2006-New GTO and Chevelle,no Camaro
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,647
From: At car shows and cruise nights!
You all know I gotta reply to this: 
Yes they had some of the best sales ever, but you make it sound like the later 2nd Gen was more of a musclecar or something?! Lets not forget that the early Thirds had to deal with much of the same BS that the 2nds did economywise and they were lighter, smaller, almost as powerfull, more efficient, braked better, and handled alot better. They were completly better cars that were a real improvement. Their 305's made power close to the later 2nds 350's.
You gotta be joking. They were probably the most popular Gen with the public ever being THE CAR to get on the streets and outselling M*****gs. The Camaro did it by itself some years without the Firebird sales needing to be added. They recieved so many positive reviews (even when issues needed to be worked out in the very early years) and were liked by magazines instead of constantly complained about and put down as 4ths were. The 4ths were what created the entire downfall as you put it. Their sales and the publics' lack of interest in them proves it. They had many issues themselves and wierd looks. The Thirds handling was a no compromise high G ride, what do you expect, a compliant feel?! Yes the car wasn't faster at times compared to 5.0's until the later years when the L98 G92's and LB9 5-Speed G92's came out and it went back and forth, but they always did every single other thing better than the M*****gs.
I don't know. I've been in 4ths that rattle just the same and I've been in Thirds that didn't rattle at all, so its kinda subjective if that word makes sence because it could be either way for both. They both benefit from SFC's greatly, any musclecar could. And its not like the Gens before the Third and 4th were much different in those categories. If you want handling, it means tight suspension and things like rattles.
The mid '70s was a bad time for the entire auto industery trying to deal with the fuel crisis and the federal smog regulations. But Camaro and Firebird remained true to its self even though alot of the power was gone, it still had torquey V8s, and in the early eighties they bounced back dramatically in the final year of the 2nd Gen cars. Then the 3rd Gen was released in '82 and logged the best sales that Camaro has seen. All in a time when a sporty V8 car wasn't pracitacal.
I believe the 3rd Gen cars were part of the down fall of the Camaro. Even though I've always loved IROC-Zs. What I am getting at is that some of these 3rd Gen models sold the best, but the cars had so many issues. Like the cars handled good but it felt like riding on a buck board, and all of those rattles and shakes like half of the bolts are missing from the car. And then in the mid to late 80s the cars were tarnished more by the performance gap between its rival the 5.0 GT. Even though with the right options you could get a faster Camaro but most Camaros were slower than the 5.0 GT.
Anyways I believe that those cars just left a bad taste in the mouths of the general car buying public. And after the 4th Gen cars came out the bad repuatation was still with the car even though everything was improved. When I first bought my '97Z an older person I work with asked me why did I buy one of those rattle traps for. So he did not know of the improvements that went into the 4th Gen cars because my car is rattle free, rides very well, and of course is quite fast. Though the 4th Gen cars aren't perfect they are much better than the 3rd Gen cars.
I've been in 4ths that rattle just the same and I've been in Thirds that didn't rattle at all, so its kinda subjective if that word makes sence because it could be either way for both. They both benefit from SFC's greatly, any musclecar could. And its not like the Gens before the Third and 4th were much different in those categories. If you want handling, it means tight suspension and things like rattles.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 1,873
From: South Jersey
Originally posted by 30thZ286speed
The mid '70s was a bad time for the entire auto industery trying to deal with the fuel crisis and the federal smog regulations. But Camaro and Firebird remained true to its self even though alot of the power was gone, it still had troquey V8s.
The mid '70s was a bad time for the entire auto industery trying to deal with the fuel crisis and the federal smog regulations. But Camaro and Firebird remained true to its self even though alot of the power was gone, it still had troquey V8s.
With the possible exception of the single model year of 1974 (when a V8 was not available) that argument has no basis. (BTW, the Z/28 was not available '75-'77).
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Originally posted by WERM
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Please explain why a V8 powered, RWD Mustang II, which was similar in size and close in performance to the 1964 model and possessed many styling cues from that model is "not true to its roots" while the 70's Camaro was significantly larger, heavier, and shared no styling cues with the 1967 model is.
With the possible exception of the single model year of 1974 (when a V8 was not available) that argument has no basis. (BTW, the Z/28 was not available '75-'77).
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Please explain why a V8 powered, RWD Mustang II, which was similar in size and close in performance to the 1964 model and possessed many styling cues from that model is "not true to its roots" while the 70's Camaro was significantly larger, heavier, and shared no styling cues with the 1967 model is.
With the possible exception of the single model year of 1974 (when a V8 was not available) that argument has no basis. (BTW, the Z/28 was not available '75-'77).
2nd Gen Firebirds and to an extent Camaros on the other hand are collectors cars today. The TA was GM's flagship in the late 70's and they offered nice style and performance fo the day. There are plenty of clubs and they are collected. The fact that GM stuck with the same styling on the cars 32 years shows the timelessness of the design. My new Camaro still gets looks and comments for how nice it's styling is.
Also the 282K production number you quoted was for either the Firebird or Camaro only (I can't remember which one and I am to hung over to look)...teh combined number was like 500K+ I think.
As for the 3rd gen I kinda see it as the affordable hotrod of tommorow. I mean you can get a 3rd gen dirt cheap and fit virtually any engine you want. Right now the 3rd Gen is too new to really be a collectors car. Once they get older and all the ones in the trailor parks rust away and stop working, they will become collectors items (especially the IROC). Once they are collected I think the stigma will go away.
Any argument however that the 3rd gen is better than teh 4th gen is total fubar
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Originally posted by WERM
It wasn't that bad of a car compared to most of the other POS 70's cars. Probably this biggest harm it did was provide a low point for every anti-ford person to reference at every opportunity. No one else even remembers what a Mustang II is (except hotrodders, many of which use independant suspensions based on the Mustang II front end).
A Mustang II is closer to the original 1964 mustang in size and styling than a 1973 mustang. Oh, BTW the original mustang was "Whored" off of a Falcon platform. The 1967 was "Whored" off a Fairlane Platform, and the 1979 was "Whored" off of the FOX platform. The 2005 will be "Whored" off of the LS platform.
And for those who think Mustang is some kind of sellout car for the masses - having a big heavy camaro with a cramped interior, floor bumps, low visibility and huge overhangs does not make it more of a performance car, it just makes it big, heavy, cramped and hard to see out of.
But I'm sure they'll fix most of that when they get around to a 5th gen.
It wasn't that bad of a car compared to most of the other POS 70's cars. Probably this biggest harm it did was provide a low point for every anti-ford person to reference at every opportunity. No one else even remembers what a Mustang II is (except hotrodders, many of which use independant suspensions based on the Mustang II front end).
A Mustang II is closer to the original 1964 mustang in size and styling than a 1973 mustang. Oh, BTW the original mustang was "Whored" off of a Falcon platform. The 1967 was "Whored" off a Fairlane Platform, and the 1979 was "Whored" off of the FOX platform. The 2005 will be "Whored" off of the LS platform.
And for those who think Mustang is some kind of sellout car for the masses - having a big heavy camaro with a cramped interior, floor bumps, low visibility and huge overhangs does not make it more of a performance car, it just makes it big, heavy, cramped and hard to see out of.
But I'm sure they'll fix most of that when they get around to a 5th gen.
Also, the Mustang is just as cramped, heavy, and unergonomic as the 4th Gen. The only difference is you sit higher in the car. I will tell you this..the 4th gen is a much more capable platform performance wise than a Fox Mustang could wish to be. Of course you will go on and on about what BS that is ect ect ect...and i won't care.
When you bought you Bullit did Ford really send you a letter saying the car ould have 5hp less then they claimed?
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
bulldoguav...thank you. Helps with some things I've been looking for. 
As an FYI for those looking at production numbers...here are the Fox-body numbers for the Mustang:
79 = 369,936
80 = 241,064
81 = 162,593
82 = 130,418
83 = 120,873
84 = 141,480
85 = 156,514
86 = 224,210
87 = 159,145
88 = 211,225
89 = 209,769
90 = 128,189
91 = 98,737
92 = 79,280
93 = 114,228
Source: http://www.mustangregistry.org/
I own a Mustang. Do I also get stereotyped the same way?
I believe this to be incorrect. Please produce data to back up your claim. Thanks.
As an FYI for those looking at production numbers...here are the Fox-body numbers for the Mustang:
79 = 369,936
80 = 241,064
81 = 162,593
82 = 130,418
83 = 120,873
84 = 141,480
85 = 156,514
86 = 224,210
87 = 159,145
88 = 211,225
89 = 209,769
90 = 128,189
91 = 98,737
92 = 79,280
93 = 114,228
Source: http://www.mustangregistry.org/
You own a Mustang and I know you will do the usual Mustang owners mindless defending.
Also the 282K production number you quoted was for either the Firebird or Camaro only (I can't remember which one and I am to hung over to look)...teh combined number was like 500K+ I think.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 1,873
From: South Jersey
[QUOTE]Originally posted by formula79
You own a Mustang and I know you will do the usual Mustang owners mindless defending. My point was slapping the Mustang name on a Pinto with some styling changes is whoring out a name. The Pinto was a joke of a car when they did it, an they knew what they were doing.
Gosh, but I also own a Chevy truck and a VW. You may not also know that I also owned a 4th Gen Camaro and as a consequence have been here quite some time. I'm also a car enthusiast, not a brand enthusiast like yourself. But since your main goal in life is to bash fords, you may not have taken the time to notice that, like you often get your auto history facts wrong or take things out of their historical context.
You can say all you want about the Mustang II being a crummy car. You won't get too much of an argument from me, but it IS just as "true to its roots" as any 70's Camaro ever was.
Also, the Mustang is just as cramped, heavy, and unergonomic as the 4th Gen. The only difference is you sit higher in the car. I will tell you this..the 4th gen is a much more capable platform performance wise than a Fox Mustang could wish to be. Of course you will go on and on about what BS that is ect ect ect...and i won't care.
It weighs over 200lbs more, is several inches longer (due to those huge performance enhancing overhangs) It is actually less ergonomic, but it IS a better car for the real world than a 4th gen Camaro, and the sales reflect that. So choose your poison - a real car enthusiast would respect the strenghts and account for the weaknesses of both, not bash their least favorite.
When you bought you Bullit did Ford really send you a letter saying the car ould have 5hp less then they claimed?
No. Do I care? Can I feel *5* horsepower? Did GM send me a letter saying my camaro would leak?
You own a Mustang and I know you will do the usual Mustang owners mindless defending. My point was slapping the Mustang name on a Pinto with some styling changes is whoring out a name. The Pinto was a joke of a car when they did it, an they knew what they were doing.
Gosh, but I also own a Chevy truck and a VW. You may not also know that I also owned a 4th Gen Camaro and as a consequence have been here quite some time. I'm also a car enthusiast, not a brand enthusiast like yourself. But since your main goal in life is to bash fords, you may not have taken the time to notice that, like you often get your auto history facts wrong or take things out of their historical context.
You can say all you want about the Mustang II being a crummy car. You won't get too much of an argument from me, but it IS just as "true to its roots" as any 70's Camaro ever was.
Also, the Mustang is just as cramped, heavy, and unergonomic as the 4th Gen. The only difference is you sit higher in the car. I will tell you this..the 4th gen is a much more capable platform performance wise than a Fox Mustang could wish to be. Of course you will go on and on about what BS that is ect ect ect...and i won't care.
It weighs over 200lbs more, is several inches longer (due to those huge performance enhancing overhangs) It is actually less ergonomic, but it IS a better car for the real world than a 4th gen Camaro, and the sales reflect that. So choose your poison - a real car enthusiast would respect the strenghts and account for the weaknesses of both, not bash their least favorite.
When you bought you Bullit did Ford really send you a letter saying the car ould have 5hp less then they claimed?
No. Do I care? Can I feel *5* horsepower? Did GM send me a letter saying my camaro would leak?
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WERM
I hate to tell you, but saying a Mustang II is as close to it's roots as a 2nd gen is pure BS. Show me MustangII clubs...show me movies featuring MustangII's. In 74 when the Mustang had no V8 the TA had an SD455. The Firebird came with 400cid engines untill 79. They may have been smoggers...but they were much easier to make fast than a Mustang II.
The current Mustang is a big compromise for sales....the F-body is all out performance.
Originally posted by formula79
You own a Mustang and I know you will do the usual Mustang owners mindless defending. My point was slapping the Mustang name on a Pinto with some styling changes is whoring out a name. The Pinto was a joke of a car when they did it, an they knew what they were doing.
Gosh, but I also own a Chevy truck and a VW. You may not also know that I also owned a 4th Gen Camaro and as a consequence have been here quite some time. I'm also a car enthusiast, not a brand enthusiast like yourself. But since your main goal in life is to bash fords, you may not have taken the time to notice that, like you often get your auto history facts wrong or take things out of their historical context.
You can say all you want about the Mustang II being a crummy car. You won't get too much of an argument from me, but it IS just as "true to its roots" as any 70's Camaro ever was.
Also, the Mustang is just as cramped, heavy, and unergonomic as the 4th Gen. The only difference is you sit higher in the car. I will tell you this..the 4th gen is a much more capable platform performance wise than a Fox Mustang could wish to be. Of course you will go on and on about what BS that is ect ect ect...and i won't care.
It weighs over 200lbs more, is several inches longer (due to those huge performance enhancing overhangs) It is actually less ergonomic, but it IS a better car for the real world than a 4th gen Camaro, and the sales reflect that. So choose your poison - a real car enthusiast would respect the strenghts and account for the weaknesses of both, not bash their least favorite.
When you bought you Bullit did Ford really send you a letter saying the car ould have 5hp less then they claimed?
No. Do I care? Can I feel *5* horsepower? Did GM send me a letter saying my camaro would leak?
You own a Mustang and I know you will do the usual Mustang owners mindless defending. My point was slapping the Mustang name on a Pinto with some styling changes is whoring out a name. The Pinto was a joke of a car when they did it, an they knew what they were doing.
Gosh, but I also own a Chevy truck and a VW. You may not also know that I also owned a 4th Gen Camaro and as a consequence have been here quite some time. I'm also a car enthusiast, not a brand enthusiast like yourself. But since your main goal in life is to bash fords, you may not have taken the time to notice that, like you often get your auto history facts wrong or take things out of their historical context.
You can say all you want about the Mustang II being a crummy car. You won't get too much of an argument from me, but it IS just as "true to its roots" as any 70's Camaro ever was.
Also, the Mustang is just as cramped, heavy, and unergonomic as the 4th Gen. The only difference is you sit higher in the car. I will tell you this..the 4th gen is a much more capable platform performance wise than a Fox Mustang could wish to be. Of course you will go on and on about what BS that is ect ect ect...and i won't care.
It weighs over 200lbs more, is several inches longer (due to those huge performance enhancing overhangs) It is actually less ergonomic, but it IS a better car for the real world than a 4th gen Camaro, and the sales reflect that. So choose your poison - a real car enthusiast would respect the strenghts and account for the weaknesses of both, not bash their least favorite.
When you bought you Bullit did Ford really send you a letter saying the car ould have 5hp less then they claimed?
No. Do I care? Can I feel *5* horsepower? Did GM send me a letter saying my camaro would leak?
I hate to tell you, but saying a Mustang II is as close to it's roots as a 2nd gen is pure BS. Show me MustangII clubs...show me movies featuring MustangII's. In 74 when the Mustang had no V8 the TA had an SD455. The Firebird came with 400cid engines untill 79. They may have been smoggers...but they were much easier to make fast than a Mustang II.
The current Mustang is a big compromise for sales....the F-body is all out performance.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
My grandparents had a janitorial service in the 1970's and one of their main clients was the local Ford dealer. I used to go with them on occasions because I was a young kid just getting into cars and my grandfather used to throw a couple bucks my way for helping out. I remember the first time I saw the MustangII's with the Starsky & Hutch stripe package. I though they looked kind of cool at the time, but then I didn't know much back then. A few years later when I was 16, I had the opportunity to drive my Grandmother's 4-cyl MustangII...
...it was a POS.
I'm not just ripping the lack of power here. The fit and finish sucked IMO. I had friend with a Camaro of the same year... you couldn't even compare the two.
...it was a POS.
I'm not just ripping the lack of power here. The fit and finish sucked IMO. I had friend with a Camaro of the same year... you couldn't even compare the two.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Originally posted by formula79
The current Mustang is a big compromise for sales....the F-body is all out performance.
The current Mustang is a big compromise for sales....the F-body is all out performance.
Is it the steeply raked windshield or the pointy nose or the long overhangs that make it "all out performance"?
Last edited by Z284ever; Jan 25, 2003 at 11:35 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Originally posted by Bob Cosby
[B]bulldoguav...thank you. Helps with some things I've been looking for.
As an FYI for those looking at production numbers...here are the Fox-body numbers for the Mustang:
79 = 369,936
80 = 241,064
81 = 162,593
82 = 130,418
83 = 120,873
84 = 141,480
85 = 156,514
86 = 224,210
87 = 159,145
88 = 211,225
89 = 209,769
90 = 128,189
91 = 98,737
92 = 79,280
93 = 114,228
Source: http://www.mustangregistry.org/
I own a Mustang. Do I also get stereotyped the same way?
possibly=Most Mustang owners I have learned will buy anything with a running horse on the front. The fact that the Mustang still was able to sell in the mid-90's with only 220HP amazes me to no end. V6 sales had alot to do with it though. Chevrolet lost money on every V6 they sold, so they never seriously pushed the car like Ford did.
I believe this to be incorrect. Please produce data to back up your claim. Thanks.
[B]bulldoguav...thank you. Helps with some things I've been looking for.
As an FYI for those looking at production numbers...here are the Fox-body numbers for the Mustang:
79 = 369,936
80 = 241,064
81 = 162,593
82 = 130,418
83 = 120,873
84 = 141,480
85 = 156,514
86 = 224,210
87 = 159,145
88 = 211,225
89 = 209,769
90 = 128,189
91 = 98,737
92 = 79,280
93 = 114,228
Source: http://www.mustangregistry.org/
I own a Mustang. Do I also get stereotyped the same way?
possibly=Most Mustang owners I have learned will buy anything with a running horse on the front. The fact that the Mustang still was able to sell in the mid-90's with only 220HP amazes me to no end. V6 sales had alot to do with it though. Chevrolet lost money on every V6 they sold, so they never seriously pushed the car like Ford did.
I believe this to be incorrect. Please produce data to back up your claim. Thanks.
1979 Firebird 211,454 per
http://www.76transam.com/le_prod.htm
http://www.yearone.com/updatedsingle...ebirdprod.html
http://phobos.spaceports.com/~roguez/other/fb-nums.htm
Total 1979 F-body production = 494,171
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 220
From: TN
Originally posted by formula79
I hate to tell you, but saying a Mustang II is as close to it's roots as a 2nd gen is pure BS. Show me MustangII clubs...show me movies featuring MustangII's. In 74 when the Mustang had no V8 the TA had an SD455. The Firebird came with 400cid engines untill 79. They may have been smoggers...but they were much easier to make fast than a Mustang II.
The current Mustang is a big compromise for sales....the F-body is all out performance.
I hate to tell you, but saying a Mustang II is as close to it's roots as a 2nd gen is pure BS. Show me MustangII clubs...show me movies featuring MustangII's. In 74 when the Mustang had no V8 the TA had an SD455. The Firebird came with 400cid engines untill 79. They may have been smoggers...but they were much easier to make fast than a Mustang II.
The current Mustang is a big compromise for sales....the F-body is all out performance.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Originally posted by Derek Smalls
hey,since you're calling the shots and determining what car is a real car and what car isn't,show me V6 camaro clubs...show me movies featuring V6 camaros!i didn't know movie appearances determined the greatness of a car!!hmmmm,wasn't a mustang II the star of one of the most popular shows of the '70s.....charlies angels...two of them in fact...know let's see....how many movie or TV appearances did a 170HP Z28 make??oh,that's right.....NOBODY CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!s this all it's down to,your arguing club support and media appearances??????i thought this thread was about GTOs and chevelles,where the hell did this turn into yet another mustang vs camaro thread????but hey,if you want to argue about the merits of cars during the weakest era of american performance cars,go right ahead!
hey,since you're calling the shots and determining what car is a real car and what car isn't,show me V6 camaro clubs...show me movies featuring V6 camaros!i didn't know movie appearances determined the greatness of a car!!hmmmm,wasn't a mustang II the star of one of the most popular shows of the '70s.....charlies angels...two of them in fact...know let's see....how many movie or TV appearances did a 170HP Z28 make??oh,that's right.....NOBODY CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!s this all it's down to,your arguing club support and media appearances??????i thought this thread was about GTOs and chevelles,where the hell did this turn into yet another mustang vs camaro thread????but hey,if you want to argue about the merits of cars during the weakest era of american performance cars,go right ahead!
All I am saying is the Mustang II is an eyesore no one wants to remember or promote. The 2nd Gen F-body is still very much in enthusiasts minds and there is much support and preservation of them..Firebird more than Camaro though. The whole point of this converstation is that Ford has been much more sloppy with the Mustang brand than GM with the F-body..so J.Mays argument that the Camaro dies because it strayed from it's heritage is BS. I don't know why you wanna run your mouth about me having a V6 Camaro that's just ignorant..especially when my car can run witha pre-99GT. But anyways it was stupid on your part to bring that into the discussion. Someone should delete this thread so teh Mustang trolls will go away. This must be linked to on the Corral or something.
Also Miata boy...those who live in glass houses should not throw stones
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 220
From: TN
Originally posted by formula79
There are more V6 Camaro sites and clubs than Mustang II clubs All I am saying is the Mustang II is an eyesore no one wants to remember or promote. The 2nd Gen F-body is still very much in enthusiasts minds and there is much support and preservation of them..Firebird more than Camaro though. The whole point of this converstation is that Ford has been much more sloppy with the Mustang brand than GM with the F-body..so J.Mays argument that the Camaro dies because it strayed from it's heritage is BS.
I don't know why you wanna run your mouth about me having a V6 Camaro that's just ignorant..especially when my car can run witha pre-99GT. But anyways it was stupid on your part to bring that into the discussion. Someone should delete this thread so teh Mustang trolls will go away. This must be linked to on the Corral or something.
Also Miata boy...those who live in glass houses should not throw stones
There are more V6 Camaro sites and clubs than Mustang II clubs
All I am saying is the Mustang II is an eyesore no one wants to remember or promote. The 2nd Gen F-body is still very much in enthusiasts minds and there is much support and preservation of them..Firebird more than Camaro though. The whole point of this converstation is that Ford has been much more sloppy with the Mustang brand than GM with the F-body..so J.Mays argument that the Camaro dies because it strayed from it's heritage is BS. I don't know why you wanna run your mouth about me having a V6 Camaro that's just ignorant..especially when my car can run witha pre-99GT. But anyways it was stupid on your part to bring that into the discussion. Someone should delete this thread so teh Mustang trolls will go away. This must be linked to on the Corral or something.
Also Miata boy...those who live in glass houses should not throw stones
further showing more ignorance,you take a shot at my miata.i'll tell you what,smart guy,since according to you,clubs and websites determine a great car,if there are more V6 camaro clubs or sites or whatever you choose than a mazda miata,i'll leave camaroZ28.com forever.oh yeah,please someone lock this thread before formula79 posts another wonderful opinion!
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 143
From: Marietta, GA
Originally posted by IZ28
You are real close. Slight corrections:
1)1979 - 282,571
2)1978 - 272,631
3)1984 - 261,586 - 261,591
4)1969 - 243,095 - 243,085
5)1968 - 235,151 - 235,147
6)1967 - 220,917 - 220,906
7)1977 - 218,854
8)1986 - 192,219
9)1982 - 183,368 - 189,747
10)1976 - 182,959
The 4th Gen actually sold over 100,000 in 94 and 95 amazingly.
You are real close.
Slight corrections:1)1979 - 282,571
2)1978 - 272,631
3)1984 - 261,586 - 261,591
4)1969 - 243,095 - 243,085
5)1968 - 235,151 - 235,147
6)1967 - 220,917 - 220,906
7)1977 - 218,854
8)1986 - 192,219
9)1982 - 183,368 - 189,747
10)1976 - 182,959
The 4th Gen actually sold over 100,000 in 94 and 95 amazingly.
OK, settle down guys. We don't need a flame war over the Mustang vs Camaro stuff.
Drop it, move on. I thought this forum was about FUTURE vehicles, not past vehicles.