1969 Camaro SS
 

Why do some Stock Eliminator '69 Camaros run front and rear spoilers, one or not the other or neither. Where's the advantage? I'm not attempting to be controversial.
Inquiring minds need to know. It's not a MoPar thing.

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

Not real sure...

I thought at one time in order to be able to run the front spoiler you had to run the rear also?

I know some rear spoilers were factory installed and some were dealer installed, maybe that has something to do with it?

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

I believe if you claim the car as a Z28, Rally Sport, or SS it must have both the front and rear spoilers.

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

In 1967, no spoilers.
In 1968, you could order the rear spoiler and not the front or both. SS/Z28 only.
In 1969, you got both spoilers if you ordered them. SS/Z28 only. Early 69s got 68 rear spoiler which is narrower that 69 spoiler.
From my own personal experiences from a million years ago, the rear spoiler slows you down and the front spoiler picks you up.
FWIW.

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

They say front spoiler no rear spoiler is the fastest. I tried it with front spoiler and rear spoiler 129.90 mph. Took off rear spoiler next pass back to back same air, same day, lost a 1/2 mph 129.20 take that for what its worth and my experience on a 69 Camaro B/SA maybe 130 mph isn't fast enough to see any difference.

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

I always heard the rear spoiler slowed you down...
But that's always been the popular opinion.
Not sure it matters much below 140 or maybe more...

The front spoiler might make a difference by keeping the front end down...

Personally, I think Camaros are ugly without rear spoiler...
Looks like a cat with no tail...

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

Back in the early 70's I ran a '69 Z-28.
Front spoiler was worth about a nickel and a touch of MPH
Rear spoiler slowed it down between 2 & 3 MPH
Showed up at a divisional without the rear spoiler and was told to put it back on or go home. Things were tough back then.. But.. They never noticed the
front disc brakes were replaced with 6 cylinder drum brakes.
a lot lighter and the line lock worked better.

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

Adger,

So, have you always been a cheat? :D

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

It seems the rake and the ride height of the car would affect the amount of drag created by the spoilers.

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

I would think that is correct Kirk.
Dwight, I'm pleading youthful ignorance on the spoiler.
Yes that was cheating...Because "The man" caught me.
Still don't know abought the brakes.. "The man" never pointed it out as being illegal.. IE: Caught...
How many times has that been said on this forum... LOL
Dwight,
I thought you said you tried the spoiler mix and match on your Camaro, too.
BTY: Thanks for telling me about the 6 cylinder front suspension pieces and the brakes.

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

Adger -
Quoting a dear and common friend of ours, "What is legal is what passed tech."

My Camaro was a '67 so I never tried the spoilers. I even ran the OEM 4-piston disc brakes when it was raced as a Z28. It's kinda like hoping the psychology of having the obvious cheating areas clean they won't continue looking. Bob Ayres also taught me to have something very obviously wrong (but easy to correct) when you go through tech so they will stop looking after they "Gotcha!".

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

My good friend and co-worker was running C/SM with a '69 Camaro in the late 70's and at the Etown Summernats was told by Tech he was fine with just the front spoiler. At the scales after a run a guy I only knew as Joe Tech said he was DQ'ed if he did not have both front and rear. A call back and forth and some discussion with various people he was allowed to run with just the front.....and I don't recall the issue ever coming up again.

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

The late great Dave LeBrun didn't have spoilers on his Camaros.

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

As a final anecdote on the gen 1 Camaro spoilers, for most of two seasons before I built the '67 stocker I drove a '67 Camaro E-F/MP car that the owner had installed front and rear spoilers on. This was a 130mph car, much faster than the 100mph stockers I was used to driving. I got him to allow me to remove the spoilers for a while and made approximately 15-18 passes without the spoilers over three weekends. It's hard to say about the ET, but the MPH was easily .7-1.4 faster. In the end he put the spoilers back on because "he liked the way it looked." ??? I didn't last much longer with that arrangement.

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

I was at Gainesville around 1985 and looked at your '67 Camaro Stocker and thought it was a very nicely done car.

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

Kind of off topic but still related to 69 camaros. It's my understanding the 850 carb on a ZL1 didn't have a choke on it from the factory, correct? If so, why does nhra make it mandatory?

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

I just did a google search for ZL1 carbs, and everyone I found has a choke plate, including some 3000 dollar plus restoration and original carbs.
Where is the info that they had no chokes?

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

I was reading an article about the #1 & #2 zl1s getting delivered of the truck and they couldn't get them started because it was cold outside and there was no choke. But you're right, after doing more research there was a choke plate but apparently it wasn't hooked up from the factory. It's tough to get legitimate info on some of that stuff. Sometimes it seems it's easier to get info on older cars from people on here instead of Google.

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

Regarding Carbs and chokes----All 1967-69 Camaro with Holley carbs had automatic chokes that are controlled by a thermostatic coil located either on the intake manifold or on the exhaust manifold ---THe EXCEPTION to this is the ZL-1 which had no choke----The early ZL-1 cars were produced with Holley 4346 and were later retrofitted at Gibbs with the 4296 carbs. The 4346 is the correct carb for 1969 396/375 & 427/435 engines---the Chevy part number and ID number for a 4346 carb is 3959164--- the Chevy part number & ID number for a 4296 carb is 3955205---my 2 cents
As far as spoilers go I ran a 1967 in Modified Production F/MP with ONLY the front spoiler never was questioned about not having a rear spoiler that car would always high MPH and it would out MPH by 1 1/2 to 2 MPH using the same exact engine in a 64 Corvette with the same driver . Coincidence perhaps? But I thought it looked kinda cool anyway---sold the car with the spoiler on it and the new buyer left it on last I ever saw it. FED 387

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

Yes Dwight, Our Mutual friend has said that many times.
Reminds me of some long conversations you and I have had about rules & racing in general. Our friend also says there is no Gray between the black and white lines of the rule book.
But You and I know different. lol
I think there are a couple of Dwight rules in the book as well as a couple of Adger rules. I bet we could come up with a pretty good list of "Named Rules"
Might even be considered it a list of Who's Who in class Racing.

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

Sounds to me like we need a new thread, Adger and Dwight...inquiring minds want to know!

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

Just curious about a similar observation watching Camaros and other cars go down the track/top end. Most people in Stock/SS build their cars super low in stance
for aerodynamics, yet the nose is way up in the air when running defeating the purpose. Some are way up while others are lower going down the track
How do you keep it down? Spoilers?

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

http://classracer.com/classforum/pic...ictureid=10713

Trade secret. . . .

Re: 1969 Camaro SS
 

on a side note, I found driving on the street a front spoiler seemed to lower the temperature of the motor about 5 degrees