1976 Chevrolet Camaro Type LT: Blue Dream

Despite the flak they’ve gotten from some quarters, the 1970-81 Camaros are getting some respect lately. For years they were sneered at by some bloggers, mostly by insufferable types who drool over a 1975 Honda Civic CVCC-one of the three that hasn’t dissolved into rusty Doritos, anyway.

But back in the ’70s, my Uncle Dave had two, a ’74 Z28 in navy blue, and a tan ’75 Type LT.

He loved them both, and remembers them fondly to this day. Anyway, I was reminded of those long gone Camaros today when I spotted this time capsule on the fb group, Finding Future Classic Cars.

It is the ‘Broughamy’ Camaro, the Type LT, later redubbed the Berlinetta. The blue on blue color scheme is most appealing to your author, as so many of these came in ’70s Green or ’70s Brown.

Of course, to many, the $19,300 ask is a rather princely sum. I thought so too. But I ask you: when’s the last time you saw a 2nd gen Camaro this nice. And 1970-73 Z28s or hot rodded versions don’t count.

This one is currently for sale in Grand Blanc, MI. As the seller relates, “1976 Blue Camaro for sale. 18,900 original miles. 350 cubic inch V-8 Engine, 4 barrel Carburator, 165 hp Turbo Transmission. All Factory Original – except for rebuilt transmission 2019.”

“Original Paint, original body. Car is being sold as is (as is with any classic car). Tires need to be replaced. Vehicle was built in Van Nuys California in 1976. Barn and Garage kept. Only 16,898 Blue Camaros were built in 1976 and this is one strong survivor.”

“Serious inquiries only – test drive only with serious inquiries including deposit. ”

OK, that last part seems a little much. Deposit to drive? Maybe he doesn’t really want to sell it but the wife is leaning on him, ha ha.

Anyway, I won’t be buying it. But I did enjoy gawking at the pictures!

 

44 Replies to “1976 Chevrolet Camaro Type LT: Blue Dream”

  1. AvatarJohn C.

    I like how the rear glass wraparound is so close in shape to the rear taillights in combo with the stainless panel. The bumpers are also unobtrusive. Chevy used aluminum bumpers on these and Vegas so the weight gain would be less severe.

    Reply
    • AvatarOne Leg at a Time

      They were quite attractive – and I think they still are; although some of the proportions look ‘off’ compared to modern cars.

      It just looks like a lot of thought went into the design.

      Twenty grand is really steep, but you can tell this was well cared for. It seems odd that the transmission would have to be rebuilt with only 19,000 miles, though.

      Reply
  2. Avatarrambo furum

    Thanks for the recommendation to look at the ’75 Civic. I guess I’m insufferable, as it looks a bit more appealing with and an interior appearing to be twice as good based on images I see. The Camaro’s tail is sleek even if the rest of the car does little for me. I don’t understand the decision not to paint match around the headlights.

    Reply
  3. Avatarstingray65

    I wish Chevy would continue with their retro-Camaro styling theme by coming up with a modern version of the Gen-2 Camaro, which I always thought was the best looking – especially the pre-big bumper version. While they are at it they could also make a Trans-Am version and sell it in their Buick-GMC stores to offer something sporty.

    Reply
  4. AvatarCJinSD

    1976 is an interesting year for the Camaro in that the model had no sporting pretensions at all that year; Chevrolet having admitted defeat over their inability to make a clean car that could get out of its own way. They should have put Honda’s CVCC 350 into production, as it would have been good for 40 hp/liter when their best effort was 29 hp/liter.

    Reply
    • AvatarJohn C.

      Maybe they should have instead sent Hondas back to Japan when Mr. Honda pulled that stunt with the 350. We already had plenty of uppity bitches in the USA, we had no need for him.

      Yes I know, it made all the hippies and CJ cheer, especially when nobody stood up for GM and told the truth that CVCC was a tech dead end.

