1970 Chevrolet Camaro
Is it really possible that not a single Camaro has appeared in Car Lust up to this point? That's hard to believe since I've lusted after virtually every Camaro made since the model's debut in 1967. Yes, I briefly had a mullet in the early 1990s. I wore it proudly, thank you.
The 1970 Camaro, though, in my mind is not a mullet car. At least it doesn't have to be a mullet car; to me, the 1970 Camaro is desirable because of its graceful, understated, almost European lines that stood in stark contrast to the aggressively blocky and testosterone-filled styling and graphics that characterized its Detroit stablemates at the time.
My first exposure to the 1970 Camaro came in the form of a 1988 retrospective that pictured the 1970 Camaro in RS trim in tasteful metal-flake charcoal gray. It was stunningly clean and purposeful, like a subtle gray shark stalking quietly and menacingly through the muscle car waters--the kind of car that wouldn't be laughed at in Stuttgart.
People might laugh today at such a statement, but I think the popular tendency to disparage 1970s automobilia has whitewashed a strong start to that decade by GM's styling department. Both the Camaro and Vega, in particular, were stylish, clean, sleek designs that wouldn't have been out-of-place as European sports coupes.
With the full range of high-performance engines all the way up to the hero 375-horsepower 396 V-8, and including the new LT-1 360-horsepower 350, the Camaro could still bring just as much muscle to the table as its predecessor. But as with the styling, the flavor of the car became subtler and more European. While the car shared a platform and many components with the 1969 Camaro, both handling and ride had been dramatically improved. The interior was also given an upgrade.
The 1970 Camaro lives in my heart as one of the most gorgeous muscle cars made, and a brief moment of glory for the breed. It married the best of the first-generation Camaro's thick, muscular styling and burly, brawling V-8s with a new style and sophistication, making it equally as comfortable on long, fast blasts along twisty highways as it was at the local drive-in.
Of course, the picture quickly soured. As with its sister Chevelle, 1970 was the apex, followed by a rapid collapse. The Camaro was not immune to the unholy trinity of rising gas prices, ever more restrictive pollution regulations, and skyrocketing insurance premiums that killed off muscle cars en masse. In 1971, the Camaro's line of V-8's began their inexorable power drain, and the first of several crippling worker strikes presaged the Camaro's further decline in the 1970s.
It is astonishingly difficult to find photos of the 1970 Camaro as I remember it; most '70 Camaros have now been painted stupid colors and had tacky, garish bodywork added, spoiling the delicate touch of the original styling. The Camaro looked great in full muscle-car regalia, to be sure, but in this generation I think the innocuous cars almost look nicer.
I wish I could show off the gorgeous charcoal Camaro that I fell in love with, but unfortunately I don't have those photos. The top photo is of a plain-Jane brown Camaro from Flickr user mediumpimpin4rnr; the two pictures of the striped silver Camaro come from Patriot Racing USA, which just finished restoring and rebuilding it.
The two commercials? Well, I won't give them the full Car Lust commercial treatment, but the first commercial deserves these bullet points:
- You know how you sometimes instinctively hate somebody and want to punch them without reason? It's the kind of hatred that taps directly into the id. I'm far from a violent guy, but two seconds into my first viewing of this commercial I knew I was already tired of this guy's smug little act and wanted to punch him in the gut. Don't worry, I'll take my medication.
- "What is it? It's the new Camaro, that's what it is." With his weird enunciation, it's like he's trying to be a noir detective. "The new Camaro? Well, it accelerates like it's being chased by the hounds of hell; hey, I can relate. But enough about my love life." <lights cigarette>
- I think we should search for the guy who invented "hugger" as a hip piece of lexicon the late 1960s and force him to watch this commercial to realize just how dumb it sounds. All of my vintage car magazines of the time use "hugger" as a bit of lingo, and it doesn't read any better than it sounds here. The Camaro is the "Super Hugger?" So it's really affectionate, or what?
- "It's a whole new kind of car for a whole new kind of people ... who really dig driving." Yeah, far out--because people only started to like driving in 1970.
- "More glass, less chrome, more class." This is true, but it's entertaining that the guy in the polyester suit and the really wide multi-hued brown tie is pointing out the Camaro's new class.
