Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
1969 Camaro
I've always liked em and will be in the market for one soon. I know the chances of finding a Z28 or a car in great condition will be slim, or it will cost me an arm and a leg.
I know if I do find one for an acceptable price it will need a frame up restoration and thats ok, I may not buy for a year or so.
I am asking everyone out there to tell me your '69 Camaro stories and give me any advise you have.
Thanks
Jim
I know if I do find one for an acceptable price it will need a frame up restoration and thats ok, I may not buy for a year or so.
I am asking everyone out there to tell me your '69 Camaro stories and give me any advise you have.
Thanks
Jim
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
A 1969 Camaro need not cost you an arm and a leg. It would depend on options and condition, and except for the rare models, these cars are still very reasonably priced. Also, they made a lot of them, they are not scarce.
Parts sources are plentiful, so there should be no huge problem with that.
Mostly, you want to avoid rusted, bondo sleds, or cars that have been pieced together from 2-3 automobiles. Get a sound car with good paperwork and start from there. I wouldn't touch a rusted car no matter how good the price. My advice would be to look for a shabby original car that has not been repainted or banged up too badly.
As for options, even the base V-8 and automatic would be great...a 6 cylinder car would be worth less, so keep that in mind.
Some people have already converted 6 cylinder cars to V8, so watch out for that. I have no real problem with it, as long as you know that it was a conversion and you pay accordingly.
All this "matching number" business can get a bit silly if you are buying a car to drive and enjoy.
This is a good 'ol made in the USA Chevy, not some foreign French poodle car--it doesn't need thoroughbred papers to be enjoyed.
Around that same time, I worked at a veterinary clinic, and I remember the receptionist drove a 1969 Camaro, but it was just a 307. Nice car, though.
egkelly, all Camaros, regardless of generation, were unitized, meaning they had a subframe that held the engine/transmission/front suspension, and another subframe that held the rear end. Come to think of it, did the Americans ever build a compact car that was full body-on-frame? The smallest body-on-frame car I can think of was the 1978-88 GM intermediates (Monte Carlo, Cutlass, Malibu, etc).
Which generation was the one known for breaking in half in crashes? I've seen plenty of '70-81 Camaros that are so rusted out that they'd probably break in half, but have never seen the actual act!
A 1969 Camaro would make a decent daily driver, sure...plenty of power, reasonable size, and with modern tires and shocks probably able to handle itself well enough around corners. The brakes, of course, are pure 1969 so you need to adjust to that.
A couple of opinions....
Make sure you get the following options...
power disk brakes
power steering
v8
Of course, avoid rust like the plague, assume all cars w/out original engines (get someone familiar with this sort of thing to examine the VIN on the block) are fake (Ok, ok, X codes are worth something). I think an SS350 (a '69) is probably the best deal as they are nearly identical (except for the engine) to a Z/28 or SS396 (heater box notwithstanding).
Personally, I would hunt for a rust-lite, standard transmission 307 car and assume I would replace a large part of the drivetrain with something like a ZZ4 crate engine (about 3k from Chevrolet) and maybe a 6 speed if I was feeling bucks up. Throw in stuff like a gauge package from a COPO (140mph speedo, center fuel gauge, 8k tach, forget the center console, they're a pain to read), aftermarket seats, and some handling stuff and you've got a pretty cool car (albeit slower than a new one).
As far as handling stuff goes, I'd love to see a reasonably priced approach (ie non pro-touring) to making these cars handle even adequately. My last car (a '69 Z/28 with original headlights and hoseclamps, whooo hoooo!) handled like a pig even with koni's and Comp T/As. I would guess the right answer would be to put on less agressive shocks and a good set of sway bars (Quickor maybe?). Honestly though, decent power steering makes a world of difference in the fun-to-drive angle.
Come to think of it, I wasn't too fond of power brakes back then either. It seems to me they were overboosted and had absolutely no feel to them. Very easy to lock up in a panic stop.
The problem with non-power brakes is that you get...ta da... front drums. (and not the big finned ones you get with an old Alfa or something). I admit that they are a bit touchy.
In general, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that in order to use these cars as *cars*, the best answer is to update them in a number of ways. Modern tires, sway bars, a Pertronix ignition system, Baer (or whoever) brakes, updated steering (heck, you can buy bolt in rack and pinion I think). I think that the results would not be tremendously expensive, the resale value of the improvements is not *awful* (just bad, 30% maybe?, I'll bet it's better than the ROI of money spent on a 914 or a street racer 510 though) and you end up with a pretty cool car.
The alternative is something that gets driven only in parades or on weekends to the A&W and back (with a side trip to the gas station). Start driving a 302 Camaro to work everyday on Interstate 80 in the East Bay (like stupid me) and your thoughts will turn to the beauty of hydraulic lifters, power steering, better brakes (and how!!!) and tamer cams.
255 sounds big for the front but I still don't have a feel for the translation from letter sizes to metric sizes. I think I used to run G60-15s in the front (may have even been F60s, I know it was G60s on the '70 Z/28). I don't know what that translates to for a section width.
I'll bet that the clearances also greatly depend on the build quality of the car + the accident history (jeez... these are cheaply made mass-produced goods after all). I had a '70 Chevelle convertible for a while that (with no obvious accident damage) had a really suprising amount of difference in rear tire clearance between the left and right sides.
While I'm musing about that, I wonder how tweeked all the 4 speed big block cars got after a few years of getting wrung out (especially when they cost $1200 dollars each in the early and mid '70s). I'll bet there was some serious crookedness imparted through the years to 396 Novas and the like. Of course, now that the more desirable cars have transmuted from sheet metal to Ming vases, it probably doesn't matter much.
Heck, you might even end up with a car that can keep up with a new, $24k, V8 Camaro (that would take considerable time and effort I admit).
One would be to use sintered metallic linings, harder linings more resistant to fade. I never had them but I hear they take more pedal pressure and they have to be warmed up. But they're durable--they'll last longer than the drum.
Second, and I'm just guessing, but I'll bet Skylark aluminum brake drums would fit a Camaro. They're probably the same 9" drums.
Of course, neither of these options are as good as discs. I really think discs are going to catch on.
I had a GTO with the optional "quick ratio" manual steering--20:1 ratio instead of 24:1--and I liked it, but the guy I bought it from had installed tilt, apparently not a factory option with manual steering, which let me position the steering wheel for the best leverage. Steering effort wasn't bad, even with G60 bias plies, nothing like the Falcon/Mustang manual steering--that's just plain evil.
Speaking of Mustang, I think Ford offered manual disc brakes briefly in the late '60s. My recollection is that discs take more pedal pressure than drums because they're not "self-actuating" (or whatever the word is) so I can understand that option not being popular.
I've had 3 cars with manual drums...a '69 Dart GT with 9" drums, a '68 Dart 270 with 10" drums, and a '67 Newport that I didn't keep long enough to pull a wheel off of, so I don't know the diameter of its drums. Anyway, none of 'em were really hard to stop, unless they failed totally (the Newport did).
I am interested in the info on the 69 Z if you are willing to share the info with me.
my email is in the profile (if you click on my user name above), but here is another
ratchetmasterman@hotmail.com
I would appreciate an email from you. I couldn't seem to find an email for you.
Power disc brakes from a 69 camaro are really pretty decent brakes and perform adequately by todays standards.
Drums are a different story . . . leaving much to be desired.
FYI
The stock tire on a 701/2 Z28 was a goodyear polyglas GT F60-15 both front and back.
I have an original spare from one.
L8R
Tim (ratchetmaster at http://www.gmforums.com )
The '69 has slightly more room in the wheelwells due to the crease that runs down the side of the car.
If you want to find the width of the tire, here is an example: 255 divided by 25.4mm = 10 inches.
245 divided by 25.4mm = 9.6 inches.
It helps when figuring out +1 and +2 tire sizes.
I would like to hear from you about the 69 camaro your neighbor has.
Please email me.
Thanks
What I sort of overlooked was the fact that the car didn't have power steering. On top of that, it took two men and a boy to push in the clutch. Driving around town, or even cruising at anything under 30-35 MPH, that car was a bear to drive. It was a blast on the open road, but since it was my only car at the time, the luster soon wore off, and I sold it after two years.
Someone I knew bought the car from the dealer I traded it to. After a couple of years, he got a little tried of it too, and I just missed a chance to get it back. Oh, well.........
Since this is actually a 1969 Camaro topic, I'll mention that I had a chance to buy a 1969 COPO Camaro...brand new. One of the local dealers had two of them, but they were quite expensive for the time. I was a junior in high school, working after school and Saturdays for $30-$35 a week. Somehow that wouldn't quite cover the $4500-$4700 that I seem to remember the car cost. Another lost opportunity...
if you want a car as transportation only, muscle cars are not the right car for sure . . .
My first car was a 66 SS396 4spd chevelle . . . I NEVER tired of driving the car even with the HP clutch setup I put in it.
They are a 'challange' to drive. .. but that is what I like about them.
Too bad you didn't still have the chevelle . . . I would take that bad boy off your hands!!