$100K common price for 69 Camaro??

[1992RS]

I agree totally. While I would love to have a late fourth gen camaro, I think my camaro interest peaked in 92 when the last third gen rolled off the lines. My all time fav. is a 70 1/2 SS/RS split bumper 396 4spd. 1st gens are so special because they where the beginning of an era unserpassed by anyone else. Altho the mustang is older and unfortunatly lasted longer than the camaro, the camaro was always twice the car. What GM did with the camaro couldn't be touched by what ford or chrysler did with there muscle cars. Not only did chevy build a mean street machine with more than enough horse power to drive america in love, they left plenty of room for modifications. The camaro is a classic, they're worth money because people loved, and still love them. nuf said.

[drvngstorm05]

if i had a car like that, i would cream my pants every time i walked into my garage, and i would be too scared to ever drive it... that isn't just a rare kind of car, that's a one of a kind. not to mention u ever wrecked it, the insurance company would give you only about 5000 for it, or somethin along those lines.

[c a m a r o]

well its not fair to say 1st gen started the muscle car era, it was most likely mustang... and mustang did dominate camaro 67-69... 70-74 i believe were the most powerful camaros, and then they turned to crap when new emissions laws were passed, and they had to put those ugly ass bumpers on, and 3rd gen was another disappointment with the 82 z28 only having like 155hp, by 92 i think the most powerful camaro had 235hp, but it was 4th gen that brought back the muscle in the camaro. and just when camaro started whuppin fords ass again they stopped production... and when--NOT IF they will bring back the camaro it has to rip ass or thats the end for gm, other than that all they got is the corvette(girly and high priced). wtf do they think they're gonna impress anybody by replacing the cavalier with some piece of shit cobalt and callin it a sports car....

[1992RS]

I was talkin about the camaro era, not the muscle car era. And about the stang taking the 1st gen camaro. What about the 302 z28 and the yenko and such. Emissions played a huge factor in hp loss through out the years,but not just for chevy, every one had to deal with it. And honestly in the 80s there wasn't much hp out there from anyone. But it fueled technowledgy and now we have some pretty bad ass power plants these days. In way, it's a pointless argument. And when they bring back the camaro I'm sure it's not going to be a slug. It's going to be the best car ever built.

[c a m a r o]

lol... i love that word... technowledgy.

btw.. how do drag cars do over 200mph with low gears like 410s in the rear? is it cuz of high rpms, horsepower or what? shouldn't the gears be higher on cars like that that have a lot of torque so they shouldnt need 4.10s to multiply that power? i dont get it, dont the wheels spin faster with higher gears? like at 1:1 the engine has to spin 4 times faster than the wheels with 4.10s, doesn't that slow it down? i'm just askin cuz i see the drag camaro in ur sig, and im guessing u know about that kinda stuff.

[publicenemy137]

wow I've never seen such a clean engine...

[1992RS]

Ya know, I had to ask that same question a while back. It was just comman knowle.., um yeah, for me that the higher number meant more acceleration. I didn't get it either. But now I do. It's like this, take a pincil tied to a foot long piece of string and spin it above your head as fast as you can, now take it and tie it to a four foot piece of string and spin it as fast as you can. It's easier to get the shorter one to speed than it is the longer one. Same idea. With a smaller pinion gear, higher number ratio, it is easier for the power train to turn it all the way around than it is for a larger, lower number ratio, gear. And about the mph question, it's all about HP, RPMs, and how fast you eccelerate.

[c a m a r o]

got ya... so in other words rpm determines top speed and hp is how fast the engine can get to those rpms... but running at 6k rpms will still spin the wheels slower with a lower gear. why do high hp engines require lower gears? shouldnt more power need higher gears? 200hp might have trouble accelerating with high gears but why do 2000hp engines use low gears? sorry if im gettin on ur nerves, just interested. thanks

[1992RS]

Well you have to think of it like this. A highway car will have high gears, this will give you better gas milage and a higher top speed. Now, drag cars will have a lower gear strictly for the purpose of acceleration. Drag racing isn't about how fast you can go, it's how fast you can get there. Your car might top out at 250mph, but my car can only get to 125m but my car can get to finish line a lot faster so I win. I've won races with a slower speed. I think I jumped off the subject. I think I'd wait till IRoc got on, he could probably explain it a little better than I can.