- "The new Camaro; that's what it is." I'd thought we already got that out of the way, but okay.
- Yes, he called it the Super Hugger again. My skin is crawling.
- "It's not how young you are; it's how old you aren't." What?
The second commercial is a little more traditional, though I was hoping the comedic interplay between the daughter and father at the end would turn into an all-out confrontation ending in bitter incrimination. "The New Camaro--worth fighting with your family over." Of course, that's probably my post-Seinfeld sensibility talking.
--Chris H.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on August 15, 2008 at 10:29 AM
The pitchman in that first commercial (Greg Brady?) gives Studebaker's "Sharpie McDeal" (http://www.carlustblog.com/2008/08/car-commercials.html) stiff competition in the "Most Annoying Salesman" category. I was alive in 1969-70, though admittedly young at the time, and I don't remember a Sam-Spade-meets-the-Three-Stooges accent ever being the height of hipness.
David Drucker on August 15, 2008 at 12:21 PM
This generation Camaro can serve as a textbook example of how a gorgeous car was ruined by federal bumper requirements. Just park that '70 one alongside a '74 and you'll see how a beautiful, elementally balanced design was rendered clumsy and awkward by the addition of a couple of battering rams.
BTW, I mention the '74 because one of my ex-wives had one, and I spent considerable time with it. It suffered from every mid-seventies automotive malady you can imagine: hard to start, hard to shut off, erratic throttle response, and an interior whose pieces began to fall off even faster than the brand new Alfa Milano I drove for a while in the late eighties. That Camaro's build quality was truly abysmal. Slamming the door yielded a cacophony that sounded like a box of junk being shaken vigorously. Plus, the seats -- adjustable fore & aft, but that was it -- were torturous.
But I agree: the original, pre-federalized styling was timeless.
Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on August 15, 2008 at 01:31 PM
re: Hugger
Hmmmm...I have no reaction to that term, but in complete disregard to the principles of tact, I'll say that I have a similar reaction to the terms "slushbox" and "rowing [through gears]".
Especially "slushbox".
I think because its jargon; while I really love cars, I'm not that familiar with the jargon because my other hobbies/interests have kept me from really becoming a full-out pistonhead.
Sillypickle on August 15, 2008 at 02:13 PM
My friend's father owns a red Camaro SS, complete with every possible part of the engine covered in chrome and the oh-so-cool gear drive. I don't know if he's ever going to fix the paint, but I'm not sure it matters; it's fast and it sounds great, so who cares if it's a little stealthy in the looks department?
Speaking of gear drive, why don't more cars have it? One of my favorite things about driving a stick is to get up some speed in reverse and listen to the gears whine, so I would really love to have a car that did that all the time.
David Colborne on August 15, 2008 at 03:04 PM
The first guy was annoying, yes. However, the girl in the second commercial... holy crap. She's cute in a "she's older than my mom now" sort of way (What? She is! My mom was 10 when that Camaro was made!), but what the hell is she doing with a brand new Camaro, and why on God's green earth is her dad driving it through a beach? Let's see here... let's take a car from 1970, then drive it through SALT WATER on SAND. Yeah, 'cause that's not going to lead to a car getting stuck in a salty bog and rusting out by sundown. No siree. Also, was that or was that not the most phony family interaction on the face of the planet? Sweet Zombie Jesus... terrible, I tell you. Simply terrible.
Mochi Mochi on August 15, 2008 at 11:16 PM
The Dad in the beach scene is Lloyd Bridges - father of actors Jeff and Beau - star of Sea Hunt. The girl is seriously cute, jeans and a bikini top do the trick very nicely. The beach is off the PCH just south of Big Sur.
David's note of horror at driving a Camaro on the beach in salt water is truly alarming. This seemed to be a common theme of the times. Many cars were driven through the sand and salt water. How many cars had to be sacrificed!?!? It's all so wrong.
