Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    dallas, tx
    Posts
    1,527
    Country Flag: United States

    Default 2nd gen vs 1st gen camaro opinion for a future build

    Letís start off saying that I have a absolute blast in my 67 camaro. Recently I have been looking at a 70-73 camaro and if I ever want to build one I would need to sell my 67 unless I get one under 10k and take my good old time with it.

    Performance, cost, and ease of working on it wise how does it compare to a 1st gen? There are a few things I would do slightly different on my car but I wouldnít dare redoing on something that is so well balanced and great.

    Suspension wise I would be looking at dse subframe and Quadra link. Any install or performance differences?

    Would like to go with a lt4, t56 magnum e85 setup on the second gen. Do you need to raise the tunnel for this like you have to on a 1st gen?

    Another thing is maybe fitting some 335/30/18 in all 4 corners which on my 67 isnít happening. How hard is this on a second gen? Anvil front fenders a must?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Deployed
    Posts
    2,790
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    I personally feel there is a lot of proof on the pavement showing the clean sheet design sec gen f-body is a better designed car. Where the first gen shines is part availability because they made so many and how popular it is. 335s on all 4 corners is achievable, but I don’t feel the DSE frame accommodates 335s up front as a lot of the extra clearance will need to come from modifying the fenders. From what I have seen, a 285 is about max. I have seen 315s, but with body modifications. I have seen that the Speedtech frame has much more room and 315s fit, I suspect not much to get 335s with that frame. I currently have a LS7 with a magnum and I only cut a hole for the shifter and massaged the tunnel slightly to clear the bellhousing. A more professional build will build a new tunnel, but my experience shows not required. My car feels a lot stiffer with the DSE suspension over the coil springs and leafs.
    1970 Camaro/DSE build


    Are you driver enough? Maybe....come on blue!
    https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...71#post1147371

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    dallas, tx
    Posts
    1,527
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Anyone else? Going to look at one tomorrow.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Lyon, MI
    Posts
    1,140
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    The second gen Camaro is a much better car from a performance standpoint and needs much less work to get it to handle well. The front suspension in particular has much better geometry. There is also good aftermarket support for the second gen (as for the first gen).

    I would definitely choose a second gen Camaro over a first gen Camaro if I were focused on performance and handling. After struggling to get the geometry fixed on my third gen Nova (same suspension as a first gen Camaro), I would prefer the later subframe and geometry.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hildebran, NC
    Posts
    945
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    I feel like such a ding dong for saying this...but I will.

    I have a 71 Nova and an 80 Camaro.
    Nova modified, Camaro stock.
    Everywhere we trip these cars to, for autocross or shows, we take several fold up chairs, a fair size cooler, some tools, and at least two pop up tents.

    I can fit all of that in my Nova.
    I still have the factory spare and jack in the 80 Camaro, and I can fit two chairs in the trunk, that's it...LOL.

    Otherwise, I love both, but you can tell the Camaro is way better handling from the factory than the earlier cars.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    266
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badazz81z28 View Post
    I personally feel there is a lot of proof on the pavement showing the clean sheet design sec gen f-body is a better designed car. Where the first gen shines is part availability because they made so many and how popular it is. 335s on all 4 corners is achievable, but I donít feel the DSE frame accommodates 335s up front as a lot of the extra clearance will need to come from modifying the fenders. From what I have seen, a 285 is about max. I have seen 315s, but with body modifications. I have seen that the Speedtech frame has much more room and 315s fit, I suspect not much to get 335s with that frame. I currently have a LS7 with a magnum and I only cut a hole for the shifter and massaged the tunnel slightly to clear the bellhousing. A more professional build will build a new tunnel, but my experience shows not required. My car feels a lot stiffer with the DSE suspension over the coil springs and leafs.
    Agreed, I don't know how you'd run bigger than 285 w/o rubbing or interference. I have 285/40-17's on my car and it just fits between the fender lip and the leaf spring.

    I've never owned a 1st gen, and I'm clearly biased toward 2nd gens... but the 2nd gens have A LOT of potential IMO. Mine isn't anywhere near the build quality as most of the cars on this site (just basic upgrades), but even with that it handles amazingly well. I can only imagine what it would be like if I had all the cutting edge suspension technology that's available out there that I can't afford
    See me in Camaro Performers

    DIY Projector Headlights, LED Tail Lights, and more. See my website.

    ULTM8Z Website

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Sulphur, La
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Are there any geometry differences in the DSE sub and quadralink for the 1st and 2nd gen cars?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Deployed
    Posts
    2,790
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    ^^ I would guess no considering itís badicslly the same frame with the same parts.
    1970 Camaro/DSE build


    Are you driver enough? Maybe....come on blue!
    https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...71#post1147371

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Beach Park IL
    Posts
    2,350
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Subs are identical if I remember right. The 2nd gen Quadralink has better forward bite from what I have seen.

    I have no science, but I feel the 2nd gen cars are a stronger unibody. They definitely have better aero.

    For what ever reason, I am more comfortable in a 2nd gen. Most of that is all personal preference but I feel it is easier to get the seats lower in a 2nd gen and the OEM pedal and column placement just flat works better for me.

    That all aside, 67/8 are better looking cars to my eye, so that is what I would build.
    Donny

    Support your local hot rod shop!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Deployed
    Posts
    2,790
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    ^^ yeah a first gen is a very nice car to build, I think equitably built the sec gen will perform better.
    1970 Camaro/DSE build


    Are you driver enough? Maybe....come on blue!
    https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...71#post1147371

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA
    Posts
    2,267
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    If you are even a little bit tall then 2nd gen driver ergonomics are vastly superior to the first gen. More head room and leg room.