      Reply
      • AvatarCJinSD

        CVCC became a dead end technology because the breakthroughs in microprocessor production made electronic engine management economical. For half a dozen years or so, CVCC was the best technology for meeting US emissions requirements without the expense of mechanical/electronic hybrid fuel injection systems or the horrific fuel consumption, awful drivability issues, and short lived auto-choke carburetors other car companies were foisting on their customers. GM figured their customers would stick around while they detuned antiques and complained about regulators. GM was wrong. They should have made better cars, ones that could compete with Hondas. They certainly had the resources, but they had as little respect for their customers as Democrats do for their voters. Don’t you and Tom both drive Chinese cars now while lecturing people about how they should have driven shoddy garbage out of patriotism? I read a comment from the head of one of GM’s divisions in 1973 today. He was concerned about the proliferation of four year loans, since the cars they sold had no value after three years.

        Reply
        • AvatarThatguy

          Your comments are so predictably sad and passe at this point it’s almost boring.

          Short lived auto choke carbs? A few decades is short lived now?
          CVCC that only worked if you never touched it? With the miles of vacuum lines that you better never touch because you’ll never get it set up correctly again if you do.
          There are a shit load more 70’s anything American brands around and running than a 70’s through late 80’s Honda.
          I enjoyed your weak attempt at trying to insult them with the chinese car comment, no matter how incorrect you are as usual.
          Why don’t you run back to CC and circle jerk with the rest of those morons.

          Reply
        • AvatarJohn C.

          CJ can always be counted on to Shit on Ed Cole for his still around small block while fronting for uppity bitches. If you want to find some legitimate Japanese 70s innovation, you might familiarize yourself with the Silent Shaft from Mitsubishi. Cars actually still have those.

          Reply
        • AvatarCJinSD

          Do you experts realize that Honda was selling about 60,000 cars a year here in the mid ’70s? That many GM clunkers got recycled in a week, back when people wasted their own money on GM passenger cars. Almost making it to 20,000 miles without a transmission rebuild wouldn’t have impressed any of the people on Honda waiting lists. The big interest at the time was fuel economy, and the 36 miles per gallon that the Accord returned in a magazine test was more exciting than the diminished speed achieved by the 350 Camaro. Even GM had the sense back then not to diminish their performance trim levels by attaching them to a car that wasn’t actually quick.

          Reply
          • Avatar-Nate

            @ Arbuckle ;

            If you enjoy driving, those tiny little Honda CVCC coupes were a blast ~ like a skate board with a steering wheel .

            I was still of course driving a late 1940’s or early 1950’s VW Betle because young & foolish but I’d buy, repair and resell those CVCC’s as fast as I could get my hands on them .

            The one thing that killed Hondas back then was dirty oil and Americans are the laziest bunch on earth .

            A sharply tuned Camaro with headers and so on looked neat and make lots of noise and tire smoke but that was for the kiddies, those who liked to drive left them in the dust in the canyons , mountains and general twisties .

            Completely different uses and buyers .

            -Nate

          • Avatararbuckle

            “Completely different uses and buyers .”

            Again, I would very much rather have the Camaro.
            If that makes me a “kiddie” or somehow means I “don’t enjoy driving” then so be it. “Skateboard with a steering wheel” is not something I’m interested in owning.

          • Avatar-Nate

            @ Arbuckle ;

            Understood and agreed .

            The difference between a lightning bug and lightning doesn’t make either one better….

            One of my elderly friends had a 1967 Camaro he bought new, he never did much maintenance to it and in the mid 2000’s gave me a *very* scary ride, the ball joints were so wobbly I was afraid the wheels were going to fall off .

            Nevertheless I think it could have been a nice car if someone bothered to fix it up, he sold it to someone in Europe .

            -Nate

      • Avatarstingray65

        My memory suggests the described Camaro was probably about a 11-13 second 0-60 performer, while a contemporary CVCC Civic with manual was around 15-16 seconds. If given enough space, the Camaro would top out between 100 and 105 mph, while the Civic might hit 90.

