during a time when the brougham era was in full swing, would handily trump the much better performance of the V8 Camaro, even when if the Camaro held a distinct price advantage.
The Mustang II’s lackluster performance (especially relative to the Camaro of the same time frame) make it the object of scorn and derision among the Mustang faithful. But it can’t be denied that its introduction was timed perfectly, and sales reflected that. IIRC, inaugural year Mustang II sales approached 500k units. That’s rarefied territory approaching the record numbers of the 1960 Falcon and 1965 Mustang. I think the 1974 Camaro sold a fraction of the Mustang II.
The key word missing here from condemnation of this comparison is “Mach 1”. This was a submodel that was the Z/28s direct rival from 1970-1973 (before I’m corrected, Boss 302 was an answer to the 67-69 302 powered Z/28, the 351 4V in the Mach 1 was pretty equal to the 70+ LT1 350). The Mach 1 package wasn’t about smaller dimensions and greater economy, it could have been a performer even with those traits if there were an effort to but it simply wasn’t. It was a mediocre performance car from day 1 and no matter how rose tinted the glasses get about the downsizing being the smartest decision for Ford and the survival of the Mustang (and I do agree it was), it failed miserably to keep the customer base who would be interested in cars like the Z/28 and that is a consumer base that tends to be a lot less fickle than the fad chasing secretary demographic this segment had.
The 1970-73 Camaro is a true design classic and its’ Ferrari-like styling looks like something that might have been done by Pininfarina. In 1973 the Type LT was something of a replacement for the SS and featured a much more luxurious interior that was aimed at women. One of the people who worked creating the Type LT version was Elaine Bond (who along with her husband, John Bond, had previously owned “Road & Track” magazine from 1952 to 1972). I’m not sure if she was some kind of a designer or just what she contributed to the project.
I remember reading an article where she said how much she enjoyed the project and stated that if Chevrolet wanted to, they could create the best cars in the world. GM quality was already starting to decline by then, and I remember thinking to myself at the time that GM obviously doesn’t want to build the best cars in the world and maybe Elaine Bond was just crazy.
The 70s Camaros always reminded me of Jaguar XJs, while Datsun 240Zs bore a mild resemblance to the XKE, in my mind. I’m not sure what the Mustang II reminds me of, do you?
As much as I did (past tense, sorry to say) worship “C&D” wayyyyy back then, I did notice that their zero to sixty test times were quicker than in other car magazines.
Anyone notice the awesomely wonderful art work in these road tests? “C&D” ‘s art director, Gene Buttera, (spelling) had a fine eye for positioning cars and their flattering, flavored angles,
C&D did, indeed, record the fastest review times, and it was talked about once. For starters, I think they only used a driver and recording equipment where others used a passenger. More importantly, C&D drivers were much more aggressive and harder on the cars, using drag racing techniques like riding the clutch, power braking, and power shifting, where others did not, granny shifting and the like.
Just last night I was checking online listings for 1970-1981 Camaros and it was so disheartening to see how few of these beautiful cars survive in original or restored to original condition. Almost every one is either a Z/28 or an over-the-top resto-mod. There were very, very few from ’70-’73 and even fewer of those that looked worth their asking price (or that didn’t have a vinyl roof covering). Knowing how few of these cars were built during their first 4 model years, I can’t even think about how many good ones are left. Instead, I’ll just imagine that somewhere there is an undiscovered trove of perfectly preserved ones, all with 350 V8s, rally wheels and no vinyl tops.
I am confused. (and that is easy for me)
The Camaro in the above picture was offered in model years 1970~1973.
But the Mustang II was offered in model years 1974~1978.
So these two cars did not compete against each other.
In 1974 the Camaro changed to a larger bodied and heavier car.
That is the Camaro that should have been compared to the Mustang II.
I had the same thoughts. In September of ’73, the ’74’s were rolling off the assembly line and what was still on the dealership’s lot were the only new ’73’s available. And a V6 vs V8 is apples to oranges. A ’74 6 cylinder Camaro auto (since no 4 speed was available) vs a V6 automatic Mustang II would have been an interesting and more even write up.
The heavier big bumper ’74 was the one to test. But as others have noted, 4 speed 4 cylinder Mustang II’s were a big seller due to the gas shortage happening just as this car came out. You couldn’t buy a 4 cylinder Camaro (or even 6 cylinder 4 speed) and gas mileage was number one requirement at this time. Which is why around half a million new Mustang’s were sold in ’74.
In ’75 Mustang had the 302 optional, but it struggled to get 15 MPG highway. Mexico got the 302 in ’74.
