compted

What parts, if any are compatible from first generation Camaro in the body and frame category?

Buggy Disaster

iTrader: (1)

With out putting much thought into it, I would say none.

Drivetrain parts can be retrofitted. But as far as body and "frame", they're completely different cars. The thirdgen is actually a uni-body.

Can you be more specific?

sleepsinshed

iTrader: (10)

Having one of each, I think the clear answer is nothing is compatible between the generations. Except the Schrader valve...

RedLeader289

iTrader: (2)

...all generation camaros are unibody...

That being said, there isn't much that could be swapped in, w/out some retrofitting, from a 1st to 3rd gen

Zooms_82_TA

1st and 2nd gen Camaros have sub frames. They are not a true unibody.

RedLeader289

iTrader: (2)

Our cars have subframes too, hence the term "subframe connector." Having a subframe is an indicator of unibody construction, not a difference. Our subframes are welded in place instead of bolted in (like the early models) but we still have them, because they are all unibody constructed cars.

Do some research on unibody verses body-on-frame construction.

Not trying to start an argument online, just trying to stop the spread of misinformation.

stealtht/a

iTrader: (1)

I would still say the the 1st and second are not a true unibody. They have a kind of front frame that is seperate from the back. Its divided at the firewall. It's a pretty poor piece of engineering actually that usually has to be reinforced. Our cars have a k member or engine cradle like many unibody cars, but the body is one piece from bumper to bumper.
Sub frame connector is a term that came from those older cars for the reinforcement of front to rear parts. I think it's actually incorrect terminology for out cars. We should be calling them "frame rail connectors" or "chassis braces"

RedLeader289

iTrader: (2)

I see your point, but still don't consider our cars any truer of a unibody construction, maybe a more updated version, but that's all.

I can agree to disagree.

sorry for hijacking your thread, OP!

back to 1st gen compatibility...

stealtht/a

iTrader: (1)

How are third gens not true unibody?
They are an early version with certain flaws, true, but definitely a unibody.

I'm not too worried about hijacking this thread, it didn't have far to go at the beginning....

RedLeader289

iTrader: (2)

I was never saying that thirdgens weren't a unibody, because they are a unibody, clearly. My whole thing is that a 1st generation is just as much of a unibody as a third generation is, and in post #2 it reads like the poster is saying that 1st and 2nd generation camaros were not unibody cars when in fact they were.

The term unibody refers to specifically the body of the vehicle, not the front clip. The fact that you can't unbolt ours like you can on earlier models doesn't make the earlier models not a unibody.

I guess I'm just getting stuck on people saying "true unibody" vs "unibody." I've never heard anyone try to break down a heirarchy of unibody cars within divisions of unibody cars, if that makes sense.

oaklandfuelman

the first gen just has more of a real frame under it that can be unbolted & can be removed from the body like a full frame car its not part of the body both are unibody just not the same design well my 67 is a backhalf car so actually its not a unibody at all lmao!!!