Life Magazine 1969 Camaro SS

[Rocknroller]

First of all, this post is not intended to throw out any flame for all currnet Gen 5 or past SS owners.

Others may find my story boring, but,,,,

I was looking through some boxes today and came across a bunch of LIFE mags and what a better thing to do, but pilfer through them on a day when it's way too hot to be doing anything outside here in the sunbelt of the U.S.A.

As a child of the 60's, I like reading the events and editorial opinions of was transpring in that period of time. There was a lot of turmoil going on then as there is now.. Anyway, there was one particular mag that caught my attention. The cover had some pics of the lunar surface taken by Apollo 8. When I got halfway throuh the magazine, there was a fold out ad of the 1969 Camaro 396 (325 h.p.) Turbo Jet. I remember drooling over this car and never could touch them. Closest as ever I got was a '69 Nova, (another story).

To end this story, GM/Chevy has came a long way in 40+ yrs. Improving on suspension, aminities dot dot dot... Once, the only option for audio was a 8 track player which gave the customer the privilage to listen to what they wanted, when they wanted. Love the analog BTW...

V6 owners can be happy to know that, even though the torque is not equal to the '69, the current G5 V6's horsepower is very close. BUT>>>> the SS is a much better example of what a GM muscle car should and could be.


My best regards,

just an old hippie

[Nightfall]

nice story owning a v6 myself im content with its power and with acouple mods i could equal it if i wished but i like to see pics of that fold out

[TOMS1SS]

Originally Posted by Rocknroller

First of all, this post is not intended to throw out any flame for all currnet Gen 5 or past SS owners.

Others may find my story boring, but,,,,

I was looking through some boxes today and came across a bunch of LIFE mags and what a better thing to do, but pilfer through them on a day when it's way too hot to be doing anything outside here in the sunbelt of the U.S.A.

As a child of the 60's, I like reading the events and editorial opinions of was transpring in that period of time. There was a lot of turmoil going on then as there is now.. Anyway, there was one particular mag that caught my attention. The cover had some pics of the lunar surface taken by Apollo 8. When I got halfway throuh the magazine, there was a fold out ad of the 1969 Camaro 396 (325 h.p.) Turbo Jet. I remember drooling over this car and never could touch them. Closest as ever I got was a '69 Nova, (another story).

To end this story, GM/Chevy has came a long way in 40+ yrs. Improving on suspension, aminities dot dot dot... Once, the only option for audio was a 8 track player which gave the customer the privilage to listen to what they wanted, when they wanted. Love the analog BTW...

V6 owners can be happy to know that, even though the torque is not equal to the '69, the current G5 V6's horsepower is very close. BUT>>>> the SS is a much better example of what a GM muscle car should and could be.


My best regards,

just an old hippie

You do know what the LTT puts out more "actual" power because they were rating those engines gross back in 69?

[Rocknroller]

Quote: You do know what the LTT puts out more "actual" power because they were rating those engines gross back in 69?

TOMS1SS, no I wasn't aware of that, thanks..

I just noticed the numbers reflecting h.p. and that's what initiated my thoughts to write. BTW; what's LTT?

[Lazerbrainz2k3]

Originally Posted by Rocknroller

V6 owners can be happy to know that, even though the torque is not equal to the '69, the current G5 V6's horsepower is very close. BUT>>>> the SS is a much better example of what a GM muscle car should and could be.

From everything I've read, the new V6's have at least a full second over the '69 SS396 going 0-60 - and a good half-second over it in the 1/4 mi. And as has been stated, comparing net horsepower to net horsepower, the 396 had what, about 270hp? Versus 312... that's a pretty good advantage.

[TOMS1SS]

Originally Posted by Rocknroller

Quote: You do know what the LTT puts out more "actual" power because they were rating those engines gross back in 69?

TOMS1SS, no I wasn't aware of that, thanks..

I just noticed the numbers reflecting h.p. and that's what initiated my thoughts to write. BTW; what's LTT?

