Developing The Camaro

Believe it or not, the Camaro’s launch will be 60 years in the past at the end of September 2026. That past is deeply intertwined with the success of Ford’s Mustang, which debuted more than two years earlier.

The fantastic success of the Ford Mustang — the car regarded as the first pony car (a term coined by Jim Hamilton, previous Car Life magazine editor) — was a surprise to virtually everyone concerned, including even Ford Motor Co. officials. Of course, Ford had high expectations for its new car due, in part, to independent demographic research conducted in the early 1960s. That research revealed that the first of the so-called “Baby Boomer” generation preferred a sporty, affordable car as their first automobile purchase. The 1965-’66 Mustangs filled that preference extremely well.

Chevrolet could have had its Camaro pony car to market much sooner than the 1967 model year. Chevy’s designers actually had on the drawing board a car very similar in concept to the Mustang before the Mustang even entered the picture. General Motors management decided that, despite being an attractive design, it was not needed; the division was believed to already have enough small cars to offer, including the hot-selling Corvair Monza. Indeed, Chevy had the sporty, two-seater Corvette, the new mid-sized Chevelle, as well as the second-generation Corvair with its improved suspension, and the compact Chevy II series. With the introduction of the Mustang on April 17, 1964, management took a wait-and-see approach and then observed 100,000 Mustangs sell in the short span of three months. The sporty Corvair Monza, with its bucket seats and console, was thought to be Chevrolet’s competitor to the Mustang, especially since it had been very successful from the start. In 1962, its first year of availability, the Monza accounted for about 70 percent of Corvair sales; for 1963, the percentage rose to 80 percent. However, the introduction of the Mustang caused Corvair sales to plummet. With its misjudgment glaringly obvious, GM ordered the F-body program into existence in the summer of 1964. About 1.3 million Mustangs later, the Camaro was ready to hit the market.

The apparent failure to correctly judge the pony car market was not really the failure it seems. Rather, it was the result of a change in philosophy. In the past, GM was the automotive leader, taking risks in styling and mechanical innovation. In the early 1960s, management decided to let its competitors take the risk and expense associated with defining a new market and product development, then respond two or three years later. The Chevy II, for instance, emerged as a response to the Falcon, and, of course, the Camaro would later emerge as a response to the Mustang.

On Sept. 29, 1966, Chevrolet’s Mustang fighter was in stock at Chevrolet dealerships across the nation, matching the Mustang point-for-point in concept (the singular exception being the lack of a fastback body style, as Camaros were available only in coupe and convertible form). Camaros could be tailored to fit the expectations of the most discriminating driver through an array of 81 factory options and 41 dealer accessories. Base price was low; just $2,466 would buy a bare-bones, 140-hp six-cylinder/three-speed manually shifted version. This price was a trivial $5 higher than the base price of a 1967 Mustang coupe. Few, of course, were ordered without at least a few options. With the vast options and accessories offered, a Camaro buyer could get all pony car “flavors” spanning from economical to sporty to high-performance. Some of the extra-cost equipment offered was a higher-output six-cylinder, plus multiple V-8s comprised of a 210-hp 327; 275-hp 327; a 295-hp 350; and finally, beginning Nov. 22, 1966, the sizzling 396. There was also a couple of automatic transmission choices and a four-speed manual transmission available with some engines. The Camaro could be optioned as a Rally Sport (RS), Super Sport (SS), SS/RS combination or, beginning Dec. 11, a Z/28 Sport Coupe that included a 302 rated at 290 hp and a Muncie close-ratio four-speed plus a heavy-duty suspension. The Z/28 was designed around the rules of the Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) Trans Am racing series. As a Z/28, a Camaro was capable of approaching 140 mph.