While I’m generally a “Chevy guy” for this area, comparing the 1974 Mustang Mach to the 1973 Z28 is unfair. The 1973 Mustang was available with the 266 HP (SAE Net) Q Code 351 Cleveland, which was a huge step up from what the ’74 Mustang offered. 1973 Mustang was also available with FORGED aluminum alloy wheels, Ram Air induction and a variety of other high performance options.
The 1973 Z28’s price adjusted for inflation is about $27K today. Something has gone awfully wrong.
It has? $27k gets one into a brand new Camaro today that would embarrass every single performance metric of this Z…
27k today gets you a base, you want a Z/28 today you’re starting at $75k, or roughly $11,000 in 1973 money. About the price of a 1973 Porsche 911S.
You don’t feel that The Wildest Camaro of fifty years ago isn’t remotely competitive with the most mundane of today underscores how comparing like-for-like models of today to those of a bygone era isn’t useful to make any particular point other than the bar we measure vehicles with is so far removed from vehicles of the not so distant past that it has become meaningless? You will struggle to convince me automotive dollars today don’t go farther than they did then.
Your comment got me to look at Chevy’s website. While I’m not in the market for a Camaro or anything similar, frankly I’m astounded at what that $27k number gets you. 275hp, 295tq, 6speed manual, 18″ wheels/tires, several no cost color options (I’d take blue over black I think), limited slip diff, plenty of interior stuff to play with, and no unnecessary extra body addons. Maybe I’d spring for the $195 red seatbelts just to jazz it up a bit. And also because the same item over at Porsche is over $500 so there. But I can’t think of any other options I’d *have* to have.
It’d be a VERY tough sell to pony up an additional $50k or whatever Matt says it is for the Z28 without my own track to actually use it on, let alone as a daily driver.
I do wonder which would be more difficult to actually lay hands on, the $75k Z28 or the $27k no option but very well equipped bargain.
Of the three, I’m pretty confident the $27k one is the one most likely to be driven regularly.
I’d pass on a new Camaro simply due to the extreme difficulty of seeing out of one of those things.
The Mustang is a bit better, but a little tighter fit.
So, for my money, I’d go with a V6 Challenger. In fact, I rather like the AWD Challenger GT. More than adequate acceleration in all weather conditions and a much better daily-driver than the Chevy or Ford ponycars. The only real negative is that, unlike the other two, the V6 Challenger can only be had with an automatic.
It’s a shame that it looks like it’s nearing the end of the line for Chrysler’s RWD coupes (and sedans).
I think the point of a Camaro (and its competitors) traditionally hasn’t been to see out of it, but to be seen in it. 🙂
But like I said I’m not in the market for any of these or comparing the pros and cons of them beyond what $27k gets you. The Challenger starts $3500 or so higher and if you want AWD, then that’s another $2500 on top of that. Which takes it out of the ballpark entirely beyond reinforcing that $27k seems very reasonable for what you get at the Chevy store.
Do you feel the current Z/28 at a starting price of $75,000 not including options and dealer markup is a performance bargain? It doesn’t cost $50,000 more to manufacture than a base Camaro I can guarantee that.
A base Camaro’s performance relative to the old ones is irrelevant, the top dog Z/28 of yore ran circles around the mundane cars of its time too but it cost the adjusted price of a base Camaro today. A base Camaro’s cost in 1973 was even less, under $20,000 adjusted for inflation.
I have no interest in Z/28 levels of high performance mind you, I think I grew out of that, but that price range puts any dream or aspiration to buy one right out of the question. Toys for the rich.
I think the point of a Camaro (and its competitors) traditionally hasn’t been to see out of it, but to be seen in it.
Yeah that’s not optimal either lol
The problem with not being able to see out of the Camaro being secondary to being seen in one, is you can’t do that very well, either!
But it’s certainly not the only one. I vividly recall a road test of the old DeTomaso (ne: Mercury) Pantera which said the exact same thing about driving one of those.
I didn’t realize there was such a premium for the Challenger, either. Sure, you get an automatic and some other stuff (like aluminum wheels while the base Camaro comes with steelies), but it wouldn’t seem to justify the big price increase over the Camaro (especially if AWD is thrown into the picture). That does shed a whole new light on things.
Do you feel the current Z/28 at a starting price of $75,000 not including options and dealer markup is a performance bargain?
