|
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
This is some good reading....once again. I've been working in and out of car dealers since 1985 and I have seen some crazy things go on. Who's to say that this car was sitting on a lot back in the day without seeing any interest until somebody came along and told the GM of the store that they would buy the car if it had an automatic trans in it. Sometimes GM's will jump thru hoops to move old inventory off the lot. Putting a deal together that included a trans swap wouldn't surprise me at all. I am in no way saying that the car is a fake. Is the current owner of the car also the original owner? Just some food for thought.....
Rich |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
Reading the whole thread you would see that there is rumor of a buildsheet with the car in question that supports the M40 option so the tranny swap theory wouldn't apply.
Rick H. |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
I would just like to take a minute here, and stick up for Chuck. Chuck is an often misunderstood, misinterpreted guy, but i have figured out, after getting to know him at Carlisle and at the Super car reunion events that he just wants to find out the truth. I don't beleive he ever said the car was a fake, but rather asked for proof of authenticity. There is a differance. All known documentation that exists, including the AMA specification sheets that comes in the folder of information from GM when you call the 1-800 number shows the 70 L78 Camaro was not available with M40 auto transmission. I understand the fact that auto equipped novas and chevelles with L78 were produced, but until THIS car came along, the pattern seems to be that ALL 70' L78 Camaros were 4 speed cars. I personally don't care if it exists or not. I bet the NHRA drag racers who want to run this combo do. If the car is real,fine. If it is not, well that is fine too. Thanks for the site Tom. Mike
|
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
|
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
On the cosmetics side of the discussion on this car you may recall that the Second generation guys have an open topic on SS Camaros with Z-28 stripes:
http://www.nastyz28.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28406 (Please read the entire thread) Now ask this: Why would you build a car that no one thinks really exists? You are not going to try to sell it with putting up with a boat load of crap (Example L-78 Auto car), Now the same with the alleged SS stripe cars, yet they keep popping up for sale? (SS camaro with stripes) Comments? Phil https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/beers.gif |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
Why would you build a car that no one thinks really exists? [/ QUOTE ] I'm still getting up to speed on 2nd gens. But, back in 1970 when someone walked into the dealership and looked at the brochure for Camaros. Isn't it true that the L78 wasn't even listed? Therefore, the L78 didn't really exist back then either? Let alone with an auto trans??? |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
I recall reading the post about the SS cars and them having stripes too. There was one guy who had a trim tag with the
Z27 code followed by a stripe code as well. I don't remember what the final outcome of that topic was, as far as it being authentic or not. On the L78 TH-400 topic, I don't know a lot about these cars, and haven't really seen very many of them either. My only question is why wouldn't they offer the TH-400 in an L78 Camaro given that they did have it in other cars with that engine as well as the 454's? |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever, I guess my point is when I see things that are incorrect I start to question the authenticity of the car. Maybe the buildsheet will show the Z/28 stripes as well. That would answer a ton of other questions. Of course nobody answered my post asking if someone can come look at the car. Or is it a national secret and will cost $5k to look at it?! Rick H. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think Charlie is saying it will cost 5k to look at it, I think he is saying he is so convinced that it is authentic that he will give 5k to anyone who proves him wrong. By the way, my 72 SS had stripes on it when I bought it in 78 and I took them off in 82 because I was told numerous times that they were not "correct". |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
I think he is saying he is so convinced that it is authentic that he will give 5k to anyone who proves him wrong [/ QUOTE ] That is not what he said. He placed a bet which means if you loose you give him $5k and if he wins he gives you the money. That's how betting works. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...thumbsdown.gif Rick H. |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
I recall reading the post about the SS cars and them having stripes too. There was one guy who had a trim tag with the Z27 code followed by a stripe code as well. I don't remember what the final outcome of that topic was, as far as it being authentic or not. On the L78 TH-400 topic, I don't know a lot about these cars, and haven't really seen very many of them either. My only question is why wouldn't they offer the TH-400 in an L78 Camaro given that they did have it in other cars with that engine as well as the 454's? [/ QUOTE ] The final outcome is there never is a final outcome. Certain individuals post claims and after a 4-5 page thread it is never proven. Request are ignored and so on and so on. There are certain people who feel that their word is gospel and nothing else needs to be proven. They said it's true so it must be. I just don't see why it so friggin difficult to allow people to verify the car and it's alleged paperwork. Unless it can be proven I myself stand by the understanding that there were NO 1970 L78/M 40's built. Also the stripe issue was never proven either. Show me the trim tag and supporting documentation and then I might change my mind. Have a nice day. Rick H. |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
<font color="red"> Unless it can be proven I myself stand by the understanding that there were NO 1970 L78/M 40's built. </font>
If so sure, take Charley up on his bet, an easy $5 grand. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...ns/naughty.gif |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
Come on Rick H., proving Charley wrong and making 5 grand. It doesn't get better than that, and that money would sure come in handy on your 70 Z project. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/beers.gif
|
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
"There are certain people who feel that their word is gospel and nothing else needs to be proven. They said it's true so it must be."