The LTT is the 3.6 Liter V6 in the LS and LT Camaro that was rated at 304, 312, 323 horses depending on the model year of the 5th generation of the Camaro. Prior to 1972 engines were rated at the flywheel with no drive accessories attached, from 72 on they were. A common misconception is that overall engine output dropped dramatically in 1972 but in reality it stayed pretty much the same, just the way it was calculated was changed. A good case and point is the LS3 402 engine. In 1971 this engine produced 300 horses gross, in 1972 when the measurements were changed it was rated at 240 horses. The old 396 you speak of in the 69 Camaro would probably only put out 250-260 horses with post 72 net ratings.

[Bay Area SS]

Originally Posted by Lazerbrainz2k3

From everything I've read, the new V6's have at least a full second over the '69 SS396 going 0-60 - and a good half-second over it in the 1/4 mi. And as has been stated, comparing net horsepower to net horsepower, the 396 had what, about 270hp? Versus 312... that's a pretty good advantage.

I beg to differ...

[TOMS1SS]

Originally Posted by Bay Area SS

I beg to differ...

Read the last Motortrend, the data is on the 69s performance is published.

[Bay Area SS]

The 396 came in 325 350 and 375 HP options. And these numbers were actually higher. The numbers were fudged for insurance purposes.

[Sterling]

Originally Posted by TOMS1SS

You do know what the LTT puts out more "actual" power because they were rating those engines gross back in 69?

I think you meant LLT...

[oldfriend]

Originally Posted by TOMS1SS

The LTT is the 3.6 Liter V6 in the LS and LT Camaro that was rated at 304, 312, 323 horses depending on the model year of the 5th generation of the Camaro. Prior to 1972 engines were rated at the flywheel with no drive accessories attached, from 72 on they were. A common misconception is that overall engine output dropped dramatically in 1972 but in reality it stayed pretty much the same, just the way it was calculated was changed. A good case and point is the LS3 402 engine. In 1971 this engine produced 300 horses gross, in 1972 when the measurements were changed it was rated at 240 horses. The old 396 you speak of in the 69 Camaro would probably only put out 250-260 horses with post 72 net ratings.

Good reading for this early on the GREAT 4 JULY , but how in hell do you know all of this this early in the morning ?

[TOMS1SS]

Originally Posted by Bay Area SS

The 396 came in 325 350 and 375 HP options. And these numbers were actually higher. The numbers were fudged for insurance purposes.

Ahhh the here it comes the old muscle car mythology. Yes some cars stock could run quarter miles in the high 13s from the factory but that was not the norm. The engines you speak of that were underrated from the factory tended to be racing engines like the L88, ZL1 and of course Hemi. You can tell those engines were underrated because where the power number was pulled in the RPM range on the factory rating. Lets of course not forget that even underrated these engines were still rated at gross and not net. People have such fond memories of these old cars that they aren't even remember for what they really even were.

[TOMS1SS]

Originally Posted by oldfriend

Good reading for this early on the GREAT 4 JULY , but how in hell do you know all of this this early in the morning ?

I actually got up early to go do some running while its still reasonable to do so outside. I love these debates about the old vs. the new. There is so much myth and fond memories in the old cars that goes into how they are perceived that isn't supported by actual fact. Makes me wonder how the 5th Gen cars will be looked at in 40 years. Its like me saying an Nintendo is better than a Wii, I might have stronger attachments to one but it does not make it a better machine.

[oldfriend]

Originally Posted by TOMS1SS

I actually got up early to go do some running while its still reasonable to do so outside. I love these debates about the old vs. the new. There is so much myth and fond memories in the old cars that goes into how they are perceived that isn't supported by actual fact. Makes me wonder how the 5th Gen cars will be looked at in 40 years. Its like me saying an Nintendo is better than a Wii, I might have stronger attachments to one but it does not make it a better machine.

It sounds more like that some people want/needed and decided to live in the pass ,which is great and to me it means that they have great memories from the [gone by] times and they do not want to let it go , on the other side about the Nitendo we all know that there is nothing like that even today ,and i think that will stay like that for [at least] forever !And please if you think otherwise don't break my heart !