Chevrolet Camaro – Three of them – Amazing Cars

Three second-generation Camaros sit together, and they split two-to-one between Pro Touring and Pro Street. That ratio is not an accident, because the 1970 to 1981 Camaro has spent decades being pulled in two completely opposite directions by builders who cannot agree on what the car is for. One side wants corners. The other wants a clean sixty-foot time. Read on to find out why this particular body keeps ending up on both sides of the argument.

Ask ten Camaro builders what makes a second-generation car right and you will get ten answers that contradict each other, because this body has spent five decades caught between two entirely different visions of what a muscle car is supposed to do. One camp wants manicured suspension geometry, big brakes, and the ability to embarrass a modern sports car on a road course. The other wants tubbed rear wheelwells, a raised stance, and a car that only has to be excellent for about eleven seconds at a time. The three cars lined up here split two-to-one, and that ratio says something about where builder taste has drifted.

Two Bets on Exactly the Same Body

Pro Touring puts modern suspension, modern brakes, and modern tire sizes underneath a classic body, chasing road-course capability and genuine everyday drivability. Pro Street runs the opposite direction: tubbed rear wheelwells to swallow oversized rear tires, a deliberately raised rear stance, narrow rubber up front, and a car engineered around a straight line. Both philosophies begin with the identical second-generation Camaro shell and end up in places that barely acknowledge one another. Neither is a compromise on the other; they are separate destinations that happen to share a starting point, which is exactly why builders argue about them so persistently.

⚑ Featured Gear

Start Car Conversations →

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

The Camaro Chevrolet Drew Longer, Lower and Wider

The second-generation Camaro ran from 1970 through 1981, arriving late enough in the 1970 model year that it is often called a 1970 and a half. Chevrolet drew it longer, lower, and wider than the first-generation car, with proportions borrowed openly from European grand touring coupes under the direction of GM styling chief Bill Mitchell. The result was a car that looked considerably more expensive than it was and aged better than almost anything else Detroit produced that decade. Even people who dislike what happened to the drivetrains over the following ten years rarely argue with the shape.

The Power Drought That Made These Cars Cheap

The drivetrain story is far less flattering. Big-block SS models peaked in 1970 at 375 horsepower and 415 pound-feet, and the numbers went downhill immediately as emissions regulations, lower compression ratios, unleaded fuel, and the switch to net horsepower ratings all landed within a few years of each other. By the middle and later part of the decade some Camaros were leaving the factory with as little as 115 horsepower. That collapse is precisely why these bodies became builder canvases: nobody feels guilty replacing a 115-horsepower drivetrain, and the shells stayed cheap for decades as a result.

Why the Front Subframe Changes Everything

There is an engineering reason these cars accept modification so willingly. The second-generation Camaro uses a bolt-on front subframe carrying the engine and front suspension, mated to a unitized rear structure. That construction means a builder can unbolt the entire front suspension assembly and replace it with an aftermarket subframe carrying coilovers, rack-and-pinion steering, and modern brake packages, without cutting into the car’s core structure. Very few classics make a fundamental suspension change that accessible. It is a large part of why the aftermarket support for these Camaros is so deep and why both Pro Street and Pro Touring builders gravitate toward them.

What Pro Street Actually Involves

A proper Pro Street build starts with the rear of the car being cut apart. The wheelwells are tubbed inward to make room for rear tires far wider than anything the factory contemplated, the rear frame rails are usually narrowed, and the suspension is frequently replaced with a four-link and coilovers over a fabricated rear housing. The stance follows from the geometry rather than from fashion: weight transfer to the rear on launch is the entire point. Aesthetically it is a look that peaked in the 1980s and has been enjoying a revival, partly because the cars are genuinely dramatic and partly because they are increasingly rare.

What Pro Touring Actually Involves

Pro Touring inverts every one of those priorities. The tire is chosen for grip in all directions rather than forward bite, the suspension is set up for control over bumps and consistent geometry through roll, and the brakes are usually the single largest line item in the build. Steering typically converts to rack-and-pinion, the chassis gets stiffened with subframe connectors, and the interior often gains modern seats because a car that corners hard needs to hold its driver. The unstated goal is a car that could be driven several hundred miles to an event, run competitively, and driven home.

The Split-Bumper Years Everyone Wants

Within the second generation, the 1970 through 1973 cars carry the most desirability, largely because of the split-bumper front end available on Rally Sport models. That narrow chrome bumper arrangement with the exposed grille is widely considered the best-looking face Chevrolet ever put on a Camaro, and it disappeared after 1973 when federal impact standards forced a larger aluminum bumper into the design. Early cars also predate the worst of the emissions-era detuning, which means a builder starting with a 1970 through 1972 shell is beginning with both the preferred styling and the better factory hardware.

The Late Cars Nobody Wanted Until Recently

The later cars have quietly become interesting for the opposite reason. The 1974 through 1981 Camaros were dismissed for years as the compromised ones: heavier bumpers, softer engines, and by 1978 an entirely different urethane nose and tail treatment. That reputation kept prices low long after early cars became expensive, which made them the obvious choice for anyone planning to modify heavily rather than preserve. When a build is going to receive a new drivetrain, a new suspension, and new brakes regardless, starting with the cheap shell is simply good arithmetic, and plenty of impressive cars have been built on exactly that logic.

Choosing a Direction Before Spending a Dollar

The practical lesson from any lineup like this is that direction has to be chosen first, because Pro Street and Pro Touring diverge at the very first decision. Tub the rear and the car will never handle properly. Build for corners and the rear tire width is capped by geometry that has to work through suspension travel. Wheel and tire sizing, brake selection, driveline choice, seating position, and even the ride height all cascade from that initial commitment. Builders who try to split the difference typically end up with a car that does neither job especially well and costs the same as one that does.

Why the Argument Never Gets Settled

That is ultimately why the argument never resolves. Both approaches are legitimate expressions of the same impulse, taking a body that Chevrolet stopped supporting decades ago and making it capable again, and both produce cars that are genuinely impressive on their own terms. The only real mistake is judging one by the other’s scorecard, which happens constantly at every show where a tubbed car parks next to a road-course build. Two out of three leaning toward Pro Touring reflects where the broader hobby has moved, but the third car is not losing an argument. It is having a different one.

Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Republished by Blog Post Promoter