Driving Down the Road: Camaro - New vs. Old

Research is fun, and enlightening.

To get a feel for the performance potential of the first-generation Chevrolet Camaro, I pulled some relevant magazines off the bookshelf. To wit: Car & Driver, November 1966 for the 350, March 1967 for the Z-28, and September 1967 for an aftermarket streetable drag car by Nickey Chevrolet and Bill Thomas Race Cars, with a blueprinted twin-four barrel 427 cubic inch Corvette big block in the engine compartment.

Relevant facts

OK ... The 350 was likely a pre-production or early production car, tested before prices were set. The original Z-28 was a limited-production homologation special, made for eligibility for SCCA Trans-Am racing. The Nickey/Thomas car was a non-factory special, with a specially-prepared big-block dropped in and chassis optimized for going a quarter mile at at time, very quickly.

Engine outputs between now and then are not directly comparable, as the standards then were quite a bit looser, usually measured without losses from various belts and accessory drives. But if the 350 and Z28 were perhaps a little optimistic, the breathed-on 427 wasn't, although that engine was a $1,500 item — I think a VW Beetle was about $1,800 in those days.

Pretty much everything in the 2010 Camaro would have been exotica and unobtainium 40 years ago. Yes, there were aluminum-block Chevy V8s, but if you didn't have a good connection inside Chevrolet, you weren't likely to get one. 6-speed gearboxes were Formula One material, maybe. Even there, five was more likely. And Can-Am, with highly-tuned, production-based American V8s? 4, maybe 5. Credit to materials science and metallurgy over the past decades... and (unintentionally) Federal fuel economy legislation. And yes, 6 still do cost more than 4.

Fuel economy? Fuel injection wastes much less fuel than carburetors, and modern engines run leaner for emissions purposes. Advances in design and materials allow this. Multi-speed gearboxes allow lower lows, higher highs, and closer steps between, for improvements in both acceleration and fuel economy. And yes, if you ran a Camaro SS in 2nd gear exclusively, you'd have quite a soundtrack and probably 5 mpg at best.

The biggest improvements have been in brakes and tires, especially tires. Late-60s street-spec tires were starting to get wide, but still had high aspect ratios (like 80%) and bias-ply construction. Radials were rare imports from Michelin or Pirelli, and expensive. The best racing tires of the day would be eclipsed by any decent mid-level performance tire of today, and the 010 Camaro's Pirelli P-Zeros are considerably above that. I suspect that an old car with new rubber could knock a few seconds off acceleration times. And improve cornering behavior immensely, although suspension modifications may be necessary.

Independent suspension of the driven wheels requires strong constant-velocity joints that can withstand tremendous torque loadings. These didn't exist in the 60s, and u-joints and sliding halfshafts were fragile, none-too-reliable, expensive race car material. With the advent of front-wheel drive, for packaging efficiency and traction at constant speeds, came necessary development of CV joints, eventually benefitting rear-drive traditionalists. And since that GM "world rear-drive platform" on which the new Camaro is based has a high volume of production, costs can be spread out more than if the car was based on it's own unique platform as was the case with the old "F-body" Camaro and Pontiac Firebird.

So, celebrate the past, but today's Camaro can whup any previous production version at the strip, and can even hold its own against drag-race specials. Down a winding road, forget the past. Todays tires, suspension, and brakes will see to that. No, they don't make them like they used to - they make them better.