        Reply
        • Avatararbuckle

          Here’s the Motor Trend test of a ’76 Accord where it runs a 20 second quarter mile @ 68.1mph.
          https://www.motortrend.com/news/1976-honda-accord-feature-flashback/

          Here’s a citation about a C/D test where an automatic ’75 Camaro (with a 155hp 350 vs the 165hp 350 in this ’76) ran a 16.8@81.5 and had a 116mph top speed.
          https://i.ibb.co/kBZGNy8/Camaro.jpg

          I’m not claiming the Camaros of this time were “fast” but they were several seconds faster than any comparable Honda. A charge of “Can’t get out of its own way” seems unfair. Especially when this car isn’t wearing any performance badges and the market wasn’t full of quicker alternatives.

          Reply
          • AvatarCJinSD

            There weren’t any comparable Hondas, but Hondas excelled at the things that a Camaro couldn’t do at all well, while Camaros were worse at the things they had been admired for in the past.

          • Avatararbuckle

            Nice goalpost move. “Can’t get out of its own way” becomes “not as good as a ’70 Z28”.

          • AvatarCJinSD

            Somehow you’ve found the best numbers ever created for a Gerald Ford Camaro and the worst numbers for a pre-production Accord. The real difference was nowhere near as dramatic as you think. I am old enough to remember 1976. If you want a big bumper, small power Camaro, good for you. The Accord was a landmark car. The Camaro was a placeholder, and a low quality one at that. Just the doors of a second generation Camaro or Firebird elicit numerous vivid memories that would each make me prefer to have an Accord for reliving the past. Car and Driver always claimed the Trans Ams were the best handling American cars of the time, and I’ve seen a built second generation F-body giving Carrera RSRs and 934s hell around Zandvoort, but those cars make miserable transportation devices and are about as fun to drive as limousines.

          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth

            Interesting to see that the Accord gets up to 60mph in 13.8 seconds and then basically stalls out, taking another seven seconds to get to 70. Looking at the speed in gears, I suspect that’s because the power and torque drop pretty hard after 5000 rpm but you don’t actually shift to fourth gear until 74mph.

          • AvatarCJinSD

            I suspect that Honda was still working out their emissions and drivability calibrations when that test was performed. I have the August of 1976 Car and Driver test of an Accord CVCC in front of me. It ran a 13.2 second 0-60 on its way to an 18.9 second quarter mile at 70.4 MPH. Top speed was 98 MPH observed fuel economy was 30 MPG urban driving and 29 MPG highway driving, which is hard to believe. It’s acceleration made it quicker than a Chevette that had a higher as-tested price, equal to a Toyota Corolla SR5 Liftback, and a fraction of a second behind a 25% more expensive VW Scirocco.

  5. Avatar-Nate

    This car isn’t the dreaded “Belly Button” mullet mobile of yore .

    It looks nice to me and it clearly in VGC.

    I briefly had a 1967 Camaro R.S. with the always broken hide away head light doors, I struggled to get $250 for it, I -could_ have been a nice car in the right hands being a good model but at that time it was just one more old Chevy with burned valves (damned A.I.R. pump !) and a crappy repaint .

    -Nate

    Reply
      • Avatar-Nate

        I mean way back when a good used car was $250, the not ready to wheeze back and forth to work, high school or whatever were $50 ~ $125 .

        Perfect ready to go three year old used cars with real automatic trannies and cold AC were $1,500 ~ $3,500 on almost any used car lot .

        This was in the late 1960’s through the late 1970’s .

        There’s no possible comparison between and Camaro and any Honda ever made ~ that’s foolish .

        Different vehicles for different purposes .

