Car Life’s main intent with their 1967 Camaro road test is clearly stated in their first paragraph: “The dilemma facing a potential Camaro buyer is a natural one for this time and place in the automotive firmament… The problem is not whether to buy the Camaro, but what kind of Camaro, for the Camaro probably wears more faces than any other single car now made.”
For gearheads, the drivetrain options offered throughout the ’60s and early ’70s are a matter of wonder. In the Camaro, they were indeed plentiful; the choice of engines, transmissions, and gear ratios available offered countless combinations and possibilities. It made sense; arriving late to the Ponycar segment, mighty GM clearly wanted to take over everyone by offering more than anyone.
Lots have been written on the Camaro since its inception, and I won’t elaborate much on this particular review. I prefer to showcase it as a window to the period it reflects. A moment where drivetrain options almost seem to have run amok. As per the CL article, seven engines and nine transmissions were available for the 1967 Camaro, from adequate to wild, covering “virtually every imaginable automotive purpose, including all-out road racing and dragstrip competition.”
True to form, CL’s text goes back and forth on the many ways the Camaro could do with available Chevrolet hardware. As was the norm with such ‘choice’ tests of the period, CL’s test cars were a lightly equipped six, low on retail cost, and an SS 350 loaded with options and carrying a pricetag $1000 higher.
The Camaro’s base engine was Chevrolet’s 230CID 140 HP six cyl. For the test, CL opted for the upgrade 250CID Big Six, a $26.35 option with 155 HP that measurably increased the car’s driveability.
In such a guise, the Camaro acquitted itself quite well. With its 3-speed synchromesh transmission, it delivered “surprising fuel economy,” and its 11 secs 0-60 MPH time was comparable to that of moderate V8s of the period (one wonders what it could have done with a 4-speed manual). Under driving, all this added to a car that had a balanced feel and offered fairly good cornering and handling characteristics.
Meanwhile, the SS 350 V8 “really blossoms as a personal/luxury/HP sort of car, though some penalties must be paid in both cost and handling… However, the SS 350 is likely to be more popular, simply because it moves with spirit and authority when the throttle pedal is depressed.”
True that. As history has proven and CL’s own review states towards the end: “The editor of another automotive magazine… bought an SS 350 for his own personal use. The reason? ‘Because it’s fun to drive.'”
Being new for 1967, a good deal of the article is devoted to the Camaro’s creation. Infant computer technology was applied to the Camaro’s development to a greater extent than any other car in GM’s history up to that point. Computer calculations were used for suspension components, cabin isolation, and even the vehicle’s shape. Meanwhile, its unique unitized body/sub-chassis body combination was a growth of earlier tests done on Chevy II mock-ups.
Regardless of computer use, other reviews found the ‘67 Firebird rear suspension a better choice than the Camaro’s.
Some quibbles regarding fit and finish appear towards the end, finding fault with exterior panels that were slightly wavy and paint finish that had ‘orange peel’ in some areas. That, plus other minor complaints in ergonomics.
But overall, reviewers felt the Camaro had a high degree of “Fun Factor.”
1976 brochure.
The dilemma facing a potential Camaro buyer is a natural one for this time and place in the automotive firmament…
Indeed. In hindsight, reviewers probably didn’t need a crystal ball to figure that such variety was not feasible in the long run. Stocking parts and supplies, and keeping choices open to a minor segment of buyers didn’t do wonders for Chevrolet’s operational costs. By the mid-’70s, the division had gone through quite a bit of operational streamlining and the choice menu had been considerably curtailed, as can be seen in the ’76 Camaro brochure above. And well, market tendencies and production realities were just changing in general.
Still, it was quite a time to experience and a good moment to reminisce and fantasize (What would I’ve ordered?). Then again, those in love with machinery have kept playing with such choices ever since on their own, with or without factory support.
Further reading:
In May of 1967 the gal across the street got a new Camaro as a high school graduation present from her doting parents. Her Father wanted her to have a reliable car to drive to and from LSU in the fall. (She flunked out in 2 semesters; but that’s another story….)
Crocus yellow, black interior, gorgeous car! Already a young boy who lived and breathed cars, I had a serious 12 year old case of automotive lust over her new car.
The only options on her new car were: A heater, AM pushbutton radio and the 2 speed Powerglide transmission.
After working up the courage to ask her for a ride around town in it, my automotive envy and lust and desire was destroyed in a 3 minute drive.
Alas, my object of automotive infatuation sounded JUST like my Grandpa’s 1951-ish Chevy fastback! There was no mistaking that awful sound of a Powerglide six-in-a-row-that-don’t-go Chevy wheezing around town, her foot to the floor, making the Chevy seldom shift out of low gear.
Back to my “Motor Trend”, “Car & Driver” and “Road & Track” magazines to find a new automotive obsession to dream about.
3 speeds are one thing, but the column shift linkage had no place in a car like this and I’m not sure if that’s a case of auto execs a generation older than the target market not getting it or of wanting to be able to charge extra for a floor/console shift.
Comparing the 1967 powertrain options to the 1976 misses the fact that by ’76 the Monza was positioned to split what had been the Camaro’s market (there was still the Corvair in ’67 but that was basically moribund and didn’t get the marketing push the Monza would going into its second year in ’76).
I have occasionally seen a manual three-on-the-floor first gen Camaro and Firebird; but I cannot recall ever seeing a “3-on-the-tree” model in the real world?
