Directional Stability was Extremely Good

Another thorn which the engineers had to consider was the limited-slip differential which increases understeer in direct pro­portion to its limited-slip qualities. Since it’s not standard equipment—and oversteer is considered to be dangerous—the base car must have built-in understeer. It follows, then, that the limited-slip car will have even more understeer. The logical solution would be to make the limited-slip a mandatory option since, on a perform­ance car, most buyers order it anyhow and then tune the front and rear anti-sway bar rates for that situation. But for now you’ll have to take the Camaro for what it is, a highly developed touring car, and don’t expect too much in more demanding situations.

Certainly the brakes are up to any touring demands. Front discs are standard and the test car had the optional power assist. This car represents something new for Chevrolet in that high pedal pressure was required to produce impending lock-up rather than the normal touch on the pedal. The stopping performance was very good, slowing from 80 to 0 mph in 228 feet (0.93G). Directional stability was extremely good because the front wheels locked up first and, while fade was made apparent by an increase in pedal pressure, the three test stops were nearly identical in length.

The mechanical Camaro is obviously successful in its performance and the engineers responsible for that have also come up with a few more subtle technical innovations. One is the Delco battery which secures its cables to the posts with threaded fasteners rather than the traditional clamping method that not infrequently works loose or corrodes into ineffectiveness. Another is the styled wheels which, while they look very much like cast alloy wheels, are actually welded together from a conventional steel rim and a deeply drawn steel center. Although they are no doubt heavier than the standard wheels, and far heavier than the real magnesium wheels they imitate, they should not be subject to the normal problems (corrosion, low im­pact strength and lug nuts working loose) that plague the general run of cast wheels. And the last bit of technical wizardry that caught our eye is the glove box door hinge which has no moving parts. It’s a strip of plastic—one side bonded to the dash, the other to the door—and the strip bends when the door is opened. It’s one hinge that will never need oiling.

One of the most conspicuous features of the Camaro’s layout, and not necessarily an improvement, is the new long doors. No more is there a rear quarter window, it’s all in the door. And not only are the doors longer but they are also moved rearward in the body. Entrance to the rear seat is decidedly easier, but to the front is harder. In a narrow parking slot the exit space for a front seat passenger is inconveniently small and the process is made more diffi­cult by the door’s excessive weight, partly attributable to its length and partly to the side impact beams enclosed within.

Of course, the elimination of a window on each side should reduce the chance of wind noise but no such luck on the test car. Chevrolet is trying a new type of window seal on the Camaro and the as­sembly line workers obviously haven’t fig­ured out how to fit it on the car yet. The result was a chorus of wind whistles—the only objectionable noises to be heard in an otherwise sound quarantined car.

The spirit of compromise so apparent in the Camaro’s handling and door arrange­ment carries over strongly into the interior design. The dash now groups all of the in­struments directly in front of the driver—a fantastic improvement from the optional gauge cluster that looked up at you from the console in past Camaros—but the small gauges now are very small and no matter what your height, some of them are likely to be blocked by the steering wheel. And while we are on the subject, the op­tional gauges of the past are still optional. Only the speedometer and fuel gauge are standard.

Another of the more obvious compro­mises is the optional console. It sticks up somewhat higher than the seat cushions and has two recesses in each side in which to stow seat belt buckles. The problem is that the recesses, which are not very handy for their intended purpose, tunnel so deep­ly into the console that the bin inside isn’t big enough even for road maps. There is another bin, this one open, where the con­sole joins up with the lower edge of the instrument panel. Its utility is not what it could he, primarily because the shift lever, when in park, blocks the opening.

Generally, the Camaro’s interior is quite hospitable. Visibility forward is very good because of the narrow, curving windshield pillars, and the wide C-pillars to the rear are less obstructive than they would appear from the outside. The seats in the test car were more upright than those of the early press preview cars (C/D, March) and the driving position suffered slightly. We par­ticularly like the Camaro’s inner door pan­els which are molded of a soft material that gives the sensation of deep padding. It is far more appealing than the hard panels used on Chrysler’s sporty cars.

The Camaro, like all cars from Detroit, is a series of compromises, one upon an­other. At least in the Camaro they’ve all been made in pretty much the same direc­tion, that of a stylish, quick grand touring car, and the final combination is well suit­ed to its task. And yet, even though the Z/28 is not at all race car-like, some of the strongest suggestions of its competition potential are right on the surface. Those to whom power bulges and love mounds are the only readable evidences probably wouldn’t notice, but check the way the glass is nearly flush with its surrounding sheetmetal and the absence of drip rails over the side windows. That wasn’t done for gas mileage. After two years of being Trans-Am champion things are expected of Camaro, and if John Delorean and Jim Hall both like this one it has to have some­thing going for it besides nice manners and a pretty fender.

View Photos

View Photos