I honestly don’t know enough about top-tier performance vehicles such as this to really say; I fail to grasp the point of sub 5 second 0-60 machinery in the lens of what-my-money can buy type conversation for the everyday man because ultra-fast cars capable of this? Where and when does that distinction ever factor in to your use? I’m sure the same was said a million times over regarding the ‘73 in its era from the article above, but again the bar today is so drastically different, where family sedans and CUV’s can easily encroach onto 6 second territory it’s hard to logically qualify why I feel the way I do. Most any category of vehicle today *can* be fast, and truly fast today is at a level unthinkable 50 years ago. I guess, particularly in light of electrification now, blinding swiftness isn’t the absolute and definitive WOW for ICE vehicles it used to be? I wish I could articulate upon this feeling of mine in a more precise metric.
Circling back to the $27,000 question, I do feel that the performance on offer with that new starter Camaro is sufficiently superior to most anything else (?) at that same price point today to still have some of that wow factor intact, and that is the essence of my original challenge to the idea that something has gone terribly wrong in autodom.
I’m sure the same was said a million times over regarding the ‘73 in its era from the article above, but again the bar today is so drastically different, where family sedans and CUV’s can easily encroach onto 6 second territory it’s hard to logically qualify why I feel the way I do. Most any category of vehicle today *can* be fast, and truly fast today is at a level unthinkable 50 years ago.
But those same metrics keep on going, the bar of progress today isn’t any more drastic than it was in 1973. That was 50 years ago, performance of 1973 cars, even the ones knocking on the door of what we now refer to as “malaise era”, had unthinkable performance compared to cars made in 1923.
This is why I never liked these era comparisons, it’s always trying to look at how far we’ve come by taking a car at the peak of engineering of yore and negatively comparing it to the relatively sedate today, but it’s rarely taken into account that those cars of the past were leaps and bounds better than what came before them as well.
I don’t necessarily have much passion for cars like the current Z/28 but it’s clear as day to me where his sentiment of the pricing structure going awfully wrong is coming from. The Z/28 and just about every Muscle car that came before were for better or worse obtainable for the young everyman despite being as fast or faster than much more expensive foreign high performance cars(in a straight line), hell the L88 Corvette in 1969 cost $6,500(50,000 inflation adjusted) and it was a sub-5 second 0-60 car even then!
I’m sure the same was said a million times over regarding the ‘73 in its era from the article above,
I get your point, and yes, the bar has moved considerably, but not that much. This ’73 Camaro is not nearly the equivalent of today’s Z/28, even adjusting for “performance inflation”. In terms of its improved metrics vs a base V8 Camaro, the gap was much narrower then. And in terms of its metrics relative to many other cars at the time, the same mostly applies. Yes, by 1973, there was something of a paucity of new comparable cars on the market, but there was a plethora of muscle and hi-po pony cars all over the place, and with a bit of attention to their shocks and tires and such, they performed not that differently. Well, a fair number would have been quicker.
Cars like the current Z/28 are essentially “supercars”, and the analogue back in 1973 would have been a very specially built Camaro with an aluminum Z-1 427 and race-prepped suspension, brake and tire upgrades. And that would have put it closer price-wise (if not higher) to the current Z/28.
Yes, today’s dollars go further, even adjusted. It only makes sense; the technology to do so constantly becomes cheaper.
The $27K number doesn’t get you anything, while $4,066 bought the most desirable Camaro in 1973. A look at Cars.com shows that the cheapest Camaro on the market is actually $34,350. It has been on the market for 51 days and has had its price reduced from an MSRP of $34,850.
Comparing a hypothetical rental car spec Camaro to the top of the line Camaro from 50 years ago is a massive rationalization of what has occurred. Even a $3,300 1973 Camaro was from far up the model range. A base Camaro was $2,872 in 1973. That’s $19,000 today. Sure, it wasn’t as good as a $34K Camaro made 50 years later, but at least you could buy a new car for $19K that didn’t look like you bought it because of the price. Today, a loaded Mazda 3 is $36K. That’s double what it was fifteen years ago, but you get so much more! /s
I want to make this very clear.
The Camaro (and Firebird) of ’71-’73 are definitely in my top ten favorite-looking cars of all time list. They are just the toppest-of-shelf.
But the Mustang II hatchback was and is an attractive shape to me. I think it’s downright pretty. I LIKE it’s front overhang and it’s smallish wheels; especially the 5-slot mags.
I once drove an immaculate V8 coupe (sedan? Whatever – the one with a trunk) and it drove positively lame.
But with regard to looks I think it’s unfairly maligned. It has it’s own look and it works for me.
But again, I LOVE that Camaro and IMHO GM ruled the 70s for anything (American) performance-related.
I might have missed it, but I didn’t see anything mentioned about those Rally Sport ‘bumperettes’. I know the Chrysler E-body got an exemption to the way the 5mph bumper test was conducted for their last two years (it was done entirely perpendicular with zero offset of any kind), but how the hell did GM get the Rally Sport front end to pass?
