Re: Why haven't 2nd gens caught on like 1st gens

On Thursday, April 30, 1998 at 2:00:00=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, Chris H. wrote:
> Phil G. wrote in message <[email protected]>...
> >LSparks709 wrote:
> >> >They're ugly. Just like 2nd gen mustangs.
> >> The only "ugly" 2nd gen. Camaros IMO are the 74-77 models.
> >
> > Thanks Leonard! I was about to get all hacked about this thread until I
> >remembered that most people associate the 2nd Gen Camaro with the 74+
> >models.
> Much more than thier styling was the fact that they were a piece of crap =
for
> quarter mile and horrible handling. Not that the 1st gens handled worth a
> hoot but the 350/396 upto 375hp 1st gens at least had decent quarter mile
> straight line performance that was really even matched in the 3rd gens.
> Gawd Nobody buys a Camaro or Firebird to to be put to sleep when they sto=
mp
> down on the gas. 2nd gens were so gutless there just wasn't any point. No=
t
> that they couldn't be fixed up. They just didn't stir anyone's imaginatio=
ns
> new from the factory so they didn't sell near as well. It was better to
> rebuild/restore your 1st gen or Goat/Malibu than to piss around with a 2n=
d
> gen F-Body. About the only people that bought 2nd gen F-Bodys were middle
> aged men.
> > When I hear 2nd gen I think 70-1/2 thru 73, and forget the later ones
> >(in fact for a long time I thought the 3rd gen started with 74 because
> >IMO they were a significant departure, both in performance and
> >appearance (and in the wrong direction).
> Actually factory F-Body performance wasn't worth even talking about until=
 at
> least 1986, well into the 3rd gens. That included both speed and handling=
.
> > I love the look of the early 2nd gens (like mine). That "fighter plane"
> >nose intake (which they have kinda redicsovered in the new one) and the
> >reasonably aerodynamic shape (for the time) IS what I think of when I
> >think Camaro.
> I liked it when I first saw it 26 years ago, but now when I see it it loo=
ks
> like the Bell Bottoms of Auto Styling <chuckle>. Could be bell bottoms ar=
e
> coming back also <couldn't resist the comparison>.
> > Unfettered V8 power is another plus. Although the purists will shake
> >their heads at my '67 327 in mine. I'd rather have it as it is than the
> >sick-baby-shit-green, inline six, three-on-the-tree, base model it was
> >when new.
> That was what the 2nd gen was lacking that you put in...a motor..Not bad
> once you did that, but like the 1st gen's, they still didn't handle worth=
 a
> crap. There are a lot of good running 327's still rolling around. Not muc=
h
> of a demand for stock 2nd gens so you just as well forget the purist and
> make it worth driving.
> Now if you had something like a 1964 goat w/389 tri-power, then it's good=
 to
> be a purist as I can't imagine running anything in the goat but a 389
> tripower, but On a 2nd gen camaro/firebird, the best you can do for the p=
oor
> thing is to run something (anything) besides the stock engine that came i=
n
> those old beaters.
I'm the original owner of a 72 Z28 Camaro with 46K on it and other than som=
e modest engine mods looks as good as the day I bought it and always get th=
umbs up driving it or a crowd around it.  Read some of the negative comment=
s here from those I'm sure don't know crapola about them.  If anyone goes b=
ack and reads some of the old road test and all state it's a much more refi=
ned and better handling car than the Gen 1 with better performance and exce=
llent handling.  It's styling was very refined and European.  I will agree =
Chevy ruined the 74 on with it's ugly front bumper.   If you never owned on=
e or drove one and compared the two you obviously know nothing.  I've owned=
 four Z28's over the years and they will always be my favorite over the Mus=
tang and Charger.