`67 Camaro Revell_Rare Racing Part Kitted_"Rear Sway Bar"

[69NovaYenko]

I have the newly tooled Revell `67 Camaro on the work bench. As I was looking over the build instructions the segment on the suspension assembly struck me as odd.  Revell kitted the car with a “rear sway bar”  part #39. Humm…I thought is this a mistake? I have several acquaintances that have owned or still own a first generation `67 Camaro and didn`t recall seeing a rear sway bar on the car.  After several e-mails to these friends they all confirmed that they prized `67 pony cars did not have a rear sway bar.  So I checked Team Camaro the online performance Camaro website.

Low and behold I stumbled upon a forum thread from 2002 February about Camaro rear sway bars.  The bar was '67 only part  few were made and they were NEVER factory installed. The rear sway bar is featured along with many other racing parts in Wayne Guinns' book, “Camaro Untold Secrets”.  He rear bar is identical to the front sway bar and was supposed to mount over the rear axle and attach to the trunk floor. Feel free to check the below link.

http://www.camaros.net/forums/25-tech-2002/48348-1968-69-rare-rear-sway-bar.html#/forumsite/20677/topics/48348?page=1

So, whatever car Revell used as the template for this kit had a uniquely rare factory made race suspension part installed either by the dealership or by the owner…which is very cool.  However, if one opts to install or not install the rear sway bar on their build either way is period correct. Just thought I would put that out there into the universe…just an FYI.

Edited March 6, 2016 by 69NovaYenko

[Exotics_Builder]

This kit also has multi-leaf rear springs which were not factory correct. 

[Luc Janssens]

So it's a resto mod?

Big deal!

;^)

[louie]

You know what 69NovaYenko, Thank you for sharing this information with us as I truly appreciate it. I for one did not know that about the sway bar ,always thought that they never had one. Goes to show that you  ( me) learn something new everyday. Thanks again for the info as I will take all that I can get.    Jeff 

[espo]

Chevrolet offered an optional F41 Suspension on most all of the body styles including the Camaro. The option included heavy duty springs, shocks, larger diameter front sway bar and a rear sway bar. This may be want they are representing on this kit. I believe that the higher performance cars such as the 396 cu. in. and the 350 SS model  and Z28's had multi leaf rear springs as part of their engine package. More base model Camaros used the Mono leaf rear suspension thru the '69 model year. They also offered an optional F21 Suspension that had the HD spring and shocks without the added sway bars. I know nothing about the prototype 1:1 that Revell used for this model, but if it was a factory 396 car I would think that it would have had the F41 suspension from the factory.   

[VRM]

 

 

From Camaros.org - probably the best authority out there for this type of stuff.

http://www.camaros.org/suspen.shtml

All 1967 models used monoleaf design rear springs.

For 1968, only models with the 12-bolt rear end received multi-leaf springs. This included all SS models, the Z28, and the L30/M20 327/275hp 4-speed. All other 1968 models used monoleaf springs.

In 1969, all models with 12-bolt axles received multi-leaf springs and all models with 350ci engines (10- or 12-bolt) received multi-leaf springs. Vehicles with 307 and 327 engines received mono-leaf springs.

 

[69NovaYenko]

Chevrolet offered an optional F41 Suspension on most all of the body styles including the Camaro. The option included heavy duty springs, shocks, larger diameter front sway bar and a rear sway bar. This may be want they are representing on this kit. I believe that the higher performance cars such as the 396 cu. in. and the 350 SS model  and Z28's had multi leaf rear springs as part of their engine package. More base model Camaros used the Mono leaf rear suspension thru the '69 model year. They also offered an optional F21 Suspension that had the HD spring and shocks without the added sway bars. I know nothing about the prototype 1:1 that Revell used for this model, but if it was a factory 396 car I would think that it would have had the F41 suspension from the factory.   

Not knowing for certain but, however it`s highly likely that  the 1:1 car Revell used as the template for this kit had the optional F41 Suspension package. Thanks for the additional insight Esppo.

From Camaros.org - probably the best authority out there for this type of stuff.

http://www.camaros.org/suspen.shtml

All 1967 models used monoleaf design rear springs.

For 1968, only models with the 12-bolt rear end received multi-leaf springs. This included all SS models, the Z28, and the L30/M20 327/275hp 4-speed. All other 1968 models used monoleaf springs.

