Our Hopes Had Been Raised

The figure 350 will not be familiar to Chevy fans because it refers to a new engine size. The ubiquitous 327 cu. in. V-8 was enlarged to 350 cu. in. by increasing the stroke from 3.25 in. to 3.48; the bore remains unchanged at 4.00 in. The 350 engine is available only in the Camaro, and is mildly tuned to produce an easy 295 horsepower at 4800 rpm, with good pulling power from 800 rpm on up. We would have preferred something like the Corvette’s 327 cu. in., 350-hp engine, which is a very- sporting unit and would be rated around 375 hp at 350 cu. in., but there’s an unwritten corporate ban on more than one horsepower for every 10 pounds of weight in any GM car that isn’t a sports car. The 3200-lb. Camaro is thus limited to 320 hp, because it doesn’t exactly qualify as a sports car, as we shall see.

The Mustang’s equivalent to the SS 350 is the 390 GT, which boasts an engine some 40 cu. in. larger and 25 hp more powerful. But in almost every other specification, the Camaro and the Mustang are indistinguishable. The Camaro engine lineup consists of a 140-hp six-cylinder, 210-hp and 275-hp V-8s, as well as the SS 350. The Camaro’s 108.1-inch wheelbase is 0.1-in. longer than the Mustang’s; the Camaro is also longer overall by 1.3 inches, wider by 1.9 inches, lower by 0.6 inches, and its track is wider by 0.9 inches. Internal dimensions are similarly comparable. (All dimensions, incidentally, are also very close to the ’65-’67 Corvair’s.)

General Motors isn’t interested in racing, but Ford is. As a result, Ford offers much more specialized equipment on the dealer level, like traction bars, HD suspension parts, wide-rim wheels, multiple carburetion set-ups, closer-ratio transmissions, and a wide selection of rear axle ratios. Racing aside, both Ford and Chrysler offer 3-speed automatic transmissions for their sporty cars, while the Camaro is forced to limp along with a 2-speed. But regular production options, like front-wheel disc brakes, 4-sp’eed manual transmissions, razzmatazz interiors, and color-striped tires are equally available on the Camaro and the Mustang.

The Camaro and the Mustang are alike in using unitized body-chassis construction, but the structure extends only to the Camaro’s cowl. A sub-frame is bolted onto the front end, supporting the engine and front suspension—an arrangement something like that used on the Toronado/Eldorado. The 56-inch single-leaf, semi-elliptic rear springs appear to be borrowed directly from the Chevy II, but Chevy engineers were quick to point out that the Camaro’s “Monoplate” springs are six inches shorter. By contrast, the Mustang uses classic multiple-leaf, semi-elliptic leaf springs.

A more substantial departure from current suspension practice is evident at the front end. Whereas the Mustang and the Chevy II use an upper wishbone, a lower control arm and a drag strut, the Camaro reverts to the older system of unequal-length wishbones, top and bottom. The reason given for the Camaro’s bolt-on front assembly is to isolate noise and make repairs easier, but we suspect that in the future it could also be used the way GM used the “E” body—as a basic shell shared by several divisions. All told, Chevrolet’s Camaro does not offer the extremes of performance that the Mustang does. GM’s eggs are in a softer, more middle-of-the-road basket.

The Camaro is only available in two body styles, a notchback coupe and a convertible, both 2-doors. Fastbacks, 4-doors and sports wagons-if any-will come later. Both Camaro styles are candidly billed as 4-passenger cars, and we chose the sport coupe because it looks better. The optional “RS,” or Rally Sport package sounded like it might have something to do with improved roadability, so we asked for that too. In fact, it consists of the trick grille with concealed headlights and “distinctive rear lamp treatment.” The crazy stripe around the nose is part of the SS 350 deal. If you want better roadability, you ask for the performance suspension package.

Although our test car was the raciest of all possible performance option combinations, it was not, as hinted, a sports car. If anything, it’s like a pint-sized edition of the “Super Cars” we tested in the March issue, with a quarter-mile capability of 16.1 sec. at 81 mph, compared to the SS 396’s 14.7 at 100. The SS 396 looks like a Chevelle and the Camaro SS 350 looks like a tasteful American interpretation of a European Gran Turismo, so we expected a lot of it. If a girl who looks like Monique Van Vooren shows up at your party, you’d kind of like to think she’s in show biz. If it turns out that she works the check-out counter in the A&P, that’s nice too, but you’re bound to have mixed feelings. Our hopes had been raised. Chevrolet has had at least two years to come up with a car demonstrably superior to the Mustang. That Chevy hasn’t, may speak volumes about Ford. Maybe GM can’t build a better mousetrap, only a good one.

None of this philosophizing is any real reflection on the car itself. In fact, the only glaring design error we could find was obviously an easily correctable oversight. With the combination of the SS 350 engine and.the 4-speed manual transmission, drag racing starts are impossible. The rear axle judders almost uncontrollably, with the car hopping sideways almost as far as it is making forward headway. The solution is a set of torque-control arms underneath the Monoplate springs, soon to be a factory option.

A fast-ratio manual steering option was considered during the prototype phase, but dropped at the last minute when it was discovered that the driver would need arms like Steve Reeves’ just to steer it around town. The same ratio is available with power steering. Although the Camaro’s steering is as light as a plucked feather, it still doesn’t seem fast enough, and there is virtually no road feel through the wheel rim.

Complaints aside, the Camaro is a pleasant little car, with several characteristics that won’t go unnoticed by the taste-making enthusiasts. Our test car was equipped -with Firestone Wide Oval tires on optional 6-inch rims, which gave exceptional traction at a very small expense in ride comfort. With 35/40 psi in the tires, front disc brakes, and the car thoroughly checked out by the factory, we could record a .76 G braking force and a .78 G cornering force, both well above average.

Our new Road Research Report test procedure includes a steering behavior graph which reveals understeer on left-hand turns and a more neutral-steering attitude on right-hand turns, with a suggestion of final oversteer at the limit of controllability. This is not at all uncommon; the engine’s clockwise rotation tends to tip the car to the left as a torque reaction. In a second-gear right-hand turn, this reaction will unload the inside rear wheel and “overload” the outside wheel, resulting in a. traction loss, with the opposite being true in left-hand corners. In faster turns and high-speed evasive maneuverability tests, this phenomenon is much less pronounced.

Under normal braking, the Camaro seemed stable, although the inadequate rear axle control would become evident in panic stops. A sharp, heavy stab at the brakes would result in excellent initial deceleration, followed by some axle tramp. The loss of directional control experienced in the acceleration runs was not as bad, but the driver does have to back off the brakes to keep the rear end in line, and this showed up in the results at longer stopping distances.

The Camaro has no quirks or idiosyncrasies. It should be a fairly easy car to live with. Everything is straightforward and simple and intelligently sorted-out. The interior is sensibly arranged and comfortable (bucket seats are standard equipment), although not exactly luxurious. There’s no reason on earth why the Camaro shouldn’t sell phenomenally well.

The comparison with the Mustang is inevitable, and the Camaro ought to give Ford a helluva good run for its money. We’d hate to predict the outcome, but if success is measured in terms of the number of cars sold, Chevrolet will probably be content. Measuring the Camaro in terms of what it could be, we—and some other enthusiasts—don’t think it is yet the kind of success that we’d been hoping for.