The design and purpose of the Camaro was described in 1967 Chevrolet Engineering Features as “an all-new small personal car designed to meet the growing American preferences for individualized transportation. It is for the driver who likes to drive; the mobility conscious customer, who requires a high degree of handling and roadability with a firm, yet comfortable ride; the owner who expects his personal tastes and action to be reflected in a clean, modern, and dynamic styling line and quick, sharply defined performance. It is not intended for those who merely want to be carried-from-here-to-there, nor for those that expect ‘state-room’ convenience on the road.”

The F-Body Begins

On Aug. 8,1964, GM’s upper management approved the new “F-Body” with the experimental program designation XP-836. A little more than two weeks later, the preliminary engineering specifications were completed, and during September, engineering tests using cobbled-together Chevy II Novas were underway, continuing into early 1966.

There were eight general specifications outlined for GM’s F-car. Among them was price-competitiveness with the Mustang. Another, which went with the price consideration, was the use of as much parts sharing as possible, including drivetrains and the basic chassis from another Chevrolet. Fortuitously, the timing coincided with the design of the second-generation Chevy II, already in the process of being readied for 1968. The first-generation Camaro and the next-generation Chevy II ultimately shared subframes, cowls, floorpans, brakes, axles, wheels, front suspension and the basic rear suspension. 

While the final styling of the 1967 Camaro was well-liked, it was relatively simplistic with its light body-length side crease, gently sloping hood and hopped-up quarter panels. This simplicity helped to make stamping the body panels a more cost-effective process, thus contributing to the goal of a $2,500 base price.

Overall engineering responsibilities went to Chevrolet’s chief engineer, Ellis “Jim” Premo, who handled the specifications of the F-Body, and the assistant chief engineer, Donald McPherson, who investigated other characteristics of the F-Body.

One of the first tasks in developing Chevrolet’s F-body car was the acquisition of a new 1965 Mustang for evaluation by GM engineers. Not generally known at the time was that Ford Motor Co. and General Motors had a reciprocity agreement to supply each other with an example of their new products for study within about two to four weeks prior to their release to the public. GM received its first Mustang approximately two weeks before its official release date. They later acquired a fastback version as well. Testing of the Mustang, with the 1965 Corvair as a guide, led to establishing the general design requirements for the Camaro. Also used as a guide was a styling exercise from 1964 dubbed the Super Nova. Its long-nose/short-deck design, four-passenger layout, bucket seats, console and curved side glass were features carried over to the Camaro, although the console was optional.

Applying technology

The new F-car was the first car in the industry to see its development utilize the analog computer, which was used to test its suspension settings. The computers of the Engineering Mechanics Department of the GM Research Laboratories ran a carefully controlled computer program analyzing suspension reactions to various bushings, shock absorber arrangements and spring mounting pad locations.

Not all of the engineers were convinced a computer could correctly assess exactly what would happen with differing arrangements, thus the method was not without some controversy. Engineer Paul King told Paul Zazzarine in his book “Camaro Exposed: 1967-1969,” that, “We were willing to gamble a little bit on our design decisions by what the computer told us. That was a new tool for us, and we weren’t sure how much confidence to put in it. You were creating a design and then making some decisions based on the computer saying, ‘If you do this, it will be that.’ We didn’t know how much confidence to give to these sorts of indications. So for a while the computer analysis followed the actual design until we grew more confident of its analysis.”

Once the development work at Chevrolet Engineering was completed, the program was transferred to GM’s Fisher Body Division for further production preparation.

Beneath the surface

Utilizing a full frame underneath the F-body, which would have simplified some of the engineering work, was not a practical choice simply because it increased the cost of production too greatly. Therefore, a unitized body with rear framing elements was chosen, even though it presented inherent problems related to ride quality, such as creaks and rattles as well as road noise and vibration transmission to the passengers. However, unlike some unit-body cars such as the Chevy II and the Corvair, all front sheet metal would be bolted in place rather than being integrated with the main body since doing so allowed the car to be built on the same assembly lines as other Chevrolet cars.

The partial frame with extended rails employed in front supported the engine, transmission, steering gear and linkage, front suspension and front brakes, thus forming a unitized sub-assembly. The subframe design ultimately selected resembled the forward portion of a ladder-type frame and was of welded all-steel construction joined laterally with two structure-supporting cross members.

One cost-cutting move proved a problem on the high-performance-oriented Camaros: the mono-leaf rear springs. While Hot Rod magazine’s Eric Dahlquist wrote that their 1967 Camaro SS/RS test car “went like blue blazes around the corner or in the straights,” he also noted that the car’s mono-leaf springs wound up under hard acceleration. Mitigating the issue had to wait until 1968.

Styling and Early Production

Henry “Hank” Haga, working in Chevrolet Studio 2, was given the overall responsibility for the Camaro’s styling. Haga’s team was under the direction of the new division chief designer, David Holls.

The body design of the Camaro offered an obstacle for the designers to overcome: the high cowl, borrowed from the upcoming 1968 Chevy II. For the Camaro to fit the image of the pony car in terms of styling, it had to be relatively low in overall height, but the Chevy II cowl, which appeared to be too high in the eyes of the stylists, seemed to preclude achieving that major goal. There was also the issue of the distance between the front wheel and the dash, which did not appear to be long enough. Quite frankly, the stylists hated the high cowl. Ultimately, the solution for getting a low look was to “think outside the box” by giving the windshield a sharper rake than usual, and to also make the windshield posts thinner than the norm.

Interior design was done under George Angersbach (also in charge of interior design for the Corvette, Corvair and Chevy II). In September 1965, the instrument panel layout was finalized.

Three months later, the first hand-built prototype of the F-car was completed and on May 5, 1966, the final such prototype was ready for testing. Pilot line car production of 49 cars began on May 21, 1966. Finally, on Aug. 7, 1966, almost exactly two years to the day the car was approved, volume production of the Camaro was underway.

A heavily ribbed underbody provided a robust platform for the remaining all-steel body structure. Dash panels, including the “saddle bag” ventilation plenum chamber, plus door pillars, quarter panels and the rear-end panel, were welded together and to the underbody. The unitized body of the Camaro two-door hardtop featured a double-wall cowl, cross-bow roof design with boxed roof rails and galvanized box-section rocker panels for corrosion resistance. However, the convertible body received heavier-gauge rocker panels, thus galvanizing was not considered necessary. Rocker panels for the Camaro had the “wash-dried” feature of other Chevrolets, meaning that the side plenum chambers of the high-level ventilation system directed air and water to each rocker section with multiple drain points along its length. This feature was intended to keep moisture-trapping contaminants from accumulating within the rocker panels, thus inhibiting corrosion from the inside out. Headers and roof rails were welded to the lower body through box-section front and rear glass pillars.

The convertible body required four harmonic shock absorbers (which the designers called “cocktail shakers”), one at each corner of the car and located out of sight, within the engine compartment and the luggage compartment. Since a car body is weakened without a fixed roof, reinforcement is necessary. Too rigid a design causes an uncomfortably hard ride and sensitivity to shake. The other end of the spectrum is a body that’s too flexible, resulting in excessive vibration and harshness over road surfaces. In the case of the Camaro convertible, an early test version, driven by Chevrolet’s general manager, Elliott “Pete” Estes, shook severely. Engineers tried everything they could imagine to fix the problem, but ultimately had to settle for inelegant dynamic dampers along with heavier-gauge rocker panels. Convertibles also had their own springs and shock absorbers to mitigate the inherent body-flex issues of the convertible body style.

One of the unforeseen benefits of the styling of the Camaro was its aerodynamically clean shape. While a particular drag coefficient was not targeted for the car, it had one that was considered quite low at the time. Wind tunnel testing at Ling-Temco-Vought Corp. in Dallas, Texas, performed in early 1965 using a quarter-scale model revealed this fact. The testing resulted in a few small modifications to the front fenders and under-bumper valance. The data also made notable contributions to the Z/28’s chin and rear spoiler.

