'68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Here is a pic of the documentation regarding the L72 engine being tested in a '68 Camaro for Yenko Chevrolet in May of '68. Keep in mind that we should never say 'never' where GM is concerned.

One possible theory is that Yenko purchased this car from GM after their test, as an export vehicle. Yenko then sold it to a participating dealer through his network, with his own warranty just like the other transplant cars. This is not impossible, remember the hemi cuda proto-type story in MCR last year.

Kevin has studied these documents, and can add explanations better than I.
M

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?...nce=0&res=high

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?...nce=0&res=high

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?...nce=0&res=high

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Marlin,
Thanks for sharing the info.

Andrew

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Very interesting reading.I enjoy the obscure. https://www.yenko.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/smile.gif

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Wow - interesting document. Special instructions "report name as Excalibur" ? Sounds like someone was being secretive. Not sure why Yenko would need a Federal Emission test on a car sold for Export. My guess would be that the GOV was requesting the L72 Camaro emission test numbers from Yenko and he asked Chevy to help him by performing the test on their equipment. If Chevy was openly selling the L72 Camaro then they would have persued the GOV approvals. The GOV was going after shops that they considered manufactures no matter how small the number of cars produced. In the 60's the GOV shut down some small manufactures like John Fitch by requesting crash test results and emission test results that they could not afford to do.
Marlin-Is there a vin number on the document?

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

It reads to me like GM is testing Yenko's car for Yenko at Yenko's cost. It doesn't seem to shed any light to me on the transplant or GM produced issue. Yenko wouldn't have had equipment to do the smog tests correct?
Also what does it mean at the bottom when it says "closed" and "no report issued"?
JMHO
Gary

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Gary, I think you are correct about testing Yenko's car at Yenko's request. But I believe that this could be a 427 Camaro already at the factory that was built by Chevrolet for Yenko. I wouldn't think it would make sense for Yenko paying for shipping a Camaro from the factory, then Yenko go through their transplant process; then pay to ship the car back to the factory, and then pay to ship the car back to Yenko when it was done. I think it was easier to drop in a 427 in at the factory instead of shipping a car 3 times. It is my belief that a Camaro like my 68 Yenko which has the tag from GM that says "special order drag car" is such an example. You can see this tag on my website with the little Chevy bow tie in the rib line of the tag. I don't believe that it would have this tag like this if it was just another RPO L78. I'm not suggesting though that my 68 is a COPO 9560 like in 69 though. I believe this it is possible my car could be a pilot 427 motor but hidden in the COPO 9737 sports car conversion. Jim Mattison in his interview in MCR touches on this a bit. Jim was in charge of COPO orders at GM and makes the comment on this very same subject. He says the guys in engineering where always doing something like that; and I don't think Mattison has any agenda for making statements like this unless they were true.

Lots of strange things have happened when it comes to GM's engineering research and development department. Another example I can give, is that for years it was believed that no M22's where ever put in a 65 Vette. This is because it was never listed as an RPO from GM. I own such a M22 Vette that is used in Alan Colvin's book "Chevrolet by the Numbers" and is the documented example of a M22 Vette which was instrumental in proving that. You can see my M22 Vette in the appendix of Colvin's book.

Then is the controversy of the 66 427 L72/M22 Vette to which some claims are made of these as being a cast iron head version of the L88. The reason that some suggest this is that for example in 1967 there were 20 L88 corvettes and 20 M22's produced. On this very subject there is an old article by Martyn Schorr as well. Interestingly Martyn as a young writer was at Motion Performance in 1966 when a 66 L72/M22 Tanker Vette was brought in for modification. Martyn writes that on the window sticker the motor was listed as L72-B. When the motor was taken apart for blueprinting it was discovered to have a gear drive timing gear with reverse rotation distributor. It also had a different valve train and the piston compression was not identified. Strange story, right? (I have to get Denis over to my house to post this as I have a scanner but yet to learn how to do it.) Anyway, this summer in Bloomington, Al Grenning whom is an NCRS judge and Corvette historian will do a presentation on 66 427/M22 Corvettes. He asked for my 66 427/M22 Tanker which raced at Daytona to be there as a part of his demonstration. I am sending it and it will be there as part of the special collection. He has uncovered GM factory documents documents on these 1966 427 Vettes which when having the M22 they were not the conventional L72 427, but a cast iron head version of the L88. I've yet to see these documents myself. Anyway, I guess all the more for the saying "never say never".