    I don't know about the DSE front sub but the TCI Engineering front subframe and Speedtech front sub can easily accommodate 315 front tires under the stock fenders. If you are willing to give up a little turning radius on the TCI subframe you could fit 335 under the stock fenders. A budy of mine with a Speedtech frame and Anvil front fenders is running 335 front tires no problem too.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    dallas, tx
    Posts
    1,527
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Not worried about head room. I have plenty of headroom in my 67 with the tmi headliner, lowered recaro, and the way I have it set up. If you are saying that the dse subframe and quadralink will ride and handle just like my 67 does with those parts then I’m set.

    Any install complications with a quadralink in a second gen or the same issues you face in a 1st gen?

    All parts available for a second gen just like they are for a 1st gen?

    Here’s my car for those that are wondering the style of car that I will be building. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...8977846&type=3


    And this is the look of the second gen I would be going after http://gaugemagazine.com/ridetech-track-1-camaro/

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Sulphur, La
    Posts
    378

    Default

    I'm sure the sec gen has a stiffer chassis. I believe suspension geometry won't be much different since you are going DSE with either option. That leaves: weight, wheelbase, aero and emotions. Since you have a first gen already I'd do the second gen for sure.



  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Castro Valley,CA
    Posts
    2
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    My Second Gen has a Speedtech Extreme Subframe and Torque Arm, 335's on all 4's, along with Anvil inner wheel wells and fenders. The fenders aren't wider but the inner wheel wells accomodate the 335's in front.
    There is a bit of fiberglass work needed on the inners to fit the 335's but not much.
    Suspension setup and alignment is very critical with 335's up front.
    The Speedtech Extreme Subframe made it easy to fit 335's up front.
    Nick
    70 Camaro
    70 Chevelle SS
    1969 Camaro SS

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Central CA USA
    Posts
    6,035
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    I'm going to include comments on stock subframes because I think members will benefit from that infol

    A stock first gen has:
    Less front fender width outside to outside. I think it's around 1.5" less per side. The front is worse than the rear.
    Has 2.5" less front tire clearance to the frame rails per side
    Has slightly less camber gain than a second gen, can achieve a bit more positive caster stock. Has more toe out bump steer.
    Has similar stock brakes
    Has rear steer linkage, which isn't bad in itself but outer tie rods hang very low and close to the tires limiting tire width. Ackerman steering correction is better, bump steer is worse. (toe out in bump).
    Potentially lighter than a second gen. Lighter hood and roof.
    Front sub torsional flex is nearly the same for both, lousy, - around 4000 ft lb per degree.
    Firewall top edge is weak for G brace installation
    Aerodynamics are worse, front and rear. Nose wants to lift, too much grille area.
    Less rear wheel well room. round 67/68 wheel well opening hits tire at rear 10 o'clock right side, and 2 o'clock left side position behind tire where the quarter panel sweeps inward near belt line. 69 is 3/4" wider or more and the squared off opening allows one size larger tire than 67/68.
    Trans tunnel needs to be raised to clear T56.
    A first gen really benefits from an aftermarket sub, but the front fenders are more restrictive of running very wide tires unless they are modified. 69's are a little better by 3/4" but opening shape helps too.

    Second Gen:
    Fender outside to outside wider, especially front for wider track. Not much bump clearance to inner fender when lowered, tire will hit.
    Frame rails more narrow, outside to outside - more tire room.
    Front steer has some toe in during bump.
    A arms have wider base for more stability
    Hood is very large and heavy, roof has a second steel inner roof that adds weight up high
    Front A pillars are thin and when G braces are added, the windshield can crack at upper corners from high torsional stress.
    Wheel opening shape is easier to clear tire
    Leaf springs run straight ahead so you can't gain room by offsetting shackles only. You have to move front and rear leaf mounts, so you might as well change to a link suspension or torque arm.
    Aero is better, lower front, smaller grille, smoother roof, more air to rear spoiler, which is taller.
    Doors are very long and heavy. Have side guard beams in them.
    lower Cowl, lower driver seating, more rearward.
    Trans tunnel needs to be raised for a T56.
    Firewall has a stiffer lip for G brace installation.
    Non-RS bumper is heavier
    Torsional rigidity is same as first gen - poor.
    Suspension geometry is perhaps 10% better, not as good as people think.
    -------------------------------------------
    Most of the differences are fixed by using aftermarket subframe & link rear suspension, minitubbing, etc, but the front fender room outside to outside on 67/68's is going to be less unless the fenders are bulged or flared. Second gen is going to have an aero advantage but roof weight is going to hurt it. A very wide wheel and tire requires perfect suspension geometry to keep it flat on the pavement.
    Last edited by David Pozzi; 01-22-2019 at 04:05 PM.
    67 Camaro RS that will be faster than anything Mary owns.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Denver, NC
    Posts
    35
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    I've built a 69 and am now wrapping up a 70. Both used DSE subframe and Quadralink. I felt like the Quadralink install was much more involved on the 70.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    100

    Default

    I'm running 315s on my 76 T/A with a DSE front sub frame without any body modification. Stock height body mounts / core support mounts so I don't know what y'all are on about with DSE front sub frames not fitting 315s.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Beach Park IL
    Posts
    2,350
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Apples and tomatoes are both fruits and both red but nobody eats a warm tomato pie.

    A 76 TA and a 70 Camaro are both 2nd gen F bodies and take the same DSE subframe but you won't find a 315 under stock sheetmetal in a 70-73 Camaro.
    Donny

    Support your local hot rod shop!



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •