Is 2nd Gen better than 1st Gen in AutoX?

[MattG]

With Pozzi, Finch and Tucker all kickin butt in their 2nd Gen Camaro's, is there something to the body style that is slightly better than the 1st Gen Camaro's for AutoX (assuming suspension set up is similar)?

I know that these are the top drivers out there in our little world, but there does seem to be a common theme here.

I have thought about this and I am almost sure it is the driver, but any input would be nice...lets hear some!

Matt

[formula]

Driver's making a HUGE difference--but the basic suspension layout of a 2nd gen is superior to that of a first gen, which does present a hill that must be climbed before the two are even.

That's stock for stock, of course. Modded...it's pretty much down to car vs. car, especially when you look at like Finch's car vs. Bad Penny.

[Ron.in.SoCal]

Hi Matt -- Any car can be built to out perform later years, but I have heard many opinons that the second gens handle better right out of the gate from the factory. Having owned both first and second gens, I can tell you that the second gen 'felt' heavier yet handled better. My 70 just seemed to track better around corners and held the line better than my 68. Both had about 450hp, similar size (non monster-PT size) tires and leafs. This was not a scientific eval, more of a seat of the pants observation.

I think you add that to the fact that second gens are a little more available and less $$$$, you see more of them being built. They also seem to be performing quite well. Let's see, Scott, Jody, Travis in Indy all have a second gen projects going on right now. These guys must know something....

[buickfunnycar.com]

Driver's making a HUGE difference--but the basic suspension layout of a 2nd gen is superior to that of a first gen, which does present a hill that must be climbed before the two are even...

I would completely agree with this statement all things being equal...

[MattG]

Hi Matt -- Any car can be built to out perform later years, but I have heard many opinons that the second gens handle better right out of the gate from the factory. Having owned both first and second gens, I can tell you that the second gen 'felt' heavier yet handled better. My 70 just seemed to track better around corners and held the line better than my 68. Both had about 450hp, similar size (non monster-PT size) tires and leafs. This was not a scientific eval, more of a seat of the pants observation.

I think you add that to the fact that second gens are a little more available and less $$$$, you see more of them being built. They also seem to be performing quite well. Let's see, Scott, Jody, Travis in Indy all have a second gen projects going on right now. These guys must know something....

I think you hit upon the truth behind my question, 2nd gens are much more affordable and if I'm gonna get serious about it, I might as well go the second gen route!

Thanks guys, I'd love to hear more, so keep em comin.

[John Wright]

To my uneducated eye......the layout of the steering is the biggest difference that I see between the two.

[JEFFTATE]

Kyle and Stacy Tucker have a first gen and 2nd gen , they both handle very well .
The first gen even posts better times at certain points at events .
Kyle is a great driver and he primarily drives the second gen nowdays , so it seems to get all the attention and coverage with the better times , but the first gen can still be in the running .
It depends on the driver ..

[formula]

To my uneducated eye......the layout of the steering is the biggest difference that I see between the two.

Wheel carriers and UCAs are also VERY different--both of which lead to very different camber curves. LCAs are the closest to being the same design, but still are pretty different. if anybody gets bored and wants to go measure their stock front suspension, I may be able to generate camber curves to compare.

[mpozzi]

With regards to your question ... yes but not because of the body style.

Cheers,
Mary Pozzi

[MattG]

With regards to your question ... yes but not because of the body style.

Cheers,
Mary Pozzi

Thanks Mary, I hoped you would chime in!

I think after you DSE the crap out of any car it Always comes down to the DRIVER!

Just making sure I wasn't missing some hidden fact about the 2nd Gen.

[formula]

With regards to your question ... yes but not because of the body style.

Cheers,
Mary Pozzi

Just as a point of clarification:

1st gen weight (factory) distribution is about 60/40, depending of course on a LOT of factors. 2nd gens are closer to 55/45, again depending on tons of stuff. That's the biggest body style-related factor, I'd say.

[John Wright]

My comment was geared more towards the position of the factory tie rod/drag link to spindle....1st gen behind the axle centerline, and 2nd gen being in front.

[79-TA]

Stock 1st gens didn't even come with negative static camber. That's only one example, but I think it's symbolic of a stock 1st gen Camaro as a (non)handling vehicle.

Add in the extra cost involved in just getting your hands on a first gen and you can see why the 2nd gen becomes that much more attractive.



From the events I've seen the DSE cars run, the 2nd gen always edges out the 1st gen for the top spot. The only time I didn't see this happen was at the OUSCI where BFG insisted one of the cars wear KDW's while the other car got to wear R1's. Both cars performed (and continue to perform) phenomenally. The 1st gen hung right there with that crazy Cobra that swept OUSCI. I'd have to give the edge to the DSE 2nd gen though.