[Edited by SuperCars (04-20-2001 at 11:03 AM).]

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Kevin. I am curious where these documents were found on the 1968 L72 Camaro. Did they come with the car when the original owner purchased it? The other document on this L72 Camaro that was shown in the Chevy Action article appears to provide more information. The picture in the magazine was not very clear but it appeared to be a COPO form that deleted some RPO's in exchange for other parts. Can you post this COPO document? It has some writing on the bottom that I could not read.
About the L72 M22 1966 Corvette. Don Yenko orderer a 1966 Corvette for a customer/friend who wanted the best possible race car he can get from Chevy. I have read that it was ordered as a L-72, M-22, J-56 dual pin brakes, F-41 suspension, G-81 positraction, K-66 transistorized ignition, and had no radio or heater. It was said to have been one of two 1966 L72 Corvettes with a special engine suffix code. I don't know how accurate this info is but I wonder if this Corvette had one of the cast iron head L88 type motors in it. This is a picture of it after it was race preprepared by Yenko including cutting off the windshield and adding a 42 gal. gas tank.
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?...132&p=29489227

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Joe, I was given a file of about 50 pages from Chevrolet Engineering Archives, that I believe I was told came through help from Herb Fishel, a Chevrolet Engineer, and I believe along with Fran Preve. The bulk of these documents pertain to COPO 9737. Most of which deals with suspension parts such as tie rod ends, sway bar components, steering and a bunch of stuff I haven't paid much attention to. The key pages I have focused on are this smog test, but also there were engine assembly numbers that were added and deleted number through this 9737 process as it appears to have evolved during 1968. Also for example, is one Engineering Change Recommendation on COPO 9737 (dated 4-10-68) is noteworthy, as it is typed "NOTE: RPO L78 Fuel Pump will used for delivery of vehicles only". Typed below that is "RPO L78 Fuel Pump required to facilitate assembly". In between these two typed sentences is handwritten: "Make Exp V78 Mandatory on all exceptions with Engine Changes- add to cost sheets." (signed with initials ARB 4/15/68; A.R.Baker was one engineer listed at top of page) Then, when I refer to the list on the COPO 9737 sheets, which is titled "Exception Control Letter Sheet" it lists all the RPO's to configure the COPO 9737. The first COPO 9737 Sheets do not list V78. RPO V78 was added to COPO 9737 on 4-3-68 and is: "V78 Less Certificate of Compliance/For Export/". It is my belief that this RPO V78 addition, plus handwritten in by an engineer the words "engine changes", is exactly what happened.

In answer to your question of the COPO order document in the Chevy Action Article, I thought I had a copy, but can't find it right now. I know who does have it and will get a copy one way or the other (I hope).

The 66 L72 Vette you posted is one of the L72/M22 that created the controversy over whether there were 66 L88's. There was a Lawsuit going on between a couple Corvette guys over this car, it got kind of ugly. But, I do believe it to be another of the L72-B/M22 cast iron head versions of the L88 as previously discussed. It was special ordered by Don Yenko for friend/customer named Mike Summers who owned "Best Photo Service". It was raced extensively and you will see the BEST PHOTO name on it. I can type another whole story on this car but won't right now.

By the way this reminds me of another interesting item about Don Yenko. It was told to me that his special order performance cars were white with red interior. We see that this 66 Vette is white/red and my 68 Yenko is white/red. When I was told this I didn't really think any significance to it; but has anyone else heard this?



[Edited by SuperCars (04-22-2001 at 12:56 PM).]

