I got this out of the Good Guys Pleasanton car corral, it was a very base coupe that was originally a V8 4-speed with a dark, muddy turqoise. I got it with the 396 in it and a 12 bolt 3.73 with the right side factory traction bar which I'm told is uncommon, don't know. The front stub was pulled and powder coated with tubular a-arms. Made it into an SS, that stripe is paint. Normally I'm not a fan of big wheel rubber band tire combination, like all you guys, but I think it works well on this. 18 and 20 Intro Vistas. Another one I shoulda kept.
I have only seen the right traction bar on late 67 SS Camaros to correct wheel hop caused by having the rear shocks on the same side of the axle. They corrected that is 68. You sure your car is not a SS car? Nice car BTW
Yes the traction bar was put there because the shocks were more upright which caused wheel hop instead of the shocks being staggered. The biggest question is….. is the traction bar round or square ? That will tell us if it is a small block or big block.
Pretty sure it's square. This was a project when I got it, PO stated he sourced the rear end and installed it but don't know for sure.
Are y’all saying that both shocks on the same side caused wheel hop,,,,,or that the angle of the mounted shock was too steep ? I’ve seen many cars with the shock mount on the back and never experienced any serious wheel hop . My old Challenger before I cut it up had an excellent take off,,,,,,spinning,,,but no wheel hop . Tommy
The cleanest simple description terms I found on the internet, " The 1967 model was the only first generation Camaro to have both rear shocks mounted forward of the rear axle. Later years changed to a staggered arrangement to counter wheel hop. The 1967 was the only Camaro to feature a right-side traction bar, also to counter wheel hop."
Neat 67! Yeah the one pic that shows the trim tag, that car was a super base model. No options really to speak of. Based on where the 4 speed hole is, it was not a factory 4 speed car, first gen Camaro were the first cars to not need a offset hump. The hole was more centered into the tunnel and the boot plate never would have curved around the edge. Might have been a 3 on the tree car. Picture is of my 68 (same setup as a 67) which my car is a true 4 speed car. The floors had extra reinforcing rings top and bottom as well for the boots and cover plates. Yep, big thing if your into originality is there was actually two versions of the bar. A early 1st version round rod and then a 2nd version square tube one. The 1st version showed up in Dec 1966 (so 4 months into production) then the squared started being used in Jan/Feb depending on the plant and motor/trans combo as they used up the round rod stock. It was only on Super Sport cars mainly. The rarer L30/M20 cars were the only non Super Sport cars to get the traction bar. This was also only the Camaro. 67 Firebirds had a complete different design and some of the hotter cars also got dual bars, one on each side, water is more muddy with Firebirds. Also to answer Hemi's question, it was a combo of both the angle and being on the same side. The shock are pretty vertical on a F body and basically under hard acceleration when the leafs would want to wrap up, it would just compress the shock like hitting a bump and then snap back, causing the hop issues.
Cool,,,I understand now,,,,,,a little trial and error learning in engineering . I remember reading that an engineer took home a pre production Challenger in early 69 . He parked it in his basement and during the night it came a light dusting of snow . When he pulled out to leave and started forward,,,,it wouldn’t move out of its tracks . The rear leaf spring rate was wrong and wouldn’t let the chassis react to get traction,,it just spun . Back to the drawing board I guess,,,,lol . Tommy
that tracks with what little I do know of the Firebirds, its still different than the one used on the Camaro. Those birds with the OHC 6 are pretty neat and rare. I think the 400 cars are the ones that got dual bars.
The Jalopy Journal