[David Pozzi]

The 1st gen was designed around a 5" wide rim. 2nd gen around a 7" rim. My original 7.34/14 Uniroyal Laredo on the right, a 335 18 left.
https://www.pro-touring.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=37552&d=1271791109

1st and 2nd gen cars similarly equipped have the same F/R weight from what I've seen.
Both have poor camber curves
Front steer is a little more stable, 2nd gen's toe-in a little under bump, 1st gen toes out quite a bit.
2nd gen sub has a little wider upper A arm spacing which should reduce deflection by a little when using stock bushings.
Both subframes have low torsional rigidity, around 4,000 ft lbs/deg.
2nd gen unibody has a double roof, the inner panel is steel with perforations, but mostly solid, the rear inner panels behind the doors are solid, unlike 1st gens.

The main asset of a 2nd gen is the extra wheel well room and wider track. All things being equal, the car with a wider track is going to stick a little better, and the car with wider tires is ahead too, especially when it's a wider front tire at an autocross. We've run a 295 rear tire, and 275 front on our 2nd gen. A 255 is about it up front on a 67 or 68, especially when the car is low.

The DSE 2nd gen runs a 295 tire up front I think. Not sure if the 69 can go that big. I think a 275 is the limit. I know a 67 or 68 with DSE sub could not clear that large a tire without extensive wheelwell mods.

[formula]

My comment was geared more towards the position of the factory tie rod/drag link to spindle....1st gen behind the axle centerline, and 2nd gen being in front.

Hope i didn't seem to be contradicting--you were spot on--that is definitely the biggest difference and has the biggest effect. I just wanted to augment your point!

Edit: The Pozzi hath spoken--whever he and I contradict, it's safe to assume that he's right :cheers:

[John Wright]

Hope i didn't seem to be contradicting--you were spot on--that is definitely the biggest difference and has the biggest effect. I just wanted to augment your point!


No problem, were all good,:cheers: I wasn't sure if my comment was understood clearly....that was all. I see David also mentions that the front steer is a little more stable on the 2nd gen. Herb Adam's books seem to also echo these thoughts that the 2nd gen has some of the tweaks from GM that make it handle just a bit better(in complete stock form).

[LeighP]

The real reason they're running 2nd gens is that the 2nd gen just looks better....hehehe

[MattG]

The 1st gen was designed around a 5" wide rim. 2nd gen around a 7" rim. My original 7.34/14 Uniroyal Laredo on the right, a 335 18 left.
https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=37552&d=1271791109

1st and 2nd gen cars similarly equipped have the same F/R weight from what I've seen.
Both have poor camber curves
Front steer is a little more stable, 2nd gen's toe-in a little under bump, 1st gen toes out quite a bit.
2nd gen sub has a little wider upper A arm spacing which should reduce deflection by a little when using stock bushings.
Both subframes have low torsional rigidity, around 4,000 ft lbs/deg.
2nd gen unibody has a double roof, the inner panel is steel with perforations, but mostly solid, the rear inner panels behind the doors are solid, unlike 1st gens.

The main asset of a 2nd gen is the extra wheel well room and wider track. All things being equal, the car with a wider track is going to stick a little better, and the car with wider tires is ahead too, especially when it's a wider front tire at an autocross. We've run a 295 rear tire, and 275 front on our 2nd gen. A 255 is about it up front on a 67 or 68, especially when the car is low.

The DSE 2nd gen runs a 295 tire up front I think. Not sure if the 69 can go that big. I think a 275 is the limit. I know a 67 or 68 with DSE sub could not clear that large a tire without extensive wheelwell mods.

Thanks David,

I think if you kept the same driver, these small differences add up...I figure there is nothing wrong with having one of each. That was exactly the detail I was looking for so once again, thanks everyone for the input.

[John Wright]

...I figure there is nothing wrong with having one of each of the 5 generations of camaroLOL...fixed it for ya....:cheers:

[MattG]

LOL...fixed it for ya....:cheers:

You really know me!

So true, so true.

[406 Q-ship]

The 1st gen front suspension was designed in the days of bias plys, where alot of the cars were sold with manual steering (done in the mid 1960's). The 2nd gens front suspension was bench marked on the Mercedes of the late 1960s and their ability to run on the autoban (reason for the caster improvement). Like David said the weight bias on either car isn't great but the 2nd gen has a slight advantage due to the engine set back (well at least in the early 2nd gens, damn impact bumpers), the camber curves on both isn't great but again it is better in the 2nd gen to the 1st gens. This along with the larger rubber that a 2nd gen will absorb in its wheel wells.......the story becomes clear.