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

More pics relating to Kevin's explanation;

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?...nce=0&res=high

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?...nce=0&res=high

M

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Kevin, The document shown in the Chevy Action article is the best evidence I have seen to date of a COPO 427 1968 Camaro maybe two. I scanned and magnified it to 8x11 size trying to read it. Some of it is legible but some of it is too grainy. I sent a copy of it to Jim Mattison and he replied that he hadnÃt seen one for many years but remembered it as the œGSD-578” form. The copy shown on the Speedvision Musclecar COPO TV show looked like the one I emailed to Jim. I did tell him that there seemed to be some good evidence that not all the 68 Yenkos were MV code 427 engines but on the TV show Jim seemed to indicate that he still believed they all had the 427. I am not convinced that they all had the 427.
The GSD-578 form shows a COPO 9737HD. The "HD" is the ECL (Exception Control Letters) code to show a configuration change in a RPO or COPO number. Such as on the Yenko Chevelle build sheets that show 9737LD and 9737KD. Chevy could have used a different ECL suffix code on the 9737 to build different configurations of the 1968 COPO Camaro. From what I can read on this COPO order form it is dated 2-13-68 requested by Yenko Chevrolet and Span inc. for two 9737HD sports car conversions to ship ASAP. ( It appears to show quanty as 2 but not clear). One line of the document listed the RPO's that appear to have been deleted and replaced by other components. They are as follows; Z23, L78, M21, AXL2 (crossed out), J52, J50, U63, G80, N40. I decode this as; Z23 = special interior package (looks like it is not on this car), L78 = 396 (the article claims the original motor is a 427 with L88 parts), M21 (they claim the car has a M22, AXL2 = special performance axle (this is crossed out on the form) J50/J52=power disk brakes (the car looks like it does not have power brakes but may have J56), U63=AM radio (the car has no radio) G80= Posi rear (the crossed out AXL2 could spec. the axle 4:56) N40=power steering (the car looks like it has no PS). I can email a copy of what I have but I hope you can find the original.
On the Yenko colors “ I am not sure about the red interiors but Don Y definitely liked his racecars to be white with blue stripes down the center. He used this paint scheme on his early Corvette race cars and on the first Stinger Corvairs.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?...132&p=47170391

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

I'd like to see a copy of the paperwork (could be helpful with our work on suspension and steering part #'s too), but one thought is the V78 is what cause the old style trim tag (with ACC on it) to be used.
Export cars used that same trim tag.

Kurt

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

KurtS;
Are you saying that the V78 could be for a different trim tag size or design??
M

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Here is a pic of a what I believe is a Corvette L72 fuel pump. (Rowdyrat, confirm????)If it is, I can see why they would have to change it in order to put the L72 into the Camaro subframe. Could this be why they wrote the notes on the test paperwork?
M

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?...nce=0&res=high

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

If the car used the L88's Holley 850 double pumper carb Chevy Engineering would probably specify the L88 fuel pump. The L88 fuel pump was probably in short supply since not many L88s were built and would have to come from the Corvette plant so maybe there was a problem getting the L88 fuel pump or maybe the Corvette L88 pump would not fit in the Camaro. It appears they just put in a fuel pump to make the car driveable then let Yenko worry about replacing it. A 1968 Camaro with a L72 427 equipped with L88 parts, an M22, and 4:56 gear would be a quick drag car. It's too bad Chevy didn't make the 50 cars required to qualify it for NHRA like they did with the ZL1.

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

When did GM start using the double pumper? Was it in '69 only? Weren't there availablity problems when the ZL-1s came out? Wasn't it Charley's ZL-1 that started out with a vacuum secondary because Holley hadn't delivered the 850s yet?

When did Holley start making the double pumper?

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

I believe the 1967-68-69 L88 Corvette and ZL1 Camaro used the 850 Holley DP. When the Gibb/Harrell ZL1 went to its first race it failed tech inspection for not having the correct factory numbers on the Holley. It was discovered to have a 780 Holley on it instead of the correct 850 Holley. When Cars magazine tested Charlie's #3 ZL1 it had the incorrect 780 and still ran 13.16 @ 110.21. I'm surprised no L88s or ZL1s have shown up at the Pure Stock Drags. They sould be among the quickest factory built cars ever made.

[Edited by JoeC (04-25-2001 at 10:12 PM).