15 Coolest Camaros Through the Years by MSN Auto

[Rocky1974]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Yea that is the same thing I thought. Its just a list of every Camaro variation.

Either you don't know much about Camaros or you didn't look at the list very close.

[Rocky1974]

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

Also bear in mind that the car manufacturers out and out lied then as they do today.

GM: It's a 402? We'll still call it a 396! It's a 401? Tell the bean-counters its a 400, that will get us around the corporate ban.

Ford: Our new engine is 428 cubic inches, just like one we already have? OK, call it a 429!

All of them: we can make 400 hp and then the engine detonated on the test stand? Great! Rate them all at 400 hp

Actually, I can think of only one instance (Buick) that not only used repeatable average hp output, and under-rated hp, in an effort to get the division to sorta look the other way. Their back-door racing program was closed down just the same.

And Ford's 427 was actually a 425 and their 5.0 was actually a 4.9. The first time that Ford built a 5.0 Mustang with a 5.0 in it was 2011!

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by Rocky1974

And some of them were overrated too and the only ones that were underrated were the ones at the upper end of the horsepower ladder. The torque ratings were rated in SAE Gross then verses SAE Net now also. I'm not trying to tell you that today's V6 has as much torque as a Muscle Car Era Big Block, but the difference is not as much as you would think. Horsepower owes it's existence to torque. No torque, no horsepower.

I disagree with your last statement, back in the mid 70's the big block motors were way down on HP but still developed quite a bit of torque. Even today you have some motors that develop a high HP for their size but lower torque than a V8 that has the same HP.
Look at the specs for the 1972 Chevelle SS 454 for example. 270HP but still 390 FT-Lbs of torque. Those were SAE NET.

1972 Chevrolet Chevelle Specifications
Engine Location Front
Drive Type Rear Wheel
Production Years for Series 1968 - 1972
Price $2,635-$3,135
Weight 3170 lbs | 1437.888 kg

Engine Type : V8 7440 cc | 454.0 cu in. | 7.4 L.
270 BHP (198.72 KW) @ 4000 RPM
390 Ft-Lbs (529 NM) @ 3200 RPM
Bore : 4.3 in | 108 mm.
Stroke : 4.0 in | 102 mm.

[Rocky1974]

Originally Posted by Trekkie

The one I liked was the Pontiac firebird first generation convertible. I tried to convince my Dad to help me buy one as a kid. Bright red with a 454 in it.

He wisely said no. I got a '90 Pontiac sunbird instead. Too bad Pontiac is nothing but a memory now :(

A 69 Trans Am is gorgeous, as rare as a 67 Z28, and they actually built 8 convertibles, making them ultra rare, gorgeous, and cool!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=yuSkXtLu30s

[Rocky1974]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

I disagree with your last statement, back in the mid 70's the big block motors were way down on HP but still developed quite a bit of torque. Even today you have some motors that develop a high HP for their size but lower torque than a V8 that has the same HP.
Look at the specs for the 1972 Chevelle SS 454 for example. 270HP but still 390 FT-Lbs of torque. Those were SAE NET.

1972 Chevrolet Chevelle Specifications
Engine Location Front
Drive Type Rear Wheel
Production Years for Series 1968 - 1972
Price $2,635-$3,135
Weight 3170 lbs | 1437.888 kg

Engine Type : V8 7440 cc | 454.0 cu in. | 7.4 L.
270 BHP (198.72 KW) @ 4000 RPM
390 Ft-Lbs (529 NM) @ 3200 RPM
Bore : 4.3 in | 108 mm.
Stroke : 4.0 in | 102 mm.

Engine output is measured on a dyno.
Dynos measure torque.
Horsepower is then calculated using the formula: Horsepower=TorguexRPM/5252.
Torque is MEASURED.
Horsepower is CALCULATED.
Look at the formula.
When torque is zero, horsepower is zero.
Horsepower owes it's existence to torque.
No torque, no horsepower.
More torque always equals more horsepower.
Below 5252 RPM torque is always more than horsepower.
Above 5252 RPM horsepower is always more than torque.
At 5252 RPM horsepower always equals torque.
Horsepower is just a way of representing high speed torque.

[SS PANTHER]

Originally Posted by Mr Monte

Our Stock 2000 Camaro SS 6 speed manual runs 13.1 & our Stock 2002 Trans Am auto runs 13.2. With a full tank of gas the 2000 Camaro SS only weighs 3400lbs. That's what the current Camaros should weigh.

The build quality of the 67-73 wasn't any better.