Rick... Do you have any more insults for me ? |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I recall reading the post about the SS cars and them having stripes too. There was one guy who had a trim tag with the Z27 code followed by a stripe code as well. I don't remember what the final outcome of that topic was, as far as it being authentic or not. On the L78 TH-400 topic, I don't know a lot about these cars, and haven't really seen very many of them either. My only question is why wouldn't they offer the TH-400 in an L78 Camaro given that they did have it in other cars with that engine as well as the 454's? [/ QUOTE ] The final outcome is there never is a final outcome. Certain individuals post claims and after a 4-5 page thread it is never proven. Request are ignored and so on and so on. There are certain people who feel that their word is gospel and nothing else needs to be proven. They said it's true so it must be. I just don't see why it so friggin difficult to allow people to verify the car and it's alleged paperwork. Unless it can be proven I myself stand by the understanding that there were NO 1970 L78/M 40's built. Also the stripe issue was never proven either. Show me the trim tag and supporting documentation and then I might change my mind. Have a nice day. Rick H. [/ QUOTE ] There was actually a picture of this guys trim tag posted on nastyz28.com a while ago. The tag did have the Z27 code followed by a stripe code. I'm sure someone could find it in the archives, and post it here. I am not saying that I took that picture as 100% proof, as I couldn't tell if the tag was real by the picture posted. |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
The photo is on the last page of the second generation thread.
The first thing people do today is say the "tag is fake". IMO.. It is the easy way out of the debate if technical issues arise. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...s/rolleyes.gif Phil |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
I personally don't care if it exists or not. I bet the NHRA drag racers who want to run this combo do. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, the class guys will tell you that the L78 is hampered by the automatic...in front of a stick is where it works it's magic...https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...ns/naughty.gif |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
The photo is on the last page of the second generation thread. The first thing people do today is say the "tag is fake". IMO.. It is the easy way out of the debate if technical issues arise. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...s/rolleyes.gif Phil [/ QUOTE ] What area is it under, I did a search in the Trim Tag one with no luck?? |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
"There are certain people who feel that their word is gospel and nothing else needs to be proven. They said it's true so it must be." Rick... Do you have any more insults for me ? [/ QUOTE ] Charley, i'm pretty sure I didn't mention your name and was directed at no one in particular. Rick H. |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
Come on Rick H., proving Charley wrong and making 5 grand. It doesn't get better than that, and that money would sure come in handy on your 70 Z project. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/beers.gif [/ QUOTE ] Steve, send me the 5 g's just in case. would ya? https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...iggthumpup.gif Not trying to prove anybody wrong, just want to get the facts staight and if there is legit documents that prove what has been said then show them, have someone verify them, verify the car, etc.. Why is it so friggin hard to do this? Rick H. |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[/ QUOTE ]What area is it under, I did a search in the Trim Tag one with no luck?? [/ QUOTE ] http://www.nastyz28.com/forum/showth...406&page=4 Photo is included as part of post #47 in the thread. Phil https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/beers.gif |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I recall reading the post about the SS cars and them having stripes too. There was one guy who had a trim tag with the Z27 code followed by a stripe code as well. I don't remember what the final outcome of that topic was, as far as it being authentic or not. On the L78 TH-400 topic, I don't know a lot about these cars, and haven't really seen very many of them either. My only question is why wouldn't they offer the TH-400 in an L78 Camaro given that they did have it in other cars with that engine as well as the 454's? [/ QUOTE ] The final outcome is there never is a final outcome. Certain individuals post claims and after a 4-5 page thread it is never proven. Request are ignored and so on and so on. There are certain people who feel that their word is gospel and nothing else needs to be proven. They said it's true so it must be. I just don't see why it so friggin difficult to allow people to verify the car and it's alleged paperwork. Unless it can be proven I myself stand by the understanding that there were NO 1970 L78/M 40's built. Also the stripe issue was never proven either. Show me the trim tag and supporting documentation and then I might change my mind. Have a nice day. Rick H. [/ QUOTE ] Rick, In reality I have looked at several striped SS cars over the years and two of them were L-78's. Some where the owner stated the "dealer had added the stripes" and some who