I was talking to one of the DSE guys (before I had met Kyle) at Good Guys Del Mar a few years ago and had commented on the abilities of Kyles 2nd gen over Stacy's 69. Now both cars had DSE front subframe, the only difference is where the engine sits over the axle and the size of the tires between these two (at the time) well Kyle's Camaro was wiping the floor up over the 69. Stock front subframe in a Camaro and I will take the 2nd gen everytime to go tracking.

For a cheaper fun car I was thinking of a 1975 up X-body (Nova, Ventura, Apollo, Omega), they had the improved front suspension of the 2nd gens they just give up some of the engine set back of the F-body

[70camaro406]

The real reason they're running 2nd gens is that the 2nd gen just looks better....hehehe

He does have a good point! lol :woot:

[David Pozzi]

I just checked our 68 Camaro engine position against the 71 of Deanna Marengo. #1 spark plug is about 2" ahead of the front axle centerline on both.

[JEFFTATE]

the abilities of Kyles 2nd gen over Stacy's 69. Now both cars had DSE front subframe, the only difference is where the engine sits over the axle and the size of the tires between these two (at the time) well Kyle's Camaro was wiping the floor up over the 69.

Kyle's 2nd Gen also had a LOT more motor at one time .
It had a Mast Motorsports L92 engine ( 500 plus horsepower )
Stacy's 1st Gen had a GM Performance Parts 383 smallblock ( 425 horsepower )

I don't know what engines they have now , I think both have been upgraded.

[MattG]

I guess I'm one of the guys who posted in the wrong section:jump:

[dunnjun]

Great question! So if I'm understanding David rt., the only real diff. between equally setup DSE 1st and 2nds, is the width on the tire that can be put on the front w/out rubbing.

Looks like it should be in open discussion to me. :spank2:
Where did they move it to?

[Bill Howell]

I guess I'm one of the guys who posted in the wrong section:jump:


Actually, no. This is a case where the thread drifted to a suspension discussion and was moved here. Huge difference and the thread got a good start where it was at. This type gets moved all the time, most people, other than the OP never notice.

[MattG]

Thanks Bill,

It confused me a little...thanks for the response!

[6spdcamaro]

Great question! So if I'm understanding David rt., the only real diff. between equally setup DSE 1st and 2nds, is the width on the tire that can be put on the front w/out rubbing.

Looks like it should be in open discussion to me. :spank2:
Where did they move it to?

No. Both a 1st and 2nd gen with a DSE sub fits a 10 inch wheel with a 275, no rubbing.

[406 Q-ship]

Kyle's 2nd Gen also had a LOT more motor at one time .
It had a Mast Motorsports L92 engine ( 500 plus horsepower )
Stacy's 1st Gen had a GM Performance Parts 383 smallblock ( 425 horsepower )

I don't know what engines they have now , I think both have been upgraded.


At the time I believe it had an LS series engine in it....at least that is what I was led to believe. It was said that the 69 was to get a slight revamp to make it run better, it sounded like they were going to relocate the engine rearward.


I just checked our 68 Camaro engine position against the 71 of Deanna Marengo. #1 spark plug is about 2" ahead of the front axle centerline on both.

I've worked on so many of the 2nd gens and it always appeared to me that the front axle in the 2nd gen was pushed forward. Not an extreme amount, oh well live and learn. The geometry in the 2nd gen is an improvement over the 1st gens though.

[TBART70]

The real reason they're running 2nd gens is that the 2nd gen just looks better....hehehe


YES!:cool:

[coolwelder62]

The DSE 69 &70 I belive both run 275/35/18's frt. and 335/30/18's rear. My 69 has a 315/30/18's on a 18x11 wheel up frt. and a 335/30/18 on a 18x12 rear. I will running the same wheel tire combo on my 72 camaro.

[DJW32]

The DSE 69 &70 I belive both run 275/35/18's frt. and 335/30/18's rear. My 69 has a 315/30/18's on a 18x11 wheel up frt. and a 335/30/18 on a 18x12 rear. I will running the same wheel tire combo on my 72 camaro.

What kind of mods did you do to the inner fender to fit a 315? Is all the magic in your front sub frame? Can your car turn from lock to lock without rubbing the tires?

