1975 Chevrolet Camaro Reviews

1975 Chevrolet Camaro Type LT 307 from North America

Model year1975
Year of manufacture1975
First year of ownership2007
Most recent year of ownership2007
Engine and transmission 307 Automatic
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
9.3 / 10
Distance when acquired136000 miles
Most recent distance138000 miles
Previous carAMC Eagle

Summary:

It's a Camaro plain and simple

Faults:

Nothing went wrong with the car that was its fault, the previous owner did a few modifications improperly and I had to make them right. Such as wrong lugs nuts for the Crager wheels which made me almost loose a wheel. Broken Speedometer cable, messy wiring, missing shift knob, neutral safety switch not working. Aside from the chaos that the previous owner left me, the car is built like a rock and is quite comfortable to drive. With a tune up it became thrillingly fast for a easy going mid 70's car.

General Comments:

What can I say it's a 70's muscle car, theres nothing better than a rumbling V8 a smooth automatic transmission, comfortable bucket seats, great stereo, the radio antenna is built in the windshield so you get great reception and no antenna on the body. It has a wide and low stance, two feet wider than it is tall to be exact. the body is an stylish and smooth on the sides, sharp and aggressive in the front, and modern at the rear with sleek wrap around taillights with a sharp blade like spoiler that gives the people behind you something to look at.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 15th November, 2007

1975 Chevrolet Camaro 5.7 from North America

Model year1975
Year of manufacture1974
First year of ownership1998
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 5.7 Automatic
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.7 / 10
Distance when acquired130000 miles
Most recent distance175000 miles
Previous carHonda Accord

Summary:

Awesome Piece of Crap!

Faults:

Replaced the quadrajet with a Carter...awesome.

Replaced the front pads 2x and the rear shoes once.

Replaced all 4 tires with 255/60/15 BFG's.

Replaced rear shocks.

Driver's seat stuck back all the way.

General Comments:

I love this 70's butt-rocker car! I have owned so many cars since I got mt license and this was my favorite. It was fast and handled well. I once got in to an accident and totaled a mini van, however, my camaro came out unhurt. I will buy another one someday when I can afford a nice one.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 14th December, 2004

1975 Chevrolet Camaro RS from Iran

Year of manufacture1975
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.2 / 10
Distance when acquired1000 miles
Most recent distance96000 miles

Summary:

Really safe and comfortable

Faults:

I can say nothing special has gone wrong with my car, except the pedals.

The brake pedal broke once.

I got some problems with the lights.

General Comments:

I really enjoy driving this car. It's just great. I feel so comfortable inside the car.

I have no fear from accidents. I really feel safe with this car. The only problem is that I don't feel safe in any of these new cars.

I had no special problems with the engine. I have just changed the oil and water in this year and as mentioned above the brake pedal broke, and I think this is usual for a 27 year old car.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 9th February, 2002

27th Aug 2009, 14:52

It is a nice looking car, however, I wouldn't call it SAFE. Everybody knows that older vehicles were deathtraps.

28th Aug 2009, 07:30

"Older vehicles were deathtraps"

Are you really serious or was that just a sarcastic comment??

Just because in new cars you have fancy gizmo's like E.S.C, Traction control, and S.R.S systems does NOT mean that vehicles without all these (great systems, don't get me wrong) systems is a "death-trap". Look at it this way, in older cars if you did not know how to drive, you'd be taken out of the game pretty quickly!!! LOL. But seriously, "older" cars are in some ways not as "smart" safe, but in them you'd have a better chance of walking away and driving away from a crash due to better construction and higher quality materials. Like Iron.

28th Aug 2009, 15:59

Yes, you're right, like the iron dashboards that killed so many because they provided no cushion whatsoever. It's been long proven that the older vehicles were very dangerous, mostly BECAUSE of their heavy metal frames. The frames didn't provide enough give in an accident. When you get in an accident, you WANT the frame to bear the brunt of the blow, the older vehicles transferred all of that energy into your body. Not to mention that they lacked seatbelts! Maybe you don't like seatbelts, but the fact is, they do save lives.

17th Sep 2011, 21:57

All cars built in 1975 had basic safety features such as three point safely belts and padded dashboards. I know because I drove them. These cars did not have metal all around the interiors for people to bounce off. The Camaro had high back front seats to protect the occupants from whiplash in the event of an accident.

My 1969 Ford Galaxy had a padded interior. The lap belt could be attached to a shoulder belt that was stored neatly along the ceiling.

Average review marks: 8.7 / 10, based on 3 reviews