claimed the stripes were applied by the factory. In the Nasty Z thread I commented several times (as you can see) on the SS cars with stripes were surfacing at that time. I am simply keeping an open mind as to what could be out there. All the information to date says no stripes on an SS... So why do these cars keep popping up? I cannot think of a reason someone would repop a tag with a code that everyone in the'70-72 Camaro corner would question right from the start as being "wrong". The same can be said with the L-78 auto car - hell who knows and who really cares? The proper time to be critical of this car will be when and if it ever comes to market. Current owner seems happy with his car now- as it is not for sale. Oh yea - one more thing on this recent (in context) quote from you reproduced again below: "The final outcome is there never is a final outcome. Certain individuals post claims and after a 4-5 page thread it is never proven. Request are ignored and so on and so on." "There are certain people who feel that their word is gospel and nothing else needs to be proven. They said it's true so it must be." I posted quite a bit in that thread that you were commenting on... hmmm... Now you have me wondering-were you writing an opinion on me? https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...mlins/hmmm.gif Phil https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...ns/naughty.gif |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
What's that saying?? Paranoia runs deep.. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...emlins/eek.gif
To answer your last question Phil, No. Rick H. p.s. Let me ask this. Can anyone produce a 1970 Camaro SS, unrestored, original paint with factory stripes? With supporting documentation of course. |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
There are quite a few combinations that Chevy said they never built or offered that have popped up in recent years. So it would not surprise me if this L78/M40 turns out to be the real thing. And if it would benefit racers then I would think lots of people would like to see the proof behind this car. I can't say why the owner isn't more willing to share this information but hopefully some day he will change his mind.
|
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
Rick,
Thanks I feel better already! Perhaps one day I will get a '70 SS.... Phil https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/beers.gif |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
p.s. Let me ask this. Can anyone produce a 1970 Camaro SS, unrestored, original paint with factory stripes? With supporting documentation of course. [/ QUOTE ] and if they do, can I buy it? https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...mlins/grin.gif |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
Reading the whole thread you would see that there is rumor of a buildsheet with the car in question that supports the M40 option so the tranny swap theory wouldn't apply. Rick H. [/ QUOTE ] Rumor of a build sheet? Has anyone ever seen the build sheet with the M-40 code to squash the tranny swap theory?? Rich |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
Yes..At least 2 members of the Sacramento Camaro club have seen the build sheet.
|
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...PO/Cnv1359.jpg
I had some time this Morning and took another look through the files and found this memo. While dated for mid '69 it does provide insight into engine carryover to '70. The complicating issue with the memo and our topic is the Continuation of the '69 body well into '70 with Chevy calling it a '70 and then followed later by the "real" Chevrolet rollout of the new '70 Camaro in February. Notabily both Colvin and Hooper agree on M-40 as an option on L-78 as follows: Hooper in his book "The Illustrated Camaro Recogintion Guide 1970-1973" first on page 63 listing "CJL"- and later on page 129 - "Manual or automatic Transmission was available in any SS Camaro". Also Colvin in his book "1970-75 Chevrolet by the numbers" (on page 58) actually lists two seperate three letter codes for L-78 Camaro and TH in 1970. CJL and CTY. Colvin however does not discuss the carryover engine issue which could mean that when the CJL carryover engines were all used then CTY could have been the later (post) February '70 Camaro L-78/M-40 engine. Time will tell https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...ns/naughty.gif Phil |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
Did we ever come to a conclusion on why GM Over Bored the 396 in 1970? https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/dunno.gif
|
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
