Re: COPO 9511
 

Fixing my own mistakes again, the part #'s I posted above for the <span style="text-decoration: underline">non</span> Copo 9560/9561/9562 cars w/ Copo-9511 4:88 ring/pinion are incorrect..
We still need these #'s!.

Again the ring/pinion #'s 3862528/3862516 are the HD parts supplied w/ an original '69 9560/9561 car ordered w/ 4:88's factory installed in their BE stamped tube rear axle carriers..
Also again maybe the same part #'s supplied w/ a KQ stamped rear in a 1969 Copo-9562 A-body ('69 L72 Copo Chevelle) ordered w/ 4:88's as Copo-9511?.

The above #'s make the BE w/ ring/pinion #'s 3862528/3862516 that Beater68427 found in his '68 more interesting?.
4:88 HD ring/pinion components added to a BE shipped w/ factory 4:10's or could it be a whole assy from a Copo-9560 or 9561 '69 Camaro w/ Copo-9511 shipped w/ 4:88's?.

https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbt...147&amp;page=3


[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/hmmm.gif[/img]
~ Pete

Re: COPO 9511
 

Peeling back more layers of the 1969 Copo-9511 onion, check out this '69 in the below links.. (Link title suggests a '68 but the car a '69)
Sure the deck job can't help but make a fella suspect the originality of the L89 claims but if the BW stamping is genuine it's a '69 Copo-9511 car!.
If so it's a more rare car than an L89 anyway but especially so being this BW 4:56 is also a JL8!.

http://www.collectormotors.com/1968L89.htm

http://www.collectormotors.com/L89/27.jpg

What's anyone think?.
[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/hmmm.gif[/img]
~ Pete

Re: COPO 9511
 

Here are a few clarifications. Sorry, I was in a hurry when posting earlier.

The &quot;9511CB = 4.88 (3862528-3862516)&quot; is from a Z28 not a L72 Camaro.
The 3862528-3862516 set is the standard duty gearset for a BX coded rear.
To the best of my knowledge the 4.88 was not able to be ordered with the L72 cars under any code.

The HD 4.88 gears were over the counter only (3916232-3916233)as
part 3917972.

The 9511DT code is from a factory ordered L72 Camaro with 4.56 gears [(3916230-3916231)set number 3917973].

Also, the &quot;BW&quot; axle cars that I have had in the past were rear drum brake cars.
The 4.56 ratio JL8 axles that I had were all &quot;QZ&quot; coded.
The rear that is pictured doesn't look like any JL8 that I have ever had.

Re: COPO 9511
 

Thanks again Julian for your input also the clarification!.
Not today but I'll pick up and make changes to the last postings that reflect your information supplied..
Please check back and make any notes you see fit..

Again I'm far from an expert on this 1969 Copo-9511 subject but hope we can all learn some solid facts that can be applied to any cars we may find..
1969 Copo-9511 A/F/X body cars also 'Vettes were built so lets find some!.
The previously posted link to the '69 NOM L78 Chevelle w/ KM rear axle tube and POP looks the most promising so far!.

[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif[/img]
~ Pete

Re: COPO 9511
 

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PeteLeathersac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The info posted above including this link noted below all indicate G84 was req'd w/ a '69 Copo 9511 order, not G80?.
http://www.camaros.org/pdf/options.pdf

[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif[/img]
~ Pete </div></div>

As I understand it which may be revised, the COPO 9511 is an override of the G84 4.10 gear set replacing it instead with the 4.56 or 4.88 (have not seen mention of any other gears as of yet). This option (COPO 9511) according to the note is available only when ordered with a posi rear which is G80 $40.00 and the gears cost the same $2.15 as the 4.10's making it $42.15.

In a nutshell to get a 4.56/4.88 you needed to order RPO G84 along with RPO G80 and then override the gear set by adding the COPO 9511 to replace the gear set, final price is still the same as ordering a regular old 4.10 posi at $42.15.

I know I have more on this but need to keep digging, I have gone through a good 8 feet of stacked papers so far so I will keep trying. This is the prime reason I had started my scan everything and post it campaign on my site so we can find info in seconds not days or weeks. Still a long way to go though on that one.

Re: COPO 9511
 

The way I understand it was ordering G84 w/ Copo-9511 automatically included the G80 being 9511 was a Posi only option, not available peg-leg?.
We really need to find some 1969 Copo-9511 window stickers!.
They're supposed to exist and hopefully can answer these and other questions?.
And again too, lets find some '69 Copo-9511 cars!.


[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif[/img]
~ Pete

Re: COPO 9511
 

So, would these be the right gears for a 9511 4.88 rear end?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/12-bolt-4...sQ5fAccessories

http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif

Re: COPO 9511
 

John

From what I have seen, the set on ebay has never turned up in a 9511 ordered rear. That doesn't mean that it isn't out there somewhere.

All of the 4.88 geared rears that I have seen were built with the 3862528-3862516 ring and pinion sets and have matching 4.88 axle coded stamps on the housing. None of these cars have been L72 cars.

I have only seen the set that is on ebay, listed in HD OTC parts books.

