Vintage Mustang Forums banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part JUNE's Ride of the Month Challenge!
  • May's Ride of the Month contest ended with a tie! Go to this thread to vote on the winner! VOTE HERE
1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,313 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Everyone knows that the 1967 Camaro was GM's answer to build a car that would compete with the Ford Mustang. Do you think that Chevrolet was succesful in 1967 with the Camaro?
I dont know much about Camaros but some books say the styling was superior and that it had a more brawny stance than the Mustang. Also the 396ci engine was superior than the first year of the 390ci engine in the Mustang for 1967.The Mustang had the fastback, convertible and coupe but Camaro had the coupe and convertible only. I think that the Mustang had the advantage for looks in the fastback style for that year.
So what do you guys and gals think:Was the Camaro a better car than the 1967 Mustang in styling, power and handling?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,838 Posts
If you talk to died-in-the wool Camaro guys they will often tell you what a unpleasant (compared to 68 or 69) cars they are. Screwed up suspension geometry is the biggest complaint.Bottom line is they don't like the way they ride or handle. There were some signficant changes made in 68 and they supposedly got it right by 1969. But the 67 Mustang was already on its second redesign and was really "sorted" out pretty well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,552 Posts
When I was in High School the '68 Camaro was my absolute dream car. About 2 years into cutting out all the rust in my $500 Mustang I said to my son I'm not so sure why the heck I'm bothering with this car since I always loved '68 camaro's.... Today I could care less about a Camaro. I still like their lines, but now I think the Mustang is a superior car in terms of styling. There is no comparison with the Mustang's 3 body style options and then there's the California Special and Shelby's. Mustang has always appealed to the masses.
In the mid 80's I owned an older Pontiac Trans Am, in '86 I wanted a new car and looked at the newer T/As and Z28s -- both were dogs, so I bought an Mustang GT. Cheaper and faster... I'm thinking Mustang's popularity in the 60's was for much of the same reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
441 Posts
I love the old camaros as much as the stangs. I am just a sucker for most old cars. I'd love to have any one/two/three/a dozen of the many different types of chevy or fords. One day and one resto at a time.
 

·
Registered
1967 Mustang GT fastback
Joined
·
4,019 Posts
I've got the original Road and Track test of my car, still in the wrapper, from 1967. Perhaps some of their comments may be useful here.

R&T tested and compared the 67 Cuda (340 automatic), Camaro (327 4 speed) and Mustang GT (california smog equipped A code hardtop with 4 speed and 3.00 rear end).

They absolutely raved about the Mustang's surefootedness with the Wide Ovals. The other cars were so-so in that department. Camaro's handling was a bit softer than the Mustang's, the Cuda with the "Formula S package" was more or less comparable the the GT Mustang's.
They absolutely hated the Camaro's gimmicky sliding plate shifter assembly which rattled furiously in their test car whenever they shifted, as opposed to the simple but effective rubber shift boot in the Mustang.
The 327 Camaro was a stronger motor than the 225 horse Mustang, even though the Mustang was 300 pounds lighter. Mustang was 9.8 seconds to 60, Camaro was 9.1 or so.
Mustang had the best build quality (very "solid") and most pleasant interior, the others were a bit more on the tacky and cheap side. Bucket seats not even standard in the other two cars, only the Mustang.
Overall, they liked the Mustang best. Cuda was OK, Camaro was, to them, overall a "disappointment. Chevy has had two years to come up with a car to beat the Mustang, and all they have done is equal it" their editors said.

And, as said above, it's probably true the new Camaro had a year or two of sorting out to be done fine-tuning suspension, etc.
Now, viewed with 40 years of classic car hindsight .... Camaro or Mustang - more or less depends on your personal preference, IMHO.

Oh, and I'll eat my hat if I can't do better than a 9.8 sec 0-60 time these days!!!! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
765 Posts
"Better" is a relative term. Camaro probably did some things better than Mustang and vise versa. It just comes down to individual owner preference in which is better suited to the particular owner.

I like any kind of muscle car, but I've always had (and prefered) Mustangs since I've been old enough to drive. I purchased my first Mustang when I was still 15 (1982). 25 years later, I still have that same '68.

There's no doubt the Camaro was a stout contender, but Mustang also dominated Trans Am racing events too.

As far as Camaros go, I think the '69 body is a much better looking body than the earlier '67/'68 Camaros.

Mustang has always offered more bang-for-the buck against the Bow Tie's offering --so much so that the General's Camaro/Firebird got put out of production (at least temporarily) in 2002 by the sales of Mustangs over the GM variants. The Camaro is supposed to be coming back. Maybe this time GM will get the price vs. performance right with respect to competition against the Mustang.

Shifting this a little bit, there are only two offerings from Dodge/Chrysler I think are really killer-look bodies --the '70-'74 Challengers and 'Cudas. They had both styling and brute force to back it up.