[David Pozzi]

I think Kyle said a 2nd gen could fit a 295 up front with their subframe, but you'd have to limit turn angle a little. Is that what Brian Finch runs?
David

[6spdcamaro]

I think Kyle said a 2nd gen could fit a 295 up front with their subframe, but you'd have to limit turn angle a little. Is that what Brian Finch runs?
David

Brians running a 295, but with modifications to the inner fender well if I remember correctly. I would imagine if you limited the turning angle and chop up the inner fender well in the 69, you would be able to fit the larger tire just as easily.

[David Pozzi]

I think a 67/68 Camaro has around 1.5" less room than a 69 does. Makes it tough for me with my 67 to keep up, no aluminum sheet metal either.

[69cutlassrkt]

Stacy has a mast motorsports engine now. Pretty sure its an ls3, I didn't ask her about it though.
41120

[Nothingface5384]

A little off-topic but how would a DSE upped 70-73 nova compare to the first and 2nd gen f-bodies

and when you guys say all DSE'd up do you man retaining the leaf springs or going with their 4link?


Thanks

[Type73LT]

From what I remember the 1st gens were Chevy 2's with Camaro bodies. Put together fast to fight the Mustangs. While that was happening Chevy was designing the second gens for better handling. That is why most parts for Novas and Camaros inter change for the 1st gens of Camaros. The second gens do not inter change with the same years Novas.

The 2nd gens are wider(about 1/2 inch)74.4 to 74 for 1st gens.
they are lower(about 1 inch)50 inches to 51.1 for 1st gens
they are longer(about 2 inches) But the wheel base stayed the same at 108 inches.

[jay72nova]

From what I remember the 1st gens were Chevy 2's with Camaro bodies. Put together fast to fight the Mustangs. While that was happening Chevy was designing the second gens for better handling. That is why most parts for Novas and Camaros inter change for the 1st gens of Camaros. The second gens do not inter change with the same years Novas.

I thought chevy did in fact rush to get the camaro out in 67, but the nova didn't get the camaro stuff until 68..at least thats how I understand it.

[badazz81z28]

From what I read in the history of the Camaro, the 1st gen was an off the cuff design and not much work was put into it. The 2nd gen was a much better designed car from the factory. Tons of money in suspension, wheels, frame, engine, etc make it happen along with a good driver who is not afraid to run ( I think thats huge). The majority of people do not have that much coin in their rides. The 70-73 Camaros do seem to kick butt, but are they really a 2nd gen camaro anymore? I have seen Finch's car...complete DSE frame, LS engine, T-56, Ford 9", quadra link along with the DSE car...Pretty much all that is left of a 2nd gen is the shell. I don't think It really matters how well the car is designed from the factory if the car was totally "re-engineered". You simply can't jump into an autoX with a stock camaro and be competitive. ALSO, From what I seen at the limited events I have been to, first gen owners typically are scared to beat the snot out their cars. Hell at run to the music a guy with a 68 had the 1/4 panels taped up so it wouldnt take a knick. I feel Finch and Tucker are not afraid to smack a pole or tear up their car, and that makes them very tough to beat.

[Leadfoot]

Having autocrossed an original 68 Z/28 against my buddys original 70 Z/28 in F-stock in the 70's, I can say without a doubt that the 2nd gen car is better designed for the track. HOWEVER..........I used to beat him regularly, and thought otherwise until I took his car for the day at an event, and turned better times than him in his own car, and me in mine. Not saying I am the greatest driver, but I was pretty good back then. I think a 1st gen car can be built to compete with the 2nd gen, but the 2nd gen is an easier build for the track. I eventually ended up owning that car, then sold it (darn!).

Everytime I see Kyle Tucker's blue 2nd gen it brings back fond memories. Mine was Mulsanne Blue with black stripes. And that car was smooth! So here I am building a 1st gen car. WHY?? I miss the sound of that 302, so I'm gonna build another one, but with todays suspension!

Cheers!

Jim Mock

[Jim Nilsen]

I've driven thousands of miles in both 1st and 2nd gens and then my Cormaro and the biggest difference for me seems to be the seating position. When I went from the 73 RS to the 67 i didn't like the seating postion at all, the feel of the cars in the seat of my pants just wasn't the same. You sit further back and lower in a 2nd gen which gives me a different feeling when starting to oversteer, the 2nd gen seems to tell you just a tad sooner what's up with the rear.

I have to say that the statement about all the mods and the cars not being anything same as a stocker ,making them a whole lot better is more than a mouthful of truth. The Cormaro handles like no other Camaro I have ever been in and could be a lot better with just simple upgrades. It really is better with the Z51 suspension and the engine back 6 in. than stock could ever be. It even rides smoother than a C4 I have been told.