Bob Sistek on August 15, 2008 at 11:28 PM
This was a great post on a really great looking car. The guy in the first commercial was kind of a smarmy dude who was real proud of his diction. Where did he get that anyway? O.k., lighten up on the second commercial. The father in that commercial is Lloyd Bridges. A famous actor of the time who had a TV series called "Sea Hunt", I believe. He had two sons, Beau and Jeff who are actors and the girl in the commercial is his daughter. At least I'm pretty sure she is. There is a family resemblance. So the family interaction thing is reasonably accurate. The comments about the Camaro's build quality are dead on. In other words, lousy.
shannon on August 16, 2008 at 10:26 AM
your kidding right? Hello the is a 70 Camaro in this ad!!!!!!!! Who cares about some half naked girl and whos driving! I thought all men had unleaded running in thier viens. Wow
David Colborne on August 16, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Shannon - If it's a '70 Camaro, I'm pretty sure it'd be leaded going through our veins, no? Following that vein (pun intended), it would be important to note the possibility of severe rust damage due to driving a 1970-vintage automobile through any environment that is not a garage in the driest corner of the country, no? Following this vein even further, it would be important to note that driving a rusted out Camaro would be much less impressive to that bit of beach candy than driving a, well, NOT rusted out Camaro, no?
The defense rests.
dpatten on August 17, 2008 at 01:01 PM
"While the car shared a platform and many components with the 1969 Camaro"
No, that is not the case. The 1970 Camaro is in fact the first of the second generation Camaros. There might be some parts interchangeability with the '69 Camaro, But a 1970 Camaro has more in common with a 1981 Camaro or a 1976 Nova platform-wise than it does with a 1969 Camaro.
Duke DeLand on August 17, 2008 at 02:44 PM
OMG!!!!
I had the "less-beautiful"....but FASTER 69 Z-29 painted in the same black and silver. Complete w/front and rear spoilers, and the little engine-that-could-and-did...the 69 302 cube V-8.
Man, what a set of wheels. A nice quad of L-70 15s on the ground, and it broke at least one valve spring every three months. But it would run! Fed it Gulf Purple Martin to keep it from knocking.
Used it as a family car for my then family of four. Kids loved it as much as did I. Wife was so-so. My brother-in-law, former high school buddy had a matched one....He had power steering and a higher rear end ration. My car was faster top end and close to his off the line.
My ex has all the pictures. D-A-M-N...
I miss that car!
Duke
Duke DeLand on August 17, 2008 at 02:45 PM
Guess you should label it a Z-28......sorry for the typo!
Duke
Will on August 17, 2008 at 03:29 PM
David: I can't say I've ever thought much about the bumper requirements, but the shot from 0:12-14 in the second commercial really highlights what a sleek, aggressive front end this beast had. What a beauty.
Chris Hafner on August 17, 2008 at 05:06 PM
dpatten: "No, that is not the case. The 1970 Camaro is in fact the first of the second generation Camaros. There might be some parts interchangeability with the '69 Camaro, But a 1970 Camaro has more in common with a 1981 Camaro or a 1976 Nova platform-wise than it does with a 1969 Camaro."
Yes, the '70 Camaro is a second-gen Camaro, and has more in common with other second-gen Camaros, but as you note my quote was "the car shared a platform and many components with the 1969 Camaro." As for components, it shared the engine and powertrain lineup; and they shared the F platform, though as noted the second-gen Camaro had a pretty heavily revised version with a different feel. Camaros and Firebirds were F-bodies up until they were canceled a few years ago. Obviously the platform underwent some pretty dramatic changes over the years, and it becomes a question of replacing the head and the handle of your grandfather's axe - is it still your grandfather's axe?
For the first two generations, at least, there was quite a bit of commonality. I could be wrong on this; if I am, I'd love to hear some more details.
dpatten on August 17, 2008 at 06:27 PM
The 1970 Camaro has a completely different front subframe and suspension than the '67-'69 Camaros. It shares this with the 1975 and later Novas.
It has a different rear end as well. There is absolutely 0% overlap as far as sheetmetal was concerned between 1970 and 1969.
There are lots of engines that were available in the 1969 Camaro that aren't in the 1970. The 230 L-6, 302, 327 for example. The 396 V-8 of 1969 actually displaced 402 CI in 1970 and was also different.
The 350 available in the 1970 car, the LT-1, was radically different than the one available in 1969.
I've got a 350 in my 1998 Chevy truck, but I wouldn't say that it shared the powertrain lineup of a 1970 Camaro.
