15 Coolest Camaros Through the Years by MSN Auto

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by shrinkdoc

How did the 82 make the list?

Maybe because it had several "Firsts", first time a 4 cylinder, V6 and fuel injection were available in the Camaro, plus it was again the Indy 500 pace car.

[Rocky1974]

Originally Posted by shrinkdoc

How did the 82 make the list?

It was the first new Camaro in 12 years. It was 500 lbs. lighter. It was a huge step forward in the handling dept.

[PrinzII]

Originally Posted by SS PANTHER

Dump all the Camaros from 1974-2002. Poor performance, styling, and build quality.

If it wasn't for the lessons learned from those eras with questionable build quality, you would not have the Camaro as it is now. Furthermore, there were some good performers on both the Firebird and Camaro sides. Case in point, one of my faves was the '89 Turbo T/A with the GN's V6. Same HP as an L89 but could easily smoke it in the quarter.

I also like the IROC (TPI 305 and L89 350), Z28 SS (LT4, LS1), '69 ZL1, Yenkos, and many other flavors of Camaro.

As for me, I actually drove the following:

'83 Trans Am
'85 IROC Z w/ 305 TPI
'89 Formula w/ L89 350
'90 IROC Z w/L89 350
'94 Z28 Convertible
'10 Camaro SS w/ L99

Most "fun" Camaro I ever drove: A Gen 3 that looked like a V6 but actually had a 305. I had a field day lighting the tires (with the owner's blessing).

[AZCamaroFan]

Originally Posted by Rocky1974

It was the first new Camaro in 12 years. It was 500 lbs. lighter. It was a huge step forward in the handling dept.

[Camaro Dude]

Originally Posted by Rocky1974

Maybe you guys all failed high school math, but I didn't.

I'm sure you meant Physics and not math

Yes, you cannot have one without the other, but the thing is, unless you inadvertantly didn't explain it properly in your writings above, one is almost left to conclude that you are saying that diesel engines with gobs of torque, hardly any HP, would win the vast majority of auto races(not discounting the fact they fuel up less at the pit).

What it really boils down to is, optimum distribution of the power band, for a particular type of auto racing(slow with turns, or all out top speed), and of course, weight, tranny and diff gearing playing a crucial role. This is why engineers spend $$$$$ and countless hours on R&D to find the optimal setup.
It's not a single answer, to just say, more torque wins period, or more HP wins period. Car enthusiast circles and forums constantly debate this, but you will not see this on a Physics site from a Physics perspective. The latter will debate and discuss issues such as: on how the tranny ratios should be spaced, how the end user will use them, how a gearbox can multiply the torque at a given speed (whilst being incapable of changing power), and thus proving that peak torque alone is useless, since the gear ratios that the end user controls through a select given gearbox, essentially is multiplying torque. This is all just the icing on the cake .

Again, it all depends on the application as well, and what the end user wishes to achieve. Whether it be Mclaren F1 car, with more peak HP(higher revving engines) than torque, or an Alpina BMW diesel powered sports car, with more torque than peak HP, there is no doubt that the two have entirely different driving feels on a track, and thus suited for entirely different applications altogether.

The science behind it is all intertwined, but the execution of it takes it into entirely different directions.

This is unfortunately the wrong thread to discuss it, so perhaps an other time elsewhere .


My favourite Camaro is this:

[Rocky1974]

Originally Posted by Camaro Dude

I'm sure you meant Physics and not math

No, I meant math!

HP=Torque x RPM/5252

It's such a simple little equation.

I don't see why everyone seems to have so much problem with it.

[db17]

I was a junior in high school in '87 and my dad's wife bought a black IROC. I had '68 coupe with a 327 and it was my baby! But man did I want an IROC-Z in the worst way. I had pictures of them out of Hot Rod, Car & Driver, Motor Trend plastered all over my dorm room walls. During the summer my dad had to pick up the IROC from the dealer after an oil change and I was supposed to drive his truck back home. He tossed me the key and said "Don't be to far behind me or she's gonna get pissed." As soon as he was out of sight I did a burn out in the dealer parking lot! I took it up to 115 mph before I got nervous, I had never driven a car that fast before. It took 26 years but I finally got my dream car!

[Deebo]

[PalmerGA]

What the hell was GM thinking in '82? 60s were beautifully understated. Gen5s are just plain gorgeous. In between had some questionable styling.

[PalmerGA]

Originally Posted by Rocky1974

It was the first new Camaro in 12 years. It was 500 lbs. lighter. It was a huge step forward in the handling dept.

Nothing "cool" about it though. It was quite ugly and cheap looking - as were most American made cars of the early 80s. And a 2.5L 4 cylinder? PLEASE! How embarrassing.

[Camaro Dude]

Originally Posted by PalmerGA

Nothing "cool" about it though. It was quite ugly and cheap looking - as were most American made cars of the early 80s. And a 2.5L 4 cylinder? PLEASE! How embarrassing.

Ahhh yes, circa 1981...

A Chrysler K car, 2.2L 4 banger for dad, and a Camaro 2.5L 4 banger for the son

Originally Posted by PalmerGA

What the hell was GM thinking in '82? 60s were beautifully understated. Gen5s are just plain gorgeous. In between had some questionable styling.

Beyond questionable styling dude.

I said it when they were about to go bankrupt just a few years ago.
They will now wake up and produce some cars that might even make the traditional Euro sports car buyers go hmmmmm.

The CTS-V, Zl1, and 1LE sure did it for me!

[2xSSRS]

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

...the '67s had bad wheel hop problems. Didn't take away from its looks though

'67 was my first Camaro. Don't remember any wheel hop issues. I do remember it had a problem keeping rubber on the rear wheels. Not sure why.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by Rocky1974

No, I meant math!

HP=Torque x RPM/5252

It's such a simple little equation.

I don't see why everyone seems to have so much problem with it.

http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine...and_torque.htm

[Camaro Dude]

Originally Posted by 2xSSRS

'67 was my first Camaro. Don't remember any wheel hop issues. I do remember it had a problem keeping rubber on the rear wheels. Not sure why.

Gen5 is closer to 50%/50% weight distribution as opposed to the nose heavy iron machinery back then.

I'd also venture to say todays tires last way longer as well.