All in all it is all about tires , brakes and then HP and the car with the best of all will make any driver have a chance, and a really good driver kick ass.
It has been proven many times that a really good driver can win in just about anything.

Stock the 2nd gen is way better for handling hands down.

[David Pozzi]

No. Both a 1st and 2nd gen with a DSE sub fits a 10 inch wheel with a 275, no rubbing.

A 69 Camaro has about 1.5" more room up front over a 67 or 68. A 275 might be squeezed in on a 67/8 but turn angle will be reduced more than on a 69. Finch can run a 295 up front on his second gen with some rework of the inner fender up top. I don't know of any 69 that has done that.
David

[Finch]

A 69 Camaro has about 1.5" more room up front over a 67 or 68. A 275 might be squeezed in on a 67/8 but turn angle will be reduced more than on a 69. Finch can run a 295 up front on his second gen with some rework of the inner fender up top. I don't know of any 69 that has done that.
David

I am now fitting a 295 on the front of a first gen with DSE subframe with stock inner and outer fenders with no loss in turning angle. I had them on the Green 69 at Hastings a month or so ago testing out the fitment.

[alphaenvirmgt]

Kyle is reportedly running 335 in front with modified wheel well and "custom" wheels. Essentially, he moved the wheel outboard somewhat (custom wheel) so the turning radius was not limited with wider tire and modified wheel well to prevent rubbing. Nothing magic here. As you go wider with the wheel/tire, you have to move it outboard so as to not restrict turning radius. What you have to do to be competitive at the top level. Things get serious when you start flaring the fenders for additional clearance.
Conrad

[Ryanater]

Just out of curiosity, how are some of these modified 1st and 2nd gen Camaros performing compared to modern day cars such as a new Z06? Let's assume similar horsepower and tire compound.

[Cobra 498]

Just out of curiosity, how are some of these modified 1st and 2nd gen Camaros performing compared to modern day cars such as a new Z06? Let's assume similar horsepower and tire compound.

Danny Popp in Z06 at Optima answers that question

[badazz81z28]

Danny Popp in Z06 at Optima answers that question

Yeah....No matter what you do to a old school car, it's still an old school car. You can't compare the new technology with the old because there is no comparison. The new cars such as the corvette are straight up engineered to be high performers. The overall car design with modern technology. A first and sec gen Camaro will just have technological improvements. Dollar for dollar, you could buy a stock Z06 for $75 grand and buy a old Camaro and invest $75K into it, and the Z06 would be stiff competition. The thing about pro-touring is not about being "better" than newer cars, but bring old cars into the future to make them better, but still have the old car look. If it was about pure competition, I would start out with something built in the last 5-10 years.

[71maroesteban]

1st gens are so boxy looking and take a ton of modification to make handle second gens were built to track gm had so much European inspiration when building the car that's why the lines are so smooth and also auto x=money if you don't have 6 figures to complete then their is no point In trying to be competitive

[badazz81z28]

I feel you could build a very competitive car for significantly less. You don't killer paint, forge-line wheels, a 9", fancy gauges, aftermarket frames etc. it helps, but seat time and the ability to push the car makes you competitive . Check out the Hobaugh corvette, pretty stock from what I read yet trumped a lot of high dollar cars


IMHO

[Rod]

I feel you could build a very competitive car for significantly less. You don't killer paint, forge-line wheels, a 9", fancy gauges, aftermarket frames etc. it helps, but seat time and the ability to push the car makes you competitive .
IMHO

Agreed, SEAT TIME, I spent my first year doing exactly that, my car was 4 shades of ugly primer, corvette rims, no interior other than 2 seats a speedo and a fuel gauge, no door panels, headliner, carpet, I drove an SCCA event 2 twice a month and added in a group call UFO once a month, so 3 times a month my car was at the track racing and every spare minute in between I tuned to make it and myself faster, I see many guys race there car 2 or 3 times a year and wonder why there not fast? fast takes dedication, I would get up at 3am to drive 3 1/2 hours to race an scca event of 4 whole runs (just under a minute each) at 8am and then turn around and drive 3 1/2 hours home, yep 7 hours traveling in a car to race for 4 minutes as practice, I say it again, fast takes dedication that is what make a car fast....
as for the question
Is 2nd Gen better than 1st Gen in AutoX?
I cant say for sure but I have been lucky enough to drive a few 2nd Gens and I will say that the cars felt smoother and transition quicker that my first gen(to get the same times on the clock), My car Jane is violent, pissed off, and reckless, to get a first gen around the track fast is work, so I do think the balance on a second gen is better for the track(could be why they built that car from 1970 to 1981) and the 1st gens only lived 3 years