I should have worded this as "these years had either poor performance, poor build quality, poor styling or all of the above. I will agree with you that the 5th Gen is a tank. And 3400lbs. would have made a nice difference in overall performance.
My 1969 Z/28 had a much better build quality than any of 70's & 80's Camaros I ever saw or friends who owned them.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Ok, here is a guy who has no idea what he's talking about. From 86-02, the top line Camaros, Firebirds, and Trans Ams offered the most powerful engines and the fastest cars available at their price range. So if Camaros had poor performance, then EVERY car on the planet around the same price had poor performance...which still means that comparatively, the Camaro was STILL the best performer.

Yes, every car in that price category during the 70's & 80's had poor performance, looks, and quality. In the mid 90's going forwarded the performance was coming back. Again, as far as performance goes I should have stated the Camaros from the early seventies through the 80's were dogs. My first car as a junior in high school in '73-74 was a 1970 Boss 429 Mustang. With a cam it was a high 12 second car on street tires. Later dual quads, headers and slicks running high 11's. Many of my friends and classmates from this era had cheap fast muscle cars from the 60's that ran 12's and 13's in street trim. It took 30 years for this type of performance to be matched. I owned a 1969 Z/28, 1970 454 Corvette, 1968 SS 396 El Camino and a 1971 4x4 Blazer. All great looking, good performing, decent build quality cars. I also had a 1984 Z51 Corvette and a 1976 Chevy 4x4, which were the biggest POS's I have ever owned. My 1988 Porsche Carrera was one of the best sports cars of the 80's and still retains its' value just as the muscle cars and many of the sports cars from the 60's do. IMO I think the 1974 through 2002 Camaros are poorly styled vehicles with no real value and I would not want to be seen in one. It wasn't until the big 3 went back to the late 60's/1970 to bring style back into the Camaro, Mustang and Challenger. No one would have bought into a restyled 70's, 80's, or 90's car.

Originally Posted by Rocky1974

While I agree that there were some real duds in those years, there were certainly some gems also. Styling is subjective and lets face it, no Camaro had much in the way build quality until the 5th Gen. Performance took a sllde in the early seventies, but made a big comeback from the mid eighties until 2002. Those 1998-2002 model were LS powered and nothing with a LS in it is a slouch!

Sounds like you lived my era. I agree with you on the LS powered Camaros of the mid 90's to 2002, although I don't care for the styling. It was the retro style of the 5gen that brought me back. I loved my 1969 Z/28. The Boss 429 was a PITA! My only Ford.

[SS PANTHER]

Originally Posted by Rocky1974

A 69 Trans Am is gorgeous, as rare as a 67 Z28, and they actually built 8 convertibles, making them ultra rare, gorgeous, and cool!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=yuSkXtLu30s

Beautiful rare car. My friend in the early 70's had a 1970 Ram Air IV GTO that ran 12.80's on the street with cheater slicks. No headers and the Q-Jet. He also had a 1970 Trans Am with a Ram Air IV and was going to put a rare Ram Air V motor in it. Those were the days. The cars, girls, music and people in general. We walked to school.

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by kevinw

i didnt realize there was a ZL1 way back in 69. wow. its amazing that now the v6 stock camaro engine puts out what the early 396 engines did, and even the 350 engines of the 2002 SS camaro. great article though.

It is, but the 5th gen is heavy so the LS1 in a 2002 SS will win because it weighs 350-500lbs less

[Angrybird 12]

This one

[Angrybird 12]

And this one

[SS PANTHER]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

This one

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

And this one

Nice! Keep them coming.

[rayhawk]

Originally Posted by Rocky1974

Engine output is measured on a dyno.
Dynos measure torque.
Horsepower is then calculated using the formula: Horsepower=TorguexRPM/5252.
Torque is MEASURED.
Horsepower is CALCULATED.
Look at the formula.
When torque is zero, horsepower is zero.
Horsepower owes it's existence to torque.
No torque, no horsepower.
More torque always equals more horsepower.
Below 5252 RPM torque is always more than horsepower.
Above 5252 RPM horsepower is always more than torque.
At 5252 RPM horsepower always equals torque.
Horsepower is just a way of representing high speed torque.

Horsepower doesn't owe it's existence to torque. Torque is a measure of force, horsepower is a measure of force applied over a given time (power). With a breaker bar or torque wrench, you can easily apply 200 ft-lbs of torque at say 10 rpm (hp=200*10/5252=.4hp), but you would be pretty hard pressed to apply 200 ft-lbs at 5000 rpm (hp=200*5000/5252=190hp).

More torque only equals more horsepower if it occurs at the same rpm.

Also, engine dynos typically measure FORCE via a load cell, then calculate the torque using the appropriate lever arm distance of the dyno (how far the load cell is mounted from the rotational centerline), and then the corresponding horsepower is calculated.

http://www.hhhperformance.com/Articles/HP-Torque.aspx

[GearheadSS]

I never really liked the 35th Anniversary SS. The 1997 LT4 30th Anniversary should have been on that list instead.

[Angrybird 12]

The Baldwin Motion 71 Camaro