Re: COPO 9511
 

Here is a pic of one of the Yenko Bulletins describing a new '69 Yenko Nova with the 4.10 gear:

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h6.../Ybulletin.jpg

Re: COPO 9511
 

$3150 for a 69 427 Yenko Nova. Gee, I will have to give that some thought. The economy is in a downward spiral you know...... [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Re: COPO 9511
 

Cool bulletin and thanks for posting it Marlin!.
Being a '69 w/ 4:10 I suppose it's not a 9511 car, unless 4:56/4:88 gears were swapped down to the 4:10's?.

Is this bulletin car the GR #393985 Stauffer car on the list/pictured below?.
Was the '69 Yenko Nova 'EC fiasco' car a red one and this same Vin or another?.

Someone needs to update this below linked page to include Copo 9511..
Charley/Mods?.
https://www.yenko.net/dealers/copos.htm


[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif[/img]
~ Pete


Bulletin/Stauffer car?.
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h6...vaSuydam-1.jpg

Re: COPO 9511
 

Yes, the bulletin car and the picture are one &amp; the same. Note the separate '427' emblem on the fender vs. some that had the integreated version (ala Impala).

Sorry, I thought the discussion was around whether a '69 Nova could come with a gear ratio higher than 3.55 without it being a copo. I'm a little late to the party, but I always thought that the 9511 was for the special gear in the 'vairs. Maybe not, my memory is going....

Re: COPO 9511
 

While Pete is talking about 9511 COPO for 4.56, and 4.88 availability, there's a 2nd sub discussion going on about rear ratio availability in 69 Novas. They are connected, but I suppose are two different discussions.
The 1st discussion about the 4.56-4.88 rears lead to the 2nd when I had some people acert that 3.55 was the highest ratio (BT) and 4.10 was a dealer installed option. I can't refute that acertion with any paperwork, or documentation, nor at this time can Greg Roberts.
So we actually have two discussions going on here that really are pretty inportant, and could change the way we look at some Novas. The Yenko 69s are one big important example. We assumed they had BV 4.10 rears, but now are wondering if they were BTs that Don changed to 4.10. We would hope to find some answers here. So, please try to find some documentable evidence to show how this all was done. If we need to move the thread again to a more heavily trafficed area., that's fine, as I'd sure like to get as much input as possible.
Or if the mods would like to split the subject, that's fine, but at some level I tend to think they may be related.
Schonye

Re: COPO 9511
 

For whatever reasons the Non Copo 3:55/4:10 and other factory and dealer supplied axles were included in this Copo 9511 discussion at the beginning and I've been trying to nicely bump it into the true 4:56/4:88 only facts all along..
So yes please let's separate the two subjects!.

Here's a link below to a new Copo 9511 thread and more specifically to <span style="text-decoration: underline">1969</span> when Copo 9511 included factory installed 4:56 &amp; 4:88 only ratios..
1969 Copo 9511 A/F/X Body cars also 'Vettes were built and although largely unrecognized are true performance option '69 Copo cars to look for...especially the built but not found yet real '69 Copo Novas!.

https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbt...575#Post457575


[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif[/img]
~ Pete

Re: COPO 9511
 

Yenko used a COPO 9513 for the Stinger Corvair project 3:89 positraction differential

some info may be found by researching the speedo cable adaptors that were needed for the 4:10 rear.

I am not sure if they were needed for 4:56 or 4:88 or if they had anything to do with the RPO G84 that was added to the window sticker for 4:10 gear. It was only $2.15.

Looking at 1969 window stickers a 3:73 gear car only has RPO G80 but a 4:10 gear car has RPO G80 and RPO G84


Maybe the COPO 9511 needed a special speedo cable adaptor?

Differential Discovery
 

Looks like it's been a while since anyone posted on this thread, but I have questions.
In going over my recently purchased 1970 Z28 I found I do not have a COZ or COO coded differential. Sometime in the last 54 years the differential was swapped. It has also been re-geared to 3.55. What I have is something that may be of interest to the folks on this forum.

Differential tube stamp: BW 0429 G2
- 4.56 12 Bolt April 29 Second shift, Detroit Axle Plant

Casting Number: 3894860 NF
- 1967 - 69 Camaro (also 68-70 Nova)

Casting Date: D 189
- April 18, 1969

wheel mount to wheel mount: 60.00 inches = 1967-69 Camaro

Research says the 4.56 was not available as a standard option in 1969 and was only available with a COPO 9511 option.

The '69 housing is 2.5 inches narrower than the 1970 Gen 2 version. I will be searching for a correctly coded COZ housing for my 1970 Z. If someone has need of a 1969 BW coded differential housing, let me know.

P.M. sent.

The '70 ('70-'81 61 inches) rear end is exactly 1 inch wider than the '69 ('67-'69 60 inches) rear end. There is a lot of completely wrong information about rear end widths on the internet. The spring perches on the '70 rear end are 2 1/4 inches farther apart than the '69, so if someone put a '69 rear end in your '70 then they had to move the spring perches.

Copo 9511
 

Looks like Freddie is probably correct. I measured the spring perches center to center and they are 45 3/8 - the correct distance for a 1970 Camaro. But the numbers on the tube and the housing don't lie; they are from a 69 Camaro. It is not hard to imagine that sometime in the last 54 years someone swapped the axle into my car and re-located the spring perches. There is a lot of years of paint and such on the differential, but I imagine if I got into it I would find the original perch locations.