I read Delorean’s book, “On a Clear Day…”. Said when he got to Chevrolet, he found the excessively complicated options matrix was a big cost and headache. I wonder if a floor shift was also an option, for $11.23 or something silly.
You’re probably right. The original purpose for moving the shifter from the floor to the column (in the 30s/40s) was to free up the center of a bench seat for a passenger. That doesn’t make sense for the Camaro, because there was no center seat.
And the sum cost of all of the parts required for a column shift mechanism certainly had to be *more* than a floor shift. All of those rods and levers and pivots and bushings vs. a lever bolted directly to the transmission and poking through a cheap rubber boot in the floor (console was optional). A floor shift simply HAD to be cheaper to implement than one on the column.
It was just typical nickel-and-dime stuff of the era.
You’re all missing a very key factor: The ’67-’69 Camaro shared it platform and many key elements including the steering column with the ’68-up Chevy II. The Chevy II would have needed a column shift, so it was more economical and efficient to use the same column and shift linkage for both of them.
Also, the Camaro did offer an optional bench front seat.
The ’67 and ’68 Camaro brochure does not indicate that a floor shift for the standard three speed manual was available or optional. There was a “Special” three-speed (heavy duty) with a 2.41 1st gear that was available with the 350 V8 and mandatory with the 396 V8, and it came with a floor shift.
Update: I found a detailed option list, and there was a floor shift option for $10, standard with the HD 3-speed and 4-speeds. It was ordered on some 12k ’67 Camaros.
What’s interesting is that the sixes were available with an optional 4-speed (with floor shift) that had a higher numerical 2.85 1st gear, compared to the 2.54 1st gear on the one installed on the V8s (other than the HD unit).
I assume column shift was invented to make heavy, unassisted steering easier to deal with when parallel parking or driving in the city. Drive-in snoogling came later.
That bench seat looks inviting. Never knew the Camaro offered one. Must be rare nowadays.
Nope, it was about center passenger space, as Evan says, although when it first started coming into vogue, there were assertions that it was a safety feature because it reduced the need to take your hand off the wheel to shift. (This was one of the things that Oldsmobile pointed to in calling its 1937–1939 semiautomatic transmission the “Automatic Safety Transmission.”)
An old girlfriend had a base model ’68 with a 250 and a 3 speed, but it was floor mounted.
Power steering but no power brakes, which was not uncommon in those days. When the 3 speed packed it in I installed a Saginaw 4 speed from a Vega, which was a 75 dollar item in the wrecking yard. It was quite a pleasant car to drive, but in those days if it wasn’t a V-8 I wasn’t interested.
Experience taught me these were much better cars with a 6 or a lo-po 327 than we gave them credit for at the time, and that’s how the vast majority of them were equipped. Big power is great, but these cars really didn’t handle it very well. I suspect most lo-po Camaros came with the miserable Powerglide though, which would sap most of the fun.
When the Camaro was released I got a sales brochure and seem to remember the 194 cubic inch 6 was the standard engine. I do remember seeing one (1) Camaro, a stripper with the three on the tree. Reading the car rags in 1967, it seemed the Camaro got off to a slow start, there was a lot of criticism that the 350 was the largest engine while the Mustang was available with a 390 (this was the ’60’s), and the use of the single leaf rear springs from the Chevy II.
The 1967-1968 Camaro’s are my all-time favorite car. The styling of these inaugural models was just outstanding. The ’68 was more refined with the staggered shocks to help rear suspension hop, and the interior was generally nicer, but the ’67 had the great vent windows and I love the grille on the basic ’67 model with the round turn signal lights and the round driver door rear view mirror. It would be a hard choice for me to decide which one I liked better. But I’ll take either model in original or restored, stock condition. That means stock wheel covers, not aftermarket Cragars. Also, I would prefer either a narrow white stripe radial or a red stripe radial tire package. And don’t cut up the dash for an aftermarket stereo. Give me the original AM or AM/FM radio, thank you. Will take one with a vinyl top, but prefer not to have one. Love the convertible and the coupe, but would rather have a coupe.
It looks like you had even fewer options in California in 1976. While you still had your choice of three engines, no manual transmissions were CA emissions certified. The only transmission you could get was the THM (which granted most buyers were probably getting anyways).
Mark Reimer’s experience was rather like mine, and I owned a 1967 Camaro. It was a base V8 stripper with an AM radio, the optional bench seat with fold-diwn armrest and Powerglide.
It handled nose-heavy, a committed understeerer. It rode like a buckboard. The cheap Chevy II Mono-plate rear springs wrapped up and juddered even with the base regular gas 327 and the Powerglide, which burned out its high clutch at 40,000 miles I replaced the clutch pack and it was about to burn out again at 73,000.
That nice looking front seat was a hard and thinly padded slab.
My next car was a 1968 Plymouth Valiant Signet with a Slant Six, Torqueflite, and air conditioning. Still only an AM radio, though. It was nowhere near as nice looking. But it was a much better CAR. “Ask the man who owned one.”
My mother acquired a ’67 Camaro with the 6 cylinder engine after her ’64 Rambler American suffered some kind of rear axle/drivetrain failure. It was an OK car in my memory (Chevrolet did an overall good job on the styling IMO) but it seemed devoid of any real personality. It felt vaguely embarrassing to be in a car that looked much ‘sportier’ on the outside than was the reality. I remember driving the Rambler harder and having more fun with it, perhaps because of reduced expectations.
Slightly off-topic, but I’ve never heard of hydromechanical bodywork dampers in the four corners of a convertible car before. I wonder if that is (or was) a common practice?