In scanning the log I kept during the past nine days of driving a 1993 Chevrolet Camaro Z28, I was struck by the fact that many of the notations - made for later reference when writing this review - began with words like "nice," "good," "smooth" and even, in one case, "wonderful."
The latter was a reference to the Z28's ability to transport its occupants to the next red light before the folks back at the last one even realized it had turned green.But Camaros have always been fast, at least the Z28s have. But my appraisals of Camaros past, even Z-cars, have been pretty short on "nice," "good" and "smooth." As for "wonderful," I don't recall ever using that word and Camaro in the same sentence before.
Camaros have been around for some 30 years, and there have been so many versions of this "pony car" - so named because it was created to compete with the Ford Mustang - that I couldn't begin to recount them all.
But one thing is for sure: I never considered buying one. True, that put me at odds with a zillion Camaro owners over the past three decades, but they never made a believer of me. Every time I boarded a Camaro, whether in the '60s, 70s, '80s or even the '92 convertible I evaluated last year, I always reached the same unhappy conclusions. To wit:
Camaros were big on the outside, tight and uncomfortable on the inside; devoured gasoline like it came from a garden hose; rode like a truck with bad shocks; creaked and rattled like a haunted house; seemed to be hinged together at several points, creating a feeling that they were trying to ramble off in all directions at once; plowed around corners in near-terminal understeer; stopped on a dime . . . provided that dime was the size of the Salt Palace parking lot.
With all that going on, being fast wasn't nearly enough. Actually, their speed worked against them. Fast cars that don't handle or stop are scary to anyone over age 17.
But now it is 1993, and Chevy has once again taken its beloved Camaro back to the drawing board. With only 10 percent of the old car's components carried over, this time they got it right.
True, the back seat is as cramped as ever. True, the hatchback trunk still doesn't hold very much, but the car has otherwise been improved so much that those things hardly seem to matter. Who needs utility when you've got a ton of fun in a quality package at a price thousands below the competition?
I kept thinking of the Corvette I reviewed last month and how much more desirable the Camaro is in every way except one: the Vette mystique. The Z28 has a slightly detuned version of the Corvette's 5.7-liter, LT1 V-8 with 275 horsepower and a Borg-Warner six-speed manual transmission. In real world driving, the Z seemed just as fast as the Vette.
It also was a lot easier to enter and exit, and it has, by comparison, a lot more utility (even a tight back seat is better than none; ditto for the trunk). Best of all, the Camaro costs less that half the price of the Vette.
Base price for the Z28 is $16,779. My "Bright Red" (what else) test car had about $2,500 worth of options of both the performance (axle ratio and special tires) and luxury variety (CD player, AC, power gizmos) that pushed the bottom line to $19,759.
We're talking certified performance-car bargain here, folks.
So why did Chevy wait so long to make the Camaro a leader, rather than a follower in the sports coupe market? There are likely a lot of reasons, including the fact that this segment changes so fast that it's hard to keep up with the pack let alone get ahead of it.
Questions abounded. Should Chevy convert the Camaro to a small front-driver like many competitors? Should it go upscale into $30K territory to take on the Japanese coupes like Toyota Supra and Nissan 300ZX? Should they just leave it alone because people buy Continued from E1
them anyway?
Chevy clung to that latter cop-out way too long, but finally figured out that its niche was still in rear-wheel-drive, still in sub-$20,000 territory (the entry-level Camaro has a base price of $13,399) and they could build a lot better Camaro without straying from those parameters.
Other than utility, everything else about the new Camaro is better. Controls and instruments are a quantum leap ahead while remaining simple and logical - the Z28 is not a test-bed for new gadgetry. The seats are world-class for a sports coupe, and everything from the steering wheel to the baseball-style shifter are ergonomically pleasing.
Speaking of shifting, the six-speed tranny is the same one used in the Vette but without the dreadfully annoying CAGS lockout, which shifts the car from first directly to fourth gear if you don't stomp on the throttle when starting out. It breaks my heart, but Chevy apparently intends to install CAGS in the '94 Z28s. If this turns out to be true, I will never forgive them.
The Z28 is easy to drive fast, especially for a 3,400-pound car. The engine's massive torque also makes it quite forgiving. You can drive in fourth gear at 15 mph or 70 mph. In sixth gear, you can loaf along at 65 mph with the engine turning a leisurely 2,000 rpm. The ABS brakes make the car stop as well as it goes.
Top speed is around 150 mph, but who will ever explore that upper limit? Certainly not this law-abiding citizen. But the Z28 also has a ton of low-end grunt, the kind that gets you out of the blocks in a blink and zips you ahead of a long line of cars on the freeway to that open spot at the off-ramp. Most drivers today need (and want) the quickest 0-60 mph times they can get. High top speeds are meaningless.
Did I mention that the car has a wonderful low, rumbling exhaust note? It reminded me of my old '47 Ford with dual Glasspack mufflers. Call me juvenile, but I love a car that sounds menacing when you blip the throttle.
Nice going, Chevy. You done good. Now, about that CAGS lockout you apparently have planned for 1984. Don't do it. Let people select their own gears. If they want to shift from first to fourth to save gas, fine, but don't do it for them. I promise, you will lose sales if you do. Can you hear me, Chevy? Chevy? Hello?