Even though I like most any muscle car, I'm still a Mustang fanatic first. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,252 Posts
Why rewrite history. Whether the 67 Camaro might have been better, or not, the Mustang -by far- outsold it's GM competitor.
Now, who can agrue that the 396 Chevy engine blew away Ford's 390. And, who can argue that you can put practically any engine in the Camaro, without screwing around with the shock towers. ('cause there in't any)
Don't make any difference, because there are way more 67 Mustangs still around than the Camaro.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,481 Posts
This brings up something I've always "known", just not sure why or how I came to the conclusion. I have always"heard" that mustangs were better/faster in the straightaway, camaros better in the turns.....Any factual basis to this????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,218 Posts
I haven't driven a bone stock example of either a '67 Crapmaro or a '67 Mustang, but I would say that the Camaro was the better car. The solid lifter 375 hp 396 was capable of high 12's with a little tuning. The Z-28, which came out in December and of which only 605 were built that year, was a crazy fun car with the solid lifter 302, 4-spd, 12-bolt, and pdb standard. (Did you know, those dual "SS" stripes that just about every restomod Crapmaro has today, were exclusive to the Z for all three 1st gen years?) Mustang had nothing to match either of these models.

The base SS Crapmaro came with a Camaro-exclusive 350 4-bbl rated at 290 hp, with three 396's as options (325, 350, and 375 hp). The 396/375 was available with aluminum heads. The base Mustang GT was, what, an A code 289? The K code was in its last year, but I don't consider either an A code or a K code to be the equal of the 350-4v, whether in stock trim or with the usual Day Two bolt-ons.

As far as engineering and chassis dynamics, both cars were pretty pitiful in stock form. The Mustang has the easy-to-do Shelby drop which tunes up the handling quite a bit. The Crapmaro requires more work to get the same result.

The '67 Crapmaro only came with single leaf springs for some reason. GM engineers thought they were cool, but axle wind up and wheel hop were the inevitable result. These "monoleaf" springs were dropped from the Z/28 and the SS396 in '68.

The Crapmaro's subframe-mounted engine and front suspension probably is smoother and more refined than the Mustang's cracker box unibody and its steel-on-steel UCA bushings. The Crapmaro also lacks the Mustang's accursed shock towers, which gives you all the underhood clearance you need for headers or big block swaps.

Styling is subjective, but the Crapmaro had no fastback, which is a big plus for the Mustang. A fold-down seat was available, but there was no pass-through to the trunk like with the Mustang.

The Crapmaro had the cool headlight doors, which is part of the Rally Sport package that was optional with any engine package. It also included turn signals relocated from the grille to the front valance, and all-red taillights with blackout surrounds. (Stock is half red, half white backup lights.) I think the '69 Camaro Rally Sport will win any poll of the best looking muscle car of all -- not by a majority, I mean just that it will come in first in any "scientific" poll of people who care.
 

·
VMF Full-Timer
Joined
·
3,823 Posts
classicsguy:Was the Camaro a better car than the 1967 Mustang in styling said:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,002 Posts
http://imgsrv.khits1067.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200705/848025.jpg
Here's my '67 Camaro. It's not really fair to compare it to my '68 390 because the Mustang's all stock but the way the 67 is set up with a crate 350, Doug Nash S/210, solid body mounts, and numerous other suspension components makes them worlds apart as far as handling. Doesn't mean that the Camaro's more fun though. The way that 390 power comes through that FB, tweaking the whole body like a pretzel can really stoke the moment;).
As far as quality or amenities it really is a wash to me because they both have attributes as well as shortcomings as far as being compared to one another. ..I love the foot operated pump squirter for the windshield on the Mustang.
The best handling and power (box stock) car I ever owned was my '69 Firebird 400. Owned it fr 19 years; Really miss that one. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
If you count the overall sales figures then no, the Camaro was not a better car. As far as the 390 VS the 396, the FE 390 could compete with the entry level 396 (325 HP) and that's all Ford cared about.

The styling is a matter of taste. After researching the Mustangs history I concluded that Ford had it right, they were not engaging in muscle wars as much as trying to sell Mustangs, in that arena they trounced GM handily (yes, even the Mustang II). Also, Ford marketed to females more so than GM, so more women recognize a Mustang over a Camaro.

Even today, the new Camaro will probably be introduced with more power than the current Mustang but it will not be able to match the sales numbers. The Camaro died a tragic death because it (even coupled with the Firebird) could not match the sales of the Mustang and lost money for GM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
bias: No camaro is better than any mustang.


no... seriously. !!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,677 Posts
IMO the camaro lacks body curves. Flat nose, notchback roof, flat tailpanel. The mustang fastback has so much more depth in the body styling compared to the plain camaro. I don't know who ruled the road back in the day cause i wasn't born yet, but you can soup up either car to outperform the other these days. You can't (without a ton of work) improve the camaro's looks to be as curvaceous as the mustang
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,674 Posts
IMHO.... kinda like asking what's "better".... a Bud or a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale.

If you like it... you like it... "style" is a Jackson Pollock vs. Titian debate... all in the eye of the beholder...

(and I'll take the SNPA every time!) :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
I like Mustangs better, but I can enjoy a nice Camaro too, especially the 69's. Ford made all kinds of nice engines in those days, but in terms of regular production offerings, the Camaro had more to offer.

Road tests of the day weren't overly enthousiastic about the Camaros. Firebirds were considered better and were more refined and had things like variable ratio power steering.
 

·
(actually Slim Jr now)
Joined
·
24,597 Posts
Hey it's kinda like taking a poll. What color should I paint my car?
Are apples better than oranges?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
I always thought that GM LOVED the 67/68 Mustang Fastback more than their own 67-69 Camaros, since they essentially copied the body design for their 70 and later Camaros.

I mean c'mon, they look almost identical! :eek:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k245/ryandnowicki/Misc/70camaro.jpg

http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~mike/mustang/sideView.jpg

So if GM thought the 67 Mustang was a better car, then I think that answers your question... :p
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top