1st gen chevrolet Camaro grp 2 specs and details

[Al Weyman]

Very nice car Pomracer whatever it had under the bonnet! A friend of mine owned it briefly and sold it on, he bought it out with us in Bernies V8's but it was missfiring a bit, still managed to win the FIA (ish) class but dunno how it ended up in that class.

[Al Weyman]

Just getting back to the SBC alloy heads, one of my books tells me GM had planned to fit the 3rd Gen and Corvette with alloy heads in the 80's but ran in to problems so they never fitted them till later so they would never have been fitted to a 1st gen and if they were you would never find a pair they would be like rocking horse do dos.

[eb911]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

Just getting back to the SBC alloy heads, one of my books tells me GM had planned to fit the 3rd Gen and Corvette with alloy heads in the 80's but ran in to problems so they never fitted them till later so they would never have been fitted to a 1st gen and if they were you would never find a pair they would be like rocking horse do dos.

Al,
I have just got a copy of 1449 FIA homologation sheet for the 1st gen 302ci Z28. It is mentionned "Cylinder heads - Aluminium optionnal"
What do you think it would come from ?

[eb911]

I have also found the page mentionning the fender flares in the 1449 homologation sheet

[soupdragon]

Originally Posted by eb911

I have also found the page mentionning the fender flares in the 1449 homologation sheet

I was told by one of my clients who contacted the MSA about this set of papers that 'they weren't recognized'.
Draw from that what you will.
I would suggest you go and get your papers issued in all of the other countries in Europe who will recognize the papers!!!
That is certainly the case with the 65 Corvette. You can get a set of papers in any country in Europe with a 427 engine, except in England, where you have to run a 396. That is because we are right & they are all wrong, which is some consolation whist your getting your doors blown off when racing abroad...

[pomracer]

Originally Posted by soupdragon

I was told by one of my clients who contacted the MSA about this set of papers that 'they weren't recognized'.
Draw from that what you will.
I would suggest you go and get your papers issued in all of the other countries in Europe who will recognize the papers!!!
That is certainly the case with the 65 Corvette. You can get a set of papers in any country in Europe with a 427 engine, except in England, where you have to run a 396. That is because we are right & they are all wrong, which is some consolation whist your getting your doors blown off when racing abroad...

EB911 - I have never seen those photos of the cars with fender flares before - very interesting! - but I guess that the other posts regarding Group 2 and Group 4/5 may be right.

Nor have I seen those pages from the homologation papers. Can you confirm that they are FIA and not SCCA papers? If not recognised does that mean that they were never ratified by the FIA?
I note that the photos showing the flares appear to be from an extension dated 1971

With regard to the '65 Corvette it is very clear cut in that there are three sets of FIA Homologation papers: one for 1964 cars running small block 327ci engines and drum brakes; one for 1965 cars running big block 396 ci engines and disc brakes all round; and one for 1967 cars running the 427 ci engine again with disc brakes all round. You can build a car to the latter, with a 427, but you would not be able to race it in any series or championship limited to Period F or older cars, so you would be competing against younger cars although that is not to say that the car would not still be competitive . The problem with many Corvettes seen in Europe is that many were built to the 1967 spec' but accepted in Period F which was incorrect.

[pomracer]

Originally Posted by eb911

Al,
I have just got a copy of 1449 FIA homologation sheet for the 1st gen 302ci Z28. It is mentionned "Cylinder heads - Aluminium optionnal"
What do you think it would come from ?

I was not aware of an ali' head option on the smallblock , even in 1969, but will be interested to hear views on this.

GM did produce ali' heads for the bigblock 427 at about this time (1969 - 70 71)

I have a list of the Z-28 Camaro heavy duty parts list available from the factory - it lists everything from axle ratios to steering parts and springs but nothing about engines! The fibreglass cowl induction hood is listed with almost the same number as in your sheet 3963832 but that could be a miss-print...but we are getting in to serious anorak territory here.

[Al Weyman]

Re the alloy heads, as said no doubt the intention was to get these in to production but according to the books I have this never happened because of afore mentioned production problems so IF they are allowed by these papers exactly what ones do you intend to use, Edelbrocks, Twisters, Patriots, World Products, Brodix??? because I bet none of them can be legal as you would need to find a set made by GM that are not rotted out and that work, an impossible task I would say. have a mint set of Edelbrock Stock replacements (iron) at home that are accepted in America, maybe they will let you use something like that certainly save a lot of hassle trying to get cracked and rotten old heads to work, I have a few of those as well lol! I bought a pair of nicely flowed Traco heads once, built up the engine and was running it up and noticed steam coming out the breathers, I shut down and the ruddy sump had filled with water. When they modded the heads they cut into the water jacket when opening up the spring seats for 1.5" springs, all this hassle you dont get with stock replacments (S/Rs) or GM Bowtie heads. Also they dont leak at the valve covers as they have a raised gasket rail, just so much better.

[Al Weyman]

I know they used a 'Pontiac' head as they called it which was alloy and fitted the 1st Gen Chevy engines I believe but this was in the mid 70's, I may have something on that as I did build a Chevy Monza Spyder GT once into a race car and was researching for that.

[Clive Brown]

There were but two Corvettes that left the factory with this unit installed, and 69 Camaros. All of those Camaros were 1969 1/2 models, which is to say, the first generation body shape.

Quite how Frank Gardner's second generation Z28 was permitted to use this engine option, I an not sure. But it looked and sounded great, and he drove it like he stole it.

[eb911]

Originally Posted by pomracer

EB911 - I have never seen those photos of the cars with fender flares before - very interesting! - but I guess that the other posts regarding Group 2 and Group 4/5 may be right.

Nor have I seen those pages from the homologation papers. Can you confirm that they are FIA and not SCCA papers? If not recognised does that mean that they were never ratified by the FIA?
I note that the photos showing the flares appear to be from an extension dated 1971

I confirm this is an extract of the 1449 FIA homologation sheet for the 1st gen Camaro.

As for the flares, that would explain that the Brits Camaro had flares only by the beginning of 70's. That wouldn't explain though why Chris Tuerlinckx already raced a 1st gen Camaro with flares in 1969 in the 24 hours of Spa. Could that be that some cars raced in Spa or other ETCC events were not homologated ?

[Tel 911S]

From memory I believe that Gp 2 in period allowed wheel arch extensions of up to 100mm each side [ sorry , foreign language , fender flares of 4 inches ].
And if the car was entered in Gp5/6 then body modifications were almost unlimited [ hence some of the Zakspeed wonders ? ]
Also in Gp5/6 un Homologated parts were freely allowed , which might include things like one- off cylinder heads etc .
But as a lot of the current Historic regs only allow up to Gp 2 spec of period ,
then the answer is probably to build to the Homologated Gp2 specification.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

From memory I believe that Gp 2 in period allowed wheel arch extensions of up to 100mm each side [ sorry , foreign language , fender flares of 4 inches ].
And if the car was entered in Gp5/6 then body modifications were almost unlimited [ hence some of the Zakspeed wonders ? ]
Also in Gp5/6 un Homologated parts were freely allowed , which might include things like one- off cylinder heads etc .
But as a lot of the current Historic regs only allow up to Gp 2 spec of period ,
then the answer is probably to build to the Homologated Gp2 specification.

Just a small correction- The arch extension rule for Gp2 was 50mm per side. If you want to incorporate them in a any recreation, they will have to be as used during the year you are nominating for your car specification. Period photographic proof will be required giving date, circuit and event. (Unless the extensions are shown on homologation form.)

Oh, and The 'Zakspeed Wonders' as you appropriately describe them were later Gp5 cars, late 70s onwards, so not be confused with 1960s Gp5......

[chunterer]

I think threads like this are fascinating and illustrate the benefit of Ten Tenths as a place where people with lots of specialist knowledge can come to throw ideas about.

[eb911]

Sorry to insist on that particular point, but there is something I still don't get on homologation of these cars. Let's take the example of Terry Sanger's 1969 Camaro. According to racingsportscars he entered it at least in 5 ETCC rounds in 72 / 73 including the 24 hours of Spa in 72 / 73 or the RAC TT in Silverstone in 72. These rounds of the ETCC were ruled by group 2 regulations (div 3 for over 3 litres).

Here are 2 pictures of Sanger's Camaro in Spa 1973 (from touringcarracing.net)




It is hard to tell, but to me it is obvious that the back wheels are much larger than the max 9 inches stated by the 1449 FIA sheet.
On the first one we can even guess that the carbs are Webers but not classic Holley or Rochester.

Here one picture of the car during the RAC TT (another ETCC round) in 1972 (from touringcarracing.net)


On this one it is more obvious that the back wheels are more in the 13 to 14" inches wide.

Not that it obesses me to put monstruous back wheel on my future car, but in terms of FIA homologation, if Sanger ran the car in ETCC events, his car must have been homologated in the group he was racing in, i.e, group 2 /Div 3 not in the more free grp 5/6. But in the FIA #1449 homologation sheet, the maximum width allowed is 9 inches. So my guess is there must have been some extension to the 1449 sheet during the 70's. Where are these extensions ?
What do you think ?

[Peter Mallett]

Don't forget, the homologation certs include group 1 and 2 equipment, likewise there were different rule sets for different ASNs. Using the Capri, we know that in the homologation certificate for the 69-74 cars it includes dry sumping and fuel injection, not to mention adjustable arbs etc. All of which are labelled as valid for group 2. Likewise the Capri was never homologated with 15" wheels, which it ran in group2. So some folks may be looking at the homologation certificate and reading it as production spec, not group 2.

[Mike Bell]

Up to end of 1975 AppJ Gp2 regs did not dictate wheel width or diameter. (Except to say that all 4 must be same dia) So teams were free to fit whatever would go under the regulated wheel arch extensions or standard bodywork.

However, if presenting a car for FIA approval now, period proof will probably be required as already discussed.

[Mike Harte]

Just to muddy the waters a little, is it also possible that some of the more, shall we say, exotic cars that were seen on these grids may have been invited to enter even though they may not have been eligble to score points in the relevant championships.

I know that I, along with some others also competing in the Redex Special Saloon Championship, were invited to enter an International race on the Grand Prix circuit at Brands in the mid to late 60s. None of our cars were expected to meet the Int. specs, and were raced in the same specs as when competing in the Redex.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Don't forget, the homologation certs include group 1 and 2 equipment, likewise there were different rule sets for different ASNs. Using the Capri, we know that in the homologation certificate for the 69-74 cars it includes dry sumping and fuel injection, not to mention adjustable arbs etc. All of which are labelled as valid for group 2. Likewise the Capri was never homologated with 15" wheels, which it ran in group2. So some folks may be looking at the homologation certificate and reading it as production spec, not group 2.

That is very true . The Homologation was usually the production spec [ Gp1 ] & would also detail some factory parts which were allowed in Gp2.
But the papers have to be read with the App J of the period , which would allow a lot of other mods which did not need Homologation, such as wheel sizes , extra suspension links, carbs etc etc .
There was a big change to App J in 1975/1976 , which stopped a lot of the previous freedoms , & even outlawed some of the previous Homologated parts .
This has made Historic specs very difficult to figure out , as some cars cover different versions of App J .
The best way is to choose the Homologation of a period , read the Yellow book of that period , & then ask as many questions of everybody as you can .
With luck you might then find what is the right spec .

[eb911]

I have downloaded the appendix J for 1969 and 1971. It seems the regulations became really free concerning the wheels and fender flares from 1971. In 1969, art.260 q) (wheels for group 2) states that the wheels must be of the size of the ones used by the factory and mentioned on the homologation sheet.
In 1971, art.260 q) (wheels for group 2) states that size is free as long as the four wheels have the same diameter and that the fenders cover the wheels properly.
So for the ones who would like to homologate their 1st gen Camaro with wide back wheels and fender flares, you would need :
1) To homologate the car in period G2 and not G1 so as to comply with appendix J 1971
2) To prove that the same car as yours did race in an international event with the mods you would like to bring to your car.

Did I missed something or is this basically it ?

[Serge]

Originally Posted by eb911

I have downloaded the appendix J for 1969 and 1971. It seems the regulations became really free concerning the wheels and fender flares from 1971. In 1969, art.260 q) (wheels for group 2) states that the wheels must be of the size of the ones used by the factory and mentioned on the homologation sheet.
In 1971, art.260 q) (wheels for group 2) states that size is free as long as the four wheels have the same diameter and that the fenders cover the wheels properly.
So for the ones who would like to homologate their 1st gen Camaro with wide back wheels and fender flares, you would need :
1) To homologate the car in period G2 and not G1 so as to comply with appendix J 1971
2) To prove that the same car as yours did race in an international event with the mods you would like to bring to your car.

Did I missed something or is this basically it ?

I believe that is correct.

This is the same reason I am building my Lotus Europa to period G2 specs, free wheel sizes and free induction. Period G1 and G2 will be racing together 9 times out of 10 anyway. I also think that you can use aluminium shocks from period G2 onwards. There are a number of things that tip the favour to period G2.


Kind regards,

Serge

[Al Weyman]

By coincidence this weekend at Brands I was parked next to a fellow completitor that had a genuine and verified Ist gen Camaro Group 2 spec with well known previous drivers and not a flared arch to be seen.

[eb911]

So as to go a little deeper regarding the wheel width that could be homologated in period G2, I need to find evidences that such dimension were used in period. So, if I take the RAC TT which was a ETCC round and the 24 hours of Spa, which are the typical period magazines that would print the results of such events, and maybe describe a little specs of the cars ? Autosport ? Another one ? And in Belgium for Spa ?

[eb911]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

By coincidence this weekend at Brands I was parked next to a fellow completitor that had a genuine and verified Ist gen Camaro Group 2 spec with well known previous drivers and not a flared arch to be seen.

Al, do you have some pictures of this car ?

[Clive Brown]

Originally Posted by Serge

This is the same reason I am building my Lotus Europa to period G2 specs

In period 1970-5, a Lotus Europa would not have been in either Group 1 or 2, as these groups were for production and production-based four seater saloon cars. The equivalent groups for sports cars such as the Lotus Europa would have been Groups 3 and 4.