Editorial: Camaro Versus Camaro

Jim Sutherland
by Jim Sutherland

The 1969 Camaro is an automotive icon. Because of this juggernaut tag there are tens of thousands of these late 60s pony cars restored or under restoration. The late Reverend Jimmy “drink the Kool-Aid” Jones would have been humbled by this kind of blind loyalty-the sole reason the 09 Camaro exists was GM’s critical need for a home run.

But which car is going to be more valuable in 2019? Even after 10 years of service as a daily driver?

To make this fair you have to start with an equivalent value-in this case the 09 is an entry level Camaro 2LT (retails at $26,580) and a 1969 Camaro (base model, 350 V8, NADA guide high retail price-$26,335).

To make this even fairer the 69 Camaro has to encompass, within reason, the same daily driving experience as its much younger 2009 cousin. The cost of this retrofit should offset the obvious-a 69 Camaro makes money while parked in your garage whereas the 09 Camaro’s value gets ambushed before you pull out of the dealer’s lot.

Now you have to outline the 21st Century upgrades that make the new Camaro much more realistic as a reliable, functional chariot with modern handling and braking.

Things like a fuel injected 304 horsepower V-6 with 29 mph highway mpg and 19 city mpg with a 0-60 time of 6 seconds, ABS, 4 wheel discs, traction control, hi-intensity headlights, AC, PW, PS, PLKS, PB, PW, power sunroof, airbags front and side, 6 speed automatic or standard transmission, heated leather seats and mirrors, FM, MP3, satellite radio, 245-50 R19 wheels and tires.

These are all part of the 2LT package-that’s a big list to overcome for the 40 year old Camaro so the fairest strategy is to distill the competition down to basic comfort and function. Assume the 69 came with PS, PB and possibly PW and AC.

Forget about air bags, ABS and power sunroof-just make this old Chevy start, stop and handle every day in the real world like the new one with a ball park participation in the 0-60, 60-0 and MPG sweepstakes.

Fuel injection is the first thing that has to happen.


There is nothing that makes more sense in the hell called daily driving than fuel injection-it makes engines start better, run better and last longer. A RamJet fuelie 350 (350 hp) for the 69 is going to cost you $5400.Add in a Tremec 6 speed automatic conversion for the Turbo 400 and you’re down another 2500 bucks.

You’re going to want to stop this monster so 4 wheel disc brakes are mandatory. You’ll find that they come with the Heidts front end conversion kit ($3727) and Heidts rear end conversion kit ($959). These kits will get that old Camaro up to, and possibly past the new upstart 2LT on any track. Wheels and tires to get the 69 up to the 19” size are going to cost $4000. The seats ($1000) and stereo ($500) are relatively cheap.

Overall this 1969 Camaro should run every day-any day with that bulletproof 350, handle like a new car, stop like a new car and pull down 25 mpg on the highway if you don’t bag on the 6 speed.

But these upgrades are going to add $23,000 (allowing for $6000 in labor costs) to that initial purchase price. That should even up the depreciation rate built into that new upstart Camaro.

So… where are you really going to be in 2019 dollars with these 2 cars?

Start by depreciating the 2009 Camaro.

According to the depreciation calculator this car will be worth $2545 in 2019 so you’ve lost $ 23,790 bucks on your new Camaro.

The 69 that cost you 27K (pre mods) has jumped to $50,335 after cost of the retrofit.

The retro-fit costs put you 23K behind the new Camaro in 2009.But the 69 had shown an average annual appreciation rate of $575 per year based on a new price of $3200 in 69 and the extra 23 K gained in equity since 1969. At that rate your 69 Camaro should appraise at $31,580 in 2019 for a gain of $5245.

That’s offset by the 23K you’ve dumped into the upgrades so the loss is $17,755 on the 69 Camaro versus the nearly 24K you’ll lose on Chevy’s latest attempt to cash in on past glory.

Simple math-you’ll be $5935 ahead with the 69 Camaro plus you’ll still own a piece of automotive history.

How cool is that? Even your accountant would approve.

Read more by Jim Sutherland at mystarcollector.com

Jim Sutherland
Jim Sutherland

More by Jim Sutherland

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 43 comments
  • Ponchoman49 Ponchoman49 on Oct 20, 2009

    The new Camaro is a good car in it's own right but I believe the older 60's muscle cars will always be worth more than anything from todays era. The new Camaro needs to be toned down a touch with a lower hood bulge, windows lowered an inch along with the dash cowl for better visibility, the steering wheel needs to be redesigned, the head rests need to be softer and more padded inwards and the grille is just all wrong. The "my tires are bigger than your tires" is good up to a point. Anything larger than 20" looks ludicrous on this car and I actually find myself preffering the smaller LS and 1LT tires and wheels best.

  • Stingray Stingray on Oct 21, 2009
    A RamJet fuelie 350 (350 hp) for the 69 is going to cost you $5400. Why use a 350 when you can have LSX power for about the same money. Crate engine new. Also bulletproof powerplant.
  • 1995 SC If the necessary number of employees vote to unionize then yes, they should be unionized. That's how it works.
  • Sobhuza Trooper That Dave Thomas fella sounds like the kind of twit who is oh-so-quick to tell us how easy and fun the bus is for any and all of your personal transportation needs. The time to get to and from the bus stop is never a concern. The time waiting for the bus is never a concern. The time waiting for a connection (if there is one) is never a concern. The weather is never a concern. Whatever you might be carrying or intend to purchase is never a concern. Nope, Boo Cars! Yeah Buses! Buses rule!Needless to say, these twits don't actual take the damn bus.
  • MaintenanceCosts Nobody here seems to acknowledge that there are multiple use cases for cars.Some people spend all their time driving all over the country and need every mile and minute of time savings. ICE cars are better for them right now.Some people only drive locally and fly when they travel. For them, there's probably a range number that works, and they don't really need more. For the uses for which we use our EV, that would be around 150 miles. The other thing about a low range requirement is it can make 120V charging viable. If you don't drive more than an average of about 40 miles/day, you can probably get enough electrons through a wall outlet. We spent over two years charging our Bolt only through 120V, while our house was getting rebuilt, and never had an issue.Those are extremes. There are all sorts of use cases in between, which probably represent the majority of drivers. For some users, what's needed is more range. But I think for most users, what's needed is better charging. Retrofit apartment garages like Tim's with 240V outlets at every spot. Install more L3 chargers in supermarket parking lots and alongside gas stations. Make chargers that work like Tesla Superchargers as ubiquitous as gas stations, and EV charging will not be an issue for most users.
  • MaintenanceCosts I don't have an opinion on whether any one plant unionizing is the right answer, but the employees sure need to have the right to organize. Unions or the credible threat of unionization are the only thing, history has proven, that can keep employers honest. Without it, we've seen over and over, the employers have complete power over the workers and feel free to exploit the workers however they see fit. (And don't tell me "oh, the workers can just leave" - in an oligopolistic industry, working conditions quickly converge, and there's not another employer right around the corner.)
  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh [h3]Wake me up when it is a 1989 635Csi with a M88/3[/h3]
Next