In 1969, all models with 12-bolt axles received multi-leaf springs and all models with 350ci engines (10- or 12-bolt) received multi-leaf springs. Vehicles with 307 and 327 engines received mono-leaf springs.

 

VRM your additionally, information is also helpful.

This kit also has multi-leaf rear springs which were not factory correct. 

As far as Exotics Builder and VRM legitimate concerns about the kitted multi-leaf springs; the issue can be resolved fairly quickly with a the bit of quick sanding with a medium grit wet & dry paper which will turn those multi-leaf springs into single mono-leaf  springs. 

Edited March 6, 2016 by 69NovaYenko

[Exotics_Builder]

 

 

From Camaros.org - probably the best authority out there for this type of stuff.

http://www.camaros.org/suspen.shtml

All 1967 models used monoleaf design rear springs.

For 1968, only models with the 12-bolt rear end received multi-leaf springs. This included all SS models, the Z28, and the L30/M20 327/275hp 4-speed. All other 1968 models used monoleaf springs.

In 1969, all models with 12-bolt axles received multi-leaf springs and all models with 350ci engines (10- or 12-bolt) received multi-leaf springs. Vehicles with 307 and 327 engines received mono-leaf springs.

 

As stated.  That said, many people added multi-leaf rear springs to their 67's after the fact.  But, it was not factory stock.  Multi-leaf and staggered shocks were post 67

 

[69NovaYenko]

Again, you are correct Exotics Builder. Engineers and racers discovered that the non staggered shock configuration found under the the `67 Camaro allowed excessive rear wheel hop under hard acceleration. A number of racers resorted to radius style traction bars like the Cal-Tracs traction bars (pictured below) or slap traction bars to resolve the problem.

What Chevy engineers came up with in `67 was a the round then later in the `67 model year the rectangle radius bars to resolve the issue (refer to picture and link below).

http://www.camaros.og/radiusrod.shtml

 

The other alternative, as you stated Exotics Builder, was swooping out the mono-leaf spring for a multi-leaf spring setup.

In the following years 1968 and on Chevy engineers resolved this issue by staggering the rear shocks with one mounted forward and one mounted aft of the rear axle.

 

Edited March 7, 2016 by 69NovaYenko

[gtx6970]

All new information to me...thanks.

But then.....i a am NOT a gm guy by any stretch .

Edited March 12, 2016 by gtx6970

[69NovaYenko]

Addendum to the above commentary:

As I look more closely the newly tooled Revell `67 Camaro "2 N 1"  instruction sheet  the obvious suddenly hit me. The rear sway bar must go with the race build option because this was not an a "standard" out the factory part however; the instructions do not specifically spell that out. The race option is not a straight-line "drag" car but more likely a "Trans-Am" or "Rally Road Racing" build option. Hence, the rear sway bar and multi-leaf rear springs to improve handling and stability in the turns. Additionally, the decal set with the white circled number "67" for both doors, hood and rear deck as well as the kits Trans-Am Mini-Lite style racing wheels further support my Trans-Am/Road Racing theory.

Note: This kit has an outstanding decal sheet, probably one of the best I`ve seen in Revell`s newly tooled kits...I hope they keep it up...kudos.

Edited March 11, 2016 by 69NovaYenko

[David]

Weren't Trans-Am cars of this era and class limited to 5.0 liter displacement engines?  Perhaps some of these items are for future versions of this kit.

Edited March 11, 2016 by David

[69NovaYenko]

You have a very valid point. In 1967, Chevrolet was busy promoting their new pony car, the Camaro, and part of the promotional efforts included racing the Camaro in the SCCA Trans-Am series. So  Chevrolet introduced the Z/28 option package which included among other things, a special 302 cubic inch small block. The 302 was created by installing the 283's crankshaft in a 327 small block, which allowed Chevy to comply with regulations and stay within SCCA racing's 305 cubic inch limit. Rated horsepower was said to be at just 290hp, but rumored to be a lot more. The 1967 Z-28 also came with competition suspension(which would include the rear sway bar and upgraded rear multi-leaf springs), broad racing stripes on the hood and trunk lid and could be combined with the RS option package. The `67 Z/28 did not sport an Z/28 badging.The 302 turned out to be one of Chevrolet's finest small block offerings. The kitted engine is certainty not a Chevy 302 engine. The cars history on the kits instruction sheet imply`s the kitted engine is a 396.

So, perhaps some of these items are for future versions of this kit.

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by 69NovaYenko