Your point seems to be that they are basically the same car and then you try to explain it away by saying that you meant that they were both F-body cars.
Something tells me you wouldn't write the same sentence about the 1970 Camaro comparing it to a 2000 Camaro and say they share a platform.
Chris Hafner on August 17, 2008 at 08:13 PM
dpatton: "Your point seems to be that they are basically the same car and then you try to explain it away by saying that you meant that they were both F-body cars."
Perhaps this is the source of the misunderstanding - that wasn't my point at all. My point - not just of that sentence but of the piece as a whole - was that despite the similarities in equipment the 1970 had received dramatic upgrades that completely changed the character of the car. The two cars certainly were *not* "basically the same car." The '70 Camaro had multi-leaf springs instead of single-leaf, the steering rack moved forward, front discs became standard, etc. Like I said in my previous comment, the '70 Camaro was "heavily revised."
Unless your argument is that there were *no* mechanical commonalities between the 1969 and 1970 Camaros, and the 1970 Camaro was all new but for a nameplate, I don't think we're in major disagreement here, at worst a question of how much has to change before a platform can be considered new. And that just goes back to the grandfather's axe question again. You inherit your grandfather's axe, five year later you change the head, five years after that you change the handle - is it still your grandfather's axe? It's a little too fuzzy a conversation for me to feel passionate about.
David Colborne on August 17, 2008 at 09:57 PM
Chris, think about something you know: K-Cars! If you have a Plymouth Reliant, raise the roof by a couple of feet, stretch the length out a little, radically alter how the doors work, and call it a "Caravan", is it still a K-Car or is it a minivan? If you take a Plymouth Reliant, add three turbos to the engine and round out some of the curves, is it a Spirit R/T or just another K-Car?
(Sadly, as you and I both know, I could play this game for hours.)
davis,br on August 18, 2008 at 12:37 PM
No ...no car lust here: I hated the '70. Big fricking guppy mouthed monstrosity of a grille. Too fricking long. BAD lines. It was the devolution of the bad-ass look of it's predecessor: a caricature of itself (even worse than what Ford did with the '70 ...though not *nearly* as bad as what Ford did to the Mustang II). It was like GM took the great lines of the Euro-Capri, and made it as big as frickin' Texas, for obvious reasons of masculine insecurity. The design was an abortion. It didn't partially recover until the 1976 grille change (sort of, if you could get past the length), and really come into its own again until 1982 and the Batmobile design. But the 1970? Yuk.
TC@LeatherPenguin on August 18, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Oh, gimme the '68 SS. Or the "they finally fixed the rear" Camaro's of days gone bye.
C'mere, Thunderbird. I am gonna feed on you.
Ludie on August 18, 2008 at 12:50 PM
The guy in the first commercial was irritating, but at least it wasn't Billy Mays with that phony black beard screaming in your face.
Da Coyote on August 18, 2008 at 01:01 PM
Had a '72 Firebird. Wonderful looks. The quality was awful. Gave GM another chance in '78 (Grand Am), and left them for over 27 years. They did make it up with my '05 Corvette. Excellent in every respect. No rattles, everything fits, and the darned thing gets superb mileage (when I'm not having fun eating Porsches).
Richard Fagin on August 18, 2008 at 01:08 PM
I cried when the '70 Camaro came out. It was UGLY compared to its predecessor, and there was no convertible offered. My frields called it a "big Vega" and I think that's about right. Lust all you want, I'll take a '67, '68 or '69 any day of the week. And the only "hugger" I'm interested in is hugger orange with white stripes.
If that wasn't enough of a travesty, GM took the absolutely gorgeous '72 Cutlass and did a similar number to it with the '73. I cried again!
seguin on August 18, 2008 at 02:35 PM
The 70 Z-28 Camaro I think had the 350 ci/370 horse LT-1 V8 in it. All in all, the 70-71 Camaro is on of the most beautiful ever made.
DensityDuck on August 18, 2008 at 03:12 PM
That wasn't Jean-Claude Killy, was it?
Anonymous on August 18, 2008 at 04:27 PM
The girl is Lloyd Bridge's daughter Cindy. Born in 1954 so you do the math.