Talk:Chevrolet Camaro (second generation)

1981 Yenko Turbo Z

What about Yenko's last attempt at the muscle car, the 1981 Yenko Turbo Z? Seems like this should be worth mentioning under the 81 model year. Zchris87v 07:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

T-tops in 1977?

This article says that the first year that the Camaro got T-tops was in 1978. However, I have seen a limited number of '77 models with T-tops, and AMT even produced a model of a '77 with a T-top. Any comments on this? 24.250.3.55 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Details of the 1978 Z28 are Wrong!

I owned a 1978 Z28, and it still had the wrap around dash, and a ribbed steering wheel. The 1977 Z28 has the painted on hood scoop, the 78' has a hood scoop, nonfunctional. the 1978 also has wrap around front facial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.113.187 (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

1974 Catalytic Converters

There is documentation that converters were fitted in the 1974 Camaro. While the rest of the manufacturers didn't fit converters until 1975, and the emissions regulations which caused other cars to be fitted with converters did not take effect until then, for some reason General Motors fitted the Camaro only with a converter one year early. There does not appear to be any documentation as to why they did this. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, lookit there, you're still bound and determined to find a way to believe in those imaginary 1974 Camaro catalytic converters! Well, good for you; I admire your persistence even in the face of silence from the community. The simplest and most likely explanation for what you think you've found is sloppy fact-checking and editing of the "Standard Catalog"; it's unfortunately endemic to that series of books. Don't despair, though; you can still prove you're right and the existing mountain of reliable sources ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) is wrong with the direct-from-GM info your super-secret inside man at GM was going to send you. That was in December of 2011; he's probably off the phone by now and ready and willing to help you out. (And BTW, HEI arrived in '75, not '74. Just like Catalytic converters. Another "Standard Catalog" fact-fail.) —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

1974 back window

Question to the experts: is the 1974 Camaro back window identical to that of models 70 to 73, or is it one of those parts that will cost more than the car when you have to replace it? 37.157.153.89 (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

1970 -1971 Engine HP Continuity

Under the "1970" section, the horsepower for the 396 cu in engine is shown as 375 hp.

Under the "1971" section, the horsepower for the 396 cu in engine is shown as going from 350 hp to 300 hp.

Either the 1970 horsepower should be 350 hp or the 1971 horsepower should go from 375 hp to 300 hp. If 350 hp is correct for 1970, then the statement in the "1970" section stating that the 396 cu in engine is the top performer would be incorrect. The 360 hp LT1 engine at 360 hp would be the top performer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.131.2 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The 1970 Camaro SS 396 had 350 gross hp. There was a 1970 Chevelle SS 396 that had 375 gross hp. That motor had the same valve size and camshaft specs as the 1970 Chevelle SS 454 with the LS6 engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.161.124.148 (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The 1970 Camaro SS base engine was a 300 hp / 350 cu.in. engine. The "optional" 396(402) cu. in. engine had two hp ratings to choose from. The lower hp engine was coded L34 with a 350 hp rating. The high hp engine was coded L78 with a 375 hp rating. Only 600 L78 models were produced in 1970. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.242.156 (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chevrolet Camaro (second generation). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/3/2004_3_22.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
• http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/3/2004_3_22.shtml [non-working]
• https://web.archive.org/web/20081203124718/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/3/2004_3_22.shtml [working]

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding working, archive link. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

How neutral is...

How neutral is the text, "The UAW strike at a GM assembly plant in Norwood disrupted production for 174 days, and 1,100 incomplete Camaros had to be scrapped[...]"?

The text makes it sound like the UAW strike somehow caused the scrapping when it was clearly due to misguided government legislation. The law had nothing to do with vehicle safety but required that bumpers be changed to insure zero damage for vehicle impacts of 5 mph or less. The solution was usually a heavy cast aluminum bumper attached to the frame with two steel hydraulic pistons and two substantial steel coil springs. A typical bumper assembly added about 600 lbs. of dead weight and about $1500 to the cost of a full-size car. The legislation did reduce the minor cost of repairing a low-speed impact to zero but at the price of dramatically increasing the cost of repairing damage caused by impacts of over 5 mph. For higher-speed collisions the expensive bumper assemblies had to be repaired too.

Without the bumper legislation there would have been no reason to scrap those Camaros regardless of what the UAW did.96.52.194.112 (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The part you elided says, "... because they could not meet 1973 federal bumper safety standards." That implies that the strike caused the incomplete cars to come under the new standards, when if completed earlier they wouldn't have. Do you have a source that would clarify this? Dhtwiki (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Stating the facts is pretty neutral. Being upset when the facts make "your side" look bad and then misleadingly quoting the quote to make it seem like you are right isn't. Sorry the UAW is so good at making themselves look bad, but that's just how it is. Whitewashing it to make them look good is NOT "neutrality". AnnaGoFast (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Mustang in 1975

Why does it go from saying how the Camaro and Firebird now had 100% maret penetration for the first time in 1975 to a couple years later when "the Camaro outsells the Mustang for the first time". I wasn't aware Mustangs weren't sold in 1975, and if they weren't or Camaro otherwise had "100% market penetration", then they must have outsold the Mustang prior to 77 or 78. AnnaGoFast (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The article text says that the Mustang wasn't considered a "pony car" in 1975, and that's the market referred to. When Camaro outsold Mustang in 1977, it doesn't state that the Mustang had reentered the pony car market, and it may have just been considered a popular alternative or long-time rival. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)