Did we ever come to a conclusion on why GM Over Bored the 396 in 1970? https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/dunno.gif [/ QUOTE ] I recall it had something to do with emmissions. |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...PO/Cnv1359.jpg I had some time this Morning and took another look through the files and found this memo. While dated for mid '69 it does provide insight into engine carryover to '70. The complicating issue with the memo and our topic is the Continuation of the '69 body well into '70 with Chevy calling it a '70 and then followed later by the "real" Chevrolet rollout of the new '70 Camaro in February. Notabily both Colvin and Hooper agree on M-40 as an option on L-78 as follows: Hooper in his book "The Illustrated Camaro Recogintion Guide 1970-1973" first on page 63 listing "CJL"- and later on page 129 - "Manual or automatic Transmission was available in any SS Camaro". Also Colvin in his book "1970-75 Chevrolet by the numbers" (on page 58) actually lists two seperate three letter codes for L-78 Camaro and TH in 1970. CJL and CTY. Colvin however does not discuss the carryover engine issue which could mean that when the CJL carryover engines were all used then CTY could have been the later (post) February '70 Camaro L-78/M-40 engine. Time will tell https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...ns/naughty.gif Phil [/ QUOTE ] Here's a quote from an earlier post and it is not mine, "I do love when people quote selections from books written by experts that later prove to be incorrect." Just because there is a list of proposed changeovers into the following year doesn't mean it happened. For example, using the list above has anyone ever seen a 1970 L89 Camaro? https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/dunno.gif Rick H. |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
Rick,
Please read what the Memo says again. obviously there was no L-89 option on the new Second generation body style that we know of. The memo simply provides additional insight into the inner workings of Chevrolet at that time, which I clearly state is 1969-and further provides some basis for what later authors have written about the optional power team combo's in what shaped up to be a pretty confusing year. That is all I was pointing out with the memo post that you have quoted above. OK?? Phil |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
I have only ever seen CKO used on 1960 Tonawanda L-78's.
Whose car has ANYBODY seen WHAT other code/designation stamped on an assy line installed 1970 L.A. or Norwood Camaro L-78 ??? |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
I did read it and I know exactly what it says. The memo clearly states at the time it was written that Chevy planned to carry over the 396-400 BB engine/tranny combinations into the 1970 model year when the new Camaro came out in January of 1970. Obviously not all of the combinations made it. Case in point the L89 combo.
Matter of fact as Chuck pointed out the L78/manual was designated CKO. Since the memo you have obviously exists, there must be a final or superseded memo or other documentation that clearly shows what engine/tranny combo's were finally delivered. Rick H. |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
I did read it and I know exactly what it says. The memo clearly states at the time it was written that Chevy planned to carry over the 396-400 BB engine/tranny combinations into the 1970 model year when the new Camaro came out in January of 1970. Obviously not all of the combinations made it. Case in point the L89 combo. Matter of fact as Chuck pointed out the L78/manual was designated CKO. Since the memo you have obviously exists, there must be a final or superseded memo or other documentation that clearly shows what engine/tranny combo's were finally delivered. Rick H. [/ QUOTE ] Rick, You missed one detail from the memo. It states "effective August 1st 1969..." clearly this memo is referring to carryover engines into the new '70 model year - the intent was carryover of engines to the "1970 Camaro" that continued on as the 1969 body style. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...PO/Cnv1360.jpg The memo is what it is, and again simply provides insight into why some authors may have concluded the potential of RPO L-78 with a M-40 as reality within the entire '70 model year production run. BTW..Colvin also lists CKO as a Manual trans w/375HP. Phil https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...ns/naughty.gif |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
You missed one detail from the memo [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] the intent was carryover of engines to the "1970 Camaro" that continued on as the 1969 body style [/ QUOTE ] Show me one line in the above mentioned memo that states and proves that their "intent" was that the 1970 would be "continued on as a 1969 body style"! Rick H. |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
Simple! From the memo:
"effective August 1st 1969, at the manufacturing plant all engines built per this deviation will be identified with a "C" preceeding the engine suffix..." The start of the '70 model year is when the three letter stamping for engine identification was used. These engines were carryover to the '70 model year production and were identifed as such. Second generation production started up at the plants in January '70 Phil |
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
I think that memo is really just trying to explain why some of the late run 69 models had the 3 digit engine code beginning with 'C'. Those all look to be 69 model year engines codes and the new 1970 model got a different batch of codes. It's a great memo explaining what happened but doesn't really do anything to help prove/disprove the L78/TH400 option combination. Did they make any 1970 Novas with the L78/TH400 that are known to exist? If there are 1970 Chevelle L78/TH400 cars I would think it was available on the Camaro and Nova as well. They all shared the same engine codes.
|
Re: 70-71 CAMARO BB 4SPD
[ QUOTE ]
It's a great memo explaining what happened but doesn't really do anything to help prove/disprove the L78/TH400 option combination. [/ QUOTE ] BINGO! Rick H. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.