GM deserves a standing ovation...
05-04-2009, 09:40 PM
#81
I always thought 1969 was the least desired year. clunkier looking than the 67-68 and 1970-1091 years.
I think only the mystique of the ZL1 and COPO Camaros of 69 make that year worth remembering. This appears much like a 1969.
Onlly poor gringo cochinos in high school drove this car. Everyone else had a late model Z or TA.
I think only the mystique of the ZL1 and COPO Camaros of 69 make that year worth remembering. This appears much like a 1969.
Onlly poor gringo cochinos in high school drove this car. Everyone else had a late model Z or TA.
The 1967 was bland, the 1968 had some hideous aspects (the inside lights) and the 1969 actually had hips, aggressive front fenders, etc...
I do like the 1970-71 split bumpers as well though
05-04-2009, 10:16 PM
#82
12 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Norman, OKLAHOMA
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always thought 1969 was the least desired year. clunkier looking than the 67-68 and 1970-1981 years.
I think only the mystique of the ZL1 and COPO Camaros of 69 make that year worth remembering. This appears much like a 1969.
Onlly poor gringo cochinos in high school drove this car. Everyone else had a late model Z or TA.
I think only the mystique of the ZL1 and COPO Camaros of 69 make that year worth remembering. This appears much like a 1969.
Onlly poor gringo cochinos in high school drove this car. Everyone else had a late model Z or TA.
Are you mildly retarded?
05-05-2009, 10:44 AM
#83
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 680
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always thought 1969 was the least desired year. clunkier looking than the 67-68 and 1970-1981 years.
I think only the mystique of the ZL1 and COPO Camaros of 69 make that year worth remembering. This appears much like a 1969.
Onlly poor gringo cochinos in high school drove this car. Everyone else had a late model Z or TA.
I think only the mystique of the ZL1 and COPO Camaros of 69 make that year worth remembering. This appears much like a 1969.
Onlly poor gringo cochinos in high school drove this car. Everyone else had a late model Z or TA.
05-05-2009, 11:15 AM
#84
TECH Enthusiast
No rather intelligent actually. What problem do you have? ********?
New camaro looks as a 1969. I stated my opinion. That is all. It is an ugly car unless one actually likes 1969 camaros.
What ******** on this site.
Having owned a 19701/2 Trans Am, 1979 Trans Am, 5.0 Liter mustang, and a GTO. I think I know what a good looking car is.
New camaro looks as a 1969. I stated my opinion. That is all. It is an ugly car unless one actually likes 1969 camaros.
What ******** on this site.
Having owned a 19701/2 Trans Am, 1979 Trans Am, 5.0 Liter mustang, and a GTO. I think I know what a good looking car is.
05-24-2009, 09:38 AM
#86
12 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Norman, OKLAHOMA
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No rather intelligent actually. What problem do you have? ********?
New camaro looks as a 1969. I stated my opinion. That is all. It is an ugly car unless one actually likes 1969 camaros.
What ******** on this site.
Having owned a 19701/2 Trans Am, 1979 Trans Am, 5.0 Liter mustang, and a GTO. I think I know what a good looking car is.
New camaro looks as a 1969. I stated my opinion. That is all. It is an ugly car unless one actually likes 1969 camaros.
What ******** on this site.
Having owned a 19701/2 Trans Am, 1979 Trans Am, 5.0 Liter mustang, and a GTO. I think I know what a good looking car is.
And thinking a 1979 Trans Am looks good goes to show you don't know what a good looking vehicle looks like. You should have stuck with the mustang.
05-24-2009, 11:37 AM
#87
The car looks amazing.
But-
When guys called 03 Cobras and GTO's pigs @ 3600lbs, what do we call a 3900lb Camaro with near 400rwhp and only trapping 111?
It would have been perfect @ 3500 lbs. Guys are going to have thier work cut out to trap 125-130 with them. 40-50 Rolls will suffer for sure.
But-
When guys called 03 Cobras and GTO's pigs @ 3600lbs, what do we call a 3900lb Camaro with near 400rwhp and only trapping 111?
It would have been perfect @ 3500 lbs. Guys are going to have thier work cut out to trap 125-130 with them. 40-50 Rolls will suffer for sure.
05-25-2009, 10:33 AM
#89
Launching!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Miami
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The car looks amazing.
But-
When guys called 03 Cobras and GTO's pigs @ 3600lbs, what do we call a 3900lb Camaro with near 400rwhp and only trapping 111?
It would have been perfect @ 3500 lbs. Guys are going to have thier work cut out to trap 125-130 with them. 40-50 Rolls will suffer for sure.
But-
When guys called 03 Cobras and GTO's pigs @ 3600lbs, what do we call a 3900lb Camaro with near 400rwhp and only trapping 111?
It would have been perfect @ 3500 lbs. Guys are going to have thier work cut out to trap 125-130 with them. 40-50 Rolls will suffer for sure.
05-25-2009, 11:07 AM
#91
True that it would have been the perfect 1/4 mile car if it was 3500 lbs. But they need to sell this car to a lot more people to keep it around, and they put the money into the overall refinement of the car instead of building a Camaro specific lightweight chassis that hot rodders would love. I think it was a compromise to keep the costs under control, so I am ok with it if it means I have something other than a mustang to consider.
05-25-2009, 01:35 PM
#92
Launching!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Miami
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the Mustang will start to put on more weight if they go with a bigger DOHC motor, 6 speed transmission, etc, so I wouldn't be surprised to see the car reach 3650lbs or so, but it should still have at least 200 lbs on the Camaro.