        -Nate

        Reply
          • AvatarCarmine

            You obviously took this article very personally, when someone yells out “hey asshole” and you jump up and go “Hey!”, you kind of make it obvious who the asshole is……

          • AvatarCJinSD

            Considering Tom’s thin-skinned history for criticism of the cars he loves blindly, it was easy to figure out that I was one of the people he was insulting in his introduction. I guess you are oblivious to the distaste others have for your manners. Ignorance must be bliss.

          • AvatarCarmine

            It was actually about Paul Neidermeyer but it sounds like you got triggered snowflake….

            Relax…take it easy…. you’re not that important.

  6. AvatarCarmine

    For the record, I own 8 GM cars. 5 of them are original 70’s ones that have been maintained and never restored, and they are all reliable and enjoyable cars, I know thats anecdotal whatever to some, but I have been there, I have driven them and I have daily driven them and worked on them and I’ll say that none of them are as bad as anyone claims that they are, I never even had to tow one back to my shop, ever.

    And ALL of them are more desirable to me than a CVCC Civic.

    Reply
    • AvatarJohn C.

      You think they run well now, imagine how they would run if morons like the hippy mob had been listened to and hucksters like Mr. Honda had been allowed to sprinkle his frankincense on them. I mean he traveled far, he must be a wise man.

      Reply
  7. Avatar-Nate

    Jesus H. Christ fellas ;

    It’s just an old Chevy in V.G.S. .

    It’s O.K. if you prefer imports or Fords or MoPars, don’t be such snowflakes .

    No one is forcing you to drive what you don’t want .

    -Nate

    Reply
  8. AvatarGeorge Denzinger

    Henry Haga did a fantastic job with these cars. When I was a kid, these were as thick as thieves in the mid-west. Classically pretty cars, that held up well over time.

    You sat low in the car and on the road, but not on the floor with your legs splayed out. Even the middling ones like these handled pretty decently and when optioned well, were very nice cars to live with.

    To be honest, I’m much more of a Firebird fan; give me any 400 cid powered Formula from 1972-1979, I’d be as happy as kid in a candy store!

    Reply
  9. Avatarjc

    Sheesh, comparing a mid seventies Honda Civic to a mid seventies Camaro is just nutty. Totally different kinds of cars.

    Gee, my GMC one ton pickup doesn’t get the gas mileage of my Prius!

    Gee, I can’t put a hundred concrete pavers and seven sheets of 3/4 plywood in my Prius like I can in my GMC one ton pickup!

    Come on, folks, if you’re going to keep the conspiracy theory about the downfall of the US auto industry going, at least have enough respect for our intelligence to keep the argument comparing things that are remotely similar!

    Reply
    • AvatarJohn C.

      Here is my conspiracy theory. Older man, used to work for Massey Fergusen. “I have got this idea for a trick but simple carb, 20% more horsepower with 10% better economy, see my research report”. Mob rolls eyes. “good stuff, why not take out an ad in JC Whitley.

      Middle Age Asian man, grew up under Tojo, believes his people are chosen, builds motorized bicycles.” I have got this new tech, CVCC, you won’t need catalysts, you will also have all the benefits of the other guys carb and you only have to pay me a little more to license. Buying from me proves you are not racist and raises the middle finger at your father.” Mob. “Finally what we have sought out forever….”

      Isn’t it crazy that either of these losers were listened to.

      Reply
  10. AvatarTrucky McTruckface

    It always bothered me that the Firebird got urethane front and rear bumpers for ’74, but the Camaro got stuck with clunky metal bumpers until ’78. It’s certainly not the worst example of federal 5 MPH bumpers (Ford’s the runaway winner there), but they still ruin the look of the car.

    Can’t remember the last time I saw a Type LT or Berlinetta, though, let alone one this clean.

    Reply
    • AvatarJohn C.

      Now that plastic covered bumpers are on everything, and we also know what an unfinished, flimsy and encased in Styrofoam bumper lies below, an honest solid finished bumper looks good to me. It also solved the early 70s styling problem of too big a grill on Camaros. To each his own though.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.