There just doesn’t look like the 1973 Rally Sport front end would pass ‘any’ kind of 5mph bumper test, regardless of how it was administered.
That ’73 Camaro is a beautiful car, but we all know that GM makes garbage. I’ve read similar to that here quite often. Many, many “sins”, or whatever superstitious metaphors are preferred.
My dad had a ’74 Z that came with a weak bottom end from the factory. It still hauled ass, and had a super tight Turbo 400. When my mom finally blew a rod through the oil pan, the Chev dealer built him a trick 350 at their in house race shop. He said it took another 6 months for his head to stop rattling after he took off the headers that had been installed. Said it was the quickest car he ever had, faster than his ill-fated LT-1 Nova, or his 71 Corvette convertible. Even when it was death-knocking itself to pieces. Why anyone would buy the Pinto-In-A-Party-Dress Mustang II is beyond me. Dreadful handling shit box, and a pox on the pony name.
My older Brother bought a new ’73 Camaro LT Type, black/black vinyl top with a blue cloth interior. Two barrel 350 with auto. It came with buckets, but a column shift. He immediately added the standard aftermarket improvements. Dual glass pack exhaust, alloy wheels. and a cassette stereo. It was a beautiful car and believe it or not, he put 80,000 miles on it in a bit over three years. I got to drive it a few times and it was a great car, lots of fun. He traded it on a used ’76 Trans Am, which was even better.
Mustang IIs? My younger Brother had one, four /four speed. Slow, but not ugly in my eyes. A shadow of it’s former self, yes but it’s mission was different.
Consider that the Camaro/Firebird remained a full size Pony car until it was downsized slightly in ’82. The Mustang II was a remake of the original Mustang as an economy car. It was as different from the original as if Chevy had introduced the Monza with a Camaro badge. The Mustang didn’t return as a full size Pony car until 2005.
Yes, the current Z28 is a true supercar, not a volume model. The Mustang GT is also a volume model, but it takes a Shelby to equal a Z28. Just like you can’t compare a HellCat to any classic Mopar muscle car.
Is their performance excessive? Sure, but it all comes down to bragging rights for their well heeled buyers. The buyers are die hard American Muscle car fans. They want something that they can brag about in comparison to their Porsche owning buddies.
The rest of us get to enjoy the best base models ever!
Yes, the current Z28 is a true supercar, not a volume model. The Mustang GT is also a volume model, but it takes a Shelby to equal a Z28. Just like you can’t compare a HellCat to any classic Mopar muscle car.
Is their performance excessive? Sure, but it all comes down to bragging rights for their well heeled buyers. The buyers are die hard American Muscle car fans. They want something that they can brag about in comparison to their Porsche owning buddies.
The rest of us get to enjoy the best base models ever!
For the standards of the time I’d argue any Hemi powered Mopar, high spec flavor of 427/454 powered Chevy, good versions of 427 and 428cj Fords were the equivelents. Its true a 73 Z/28 wasnt that much faster than a non Z V8 Camaro, especially with some tweaks by the owner, but there were absolutely untouchably fast cars back then, even more so with tweaks of their own.
And you effectively just summed up what is wrong with the world today, really. Muscle car owners shouldn’t be well heeled buddies Porsche owners, muscle cars used to be cheap thrills within the reach of the blue collar everyman who had the crudely attained power to stick it to the ivy league snobs in their fancy expensive foreign jobs at the stoplights! Where’s the sense of rebellion in a $75,000 Muscle car?
The acceleration times in the article show that net HP is often overlooked, and smog era cars were not “all slow”. Some assume that in 1972, “HP was drastically cut!”, but was the ratings. Gross HP was used in ‘muscle car era’ and everyone goes on and on about “how high the #’s were”, but was a differing method.
Also, the F bodies started making comeback in sales, during the Gas Crisis of all times. Totally unexpected.
Comparing base Camaro then to now, the ’73 had an I6 with 3 speed manual, no A/C, power accessories or even radio. No, they were not “deleted” at the factory, just not installed at all. 😉
The SD455 reference point in the CD article is bogus. It’s now well established fact that that particular car (also as tested by HOT ROD magazine) was a “pre-production” model fitted with the planned RA IV cam (never made production due to emissions issues), milled and ported heads with port matching, functional cold air induction, a larger carb, more aggressive distributor and so on. Actual production cars were closer in performance to the ’73 Z28 than they were to the prototype SD455 car. The Z28s were also lighter, in part due to the small block Chevy vs subtanally heavier Pontiac 455 engines.