From Panther to Camaro

Initially, “Panther” was the name selected for Chevrolet’s new pony car, but late in the design process, the F-body car was officially christened “Camaro.” The name is credited to Bob Lund, Chevrolet’s merchandising manager, and Ed Rollert, the GM Car and Truck Group vice-president. They were looking through French and Spanish dictionaries in search of the right label for the new car — a name which specifically began with “C,” as was standard Chevrolet practice at the time (i.e., Chevelle, Corvette). Lund thought the name “had a dramatic sound to it.” Rollert noted the translation of “Camaro” was “friend” or “warm friend” in old or slang French — “something of that nature” — thus it seemed appropriate.

The name was announced to the public by Pete Estes, via a 14-city network news conference, on June 29, 1966.

Assembly and Rare Options

Two assembly plants were assigned the tasks of turning out the bulk of Camaros: one in Norwood, Ohio, near Cincinnati, and the other in Van Nuys, Calif., outside Los Angeles. There were also five foreign assembly plants building the first-generation cars, and these were located in Manila, Philippines; Antwerp, Belgium; Bienne, Switzerland; Caracas, Venezuela; and Lima, Peru. (Incidentally, at least some of the foreign-built Camaros made use of the 283-cid small-block, which was not offered for domestically produced Camaros.) These plants, though, accounted for only one percent of Camaro production from 1967-1969. The Norwood plant built about 79 percent of these cars during this period and, of course, the Van Nuys plant accounted for the other 20 percent of production.

There were a number of options for the 1967 Camaro which were not commonly ordered. (My arbitrary standard for “not commonly ordered” is about 1,000 units or less.) A full accounting of these seldom-ordered options, though, is beyond the scope of our story, so covered here are just a couple.

“Speed-Master” speed and cruise control, option code K30, was available, but required the purchase of an automatic transmission. Only 305 of the 1967 Camaros were so equipped. The K30 option added just more than $50 to the base price. Such a low number seems unusual given that well over half of the 1967s had an automatic transmission.

Front shoulder harnesses were rarely ordered in 1967, but became standard equipment in closed models during the following year by federal mandate. Only 477 of the code AS1 standard seat belts with shoulder harnesses and just 885 (or 894, depending upon the source) of the A85 custom deluxe seat belts with shoulder harnesses were ordered.

Another rare option was the code A82 headrests for the optional bench seat. Only 18 were sold, according to the website camaros.org.

Epilogue

With the so-called pony car market clearly established, the Mustang and Camaro were joined by additional entrants into the market. Pontiac put its own touches on the Camaro design to produce the Firebird, released about 4-1/2 months later. American Motors Corp. began offering the Javelin in 1968, but it never came close to competing in terms of sales with the Mustang and Camaro. Plymouth actually beat Ford to the marketplace by a few weeks with the Barracuda, an adaptation of its Valiant. Unlike the Javelin, the Barracuda sold in good enough numbers to keep it going through 1974, after which it was discontinued — the same year the Javelin was killed. The bottom line, though, is that the Ford and Chevrolet pony cars were tops in sales, with the Camaro coming in second to the Mustang for about a decade. Regardless of whether Mustang’s or Camaro’s year-to-year sales were on top, the Camaro was a strong seller and remains a favorite among enthusiasts today with the high-performance versions, not surprisingly, being the most desired by collectors.

If you like stories like these and other classic car features, check out Old Cars magazine. CLICK HERE to subscribe.

Sign up for our weekly e-newsletter and stay up to date with Old Cars news and features – CLICK HERE

We know you love old cars, but do you collect anything else? Ever wonder about the baseball cards in a box in the basement or Grandma’s old coins in a jar?  Do you love history or spin vinyl? Head on over to Collect.com and see what you are missing. Collect.com is the who, what, when and where of the collecting world! https://www.collect.com/

The post Developing the Camaro appeared first on Old Cars Weekly.