[89IROC&RS]

lol, actually, the mustangs from 1965-1967 did dominate, cuz the camaro wasnt around, 1967-1968 camaro was getting its racing legs, and was still challenging the stang, but in 1969 the Z28 trounced the mustang completly, i mean in proper setup with a DZ 302 and cross ram intake, back in 1969 the Z ran sub 5 second 0-60, enough to embarass the hottest fourth gen. and the ZL1 ran sub 12 second quarters. im taking a shot in the dark as to why you dont like the first gens, its cuz you dont know that much about em. although you are correct that TECHNICLY the highest rated carburated engine in a camaro was the 1970 Z28 with the LT1 350 making 360hp (corvettes had 370hp) but the DZ 302, even though it was rated at 290hp actually made around 350hp, and the ZL1 was rated at 425hp, but actually made around 550hp. screw technology, ive got cubes combine the two worlds, and you can tear holes in space time itself

[c a m a r o]

is it practical to put tall gears on a car with 800+hp? taller gears have less teeth right, so technically they should wear out faster, or no? for example if u switched the gears on ur car from 410s to 273s or somethin of that sort would ur differential blow up or wear out assuming you have A LOT of power coming through the drivetrain?

[c a m a r o]

right, well thats what it says in my book. actually i never heard of any first gen doing sub 5sec 0-60 or sub 12s quartermiles, in the book it says the zl1 did 14sec, and the 454s did high 13s which is right up there with 4th gen. but then again zl1s are NOT regular z28s so ur comparing the wrong thing, compare it with the 4th gen zl1 w/650hp and then we're talkin... the 350s had pathetic times, i think it was 15-16sec dont remember. 396s were good but... the 70 lt1 actually packed 400-420hp i believe... altogether 1st gen is a hot car dont get me wrong i didnt say i dont like them. and not that i dont believe that there was a 60-75hp differences in the ratings, but logically why the hell would chevrolet wanna hide shit like that? thats something to be proud of, if those cars really did make that much power, and went that fast, why would chevrolet give much slower quarter times and hp ratings? to make themselves look like shit? and a '99 ss is capable of 4.6-5.2 sec 0-60 stock by the way. so embarass it...no. match it...maybe. screw the cubes w/out technology all u have is a piece of metal.

[89IROC&RS]

well the reason that ALL engines back in the day were under-rated was insurance. the car companies were targeting young buyers with these hotrod cars, and the insurance companies caught on and started putting massive insurance rates on them, so the young car buyer wouldnt be able to afford them. so the car companys started downrating the engines so the insurance companies would back off and they would be able to sell the cars again, its all marketing. as far as the ZL1 times, HOT rod drag tested it back in the day, and they got 11.7 second times out of it. so its probly just the downrated times in your book. also the 454 camaros were not faster than the 427, so thats wrong
as far as the 70 LT1 im not sure about ACTUAL hp, but i do know the rated hp was 360hp. as far as a stock SS running sub 5 second 0-60 times, id have to see that for myself, never heard of such a thing. oh and the fourth gen ZL1 had a 572cid donovan racing block, so what was that about big cubes just being a piece of metal?????? but dont get me wrong man, i tend to agree with ya. im all for the improoved technology for performance. in fact im really frustrated that i cant find a single piece rear main seal crankshaft with less than 3.48in stroke. i want to build a 302 for my tpi IROC, full out custom job, but ill have to have a custom billit crank made for it cus no one else does that. so its not offered anywhere. im also upgrading my engine controls from MAF to Speed Density, and programing all my own fuel and spark curves, building the engine with internal coatings and updated hardware. so i do agree with you on that front. but also think about this. those cars back in the day were running on skinny bias pli tires and leaf springs. even with the crude engines they were packing, update just the drivetrain, and they would smoke just about anything on the road today. update those old engines with modern tech, and gebus, get out they way

[c a m a r o]

point taken... the 4.6-5.2 sec.. i got that from the internet somewhere... but car and driver did 5.4 sec w/ an lt1 camaro, but they said it would have been quicker if the tires didnt slip so much when the car started off. 4th gen is pretty impressive, w/out technology they would never be able to develop an engine this powerful while complying with all the parasite emission laws. but i get ur point, i see why 1st gen is special.. my book just downgraded it a lot for me.. i thought it was faster.

[tacoma man]

here in my area some dont even go over 25,000
but there are some very very stupid people though.
this man has a 67 rallysport sitting in a weed patch.
has the original motor 327ci 4 speed tranny, only can
see the top i offered 1,000 for it. he said hell no
im fixing it up. thats been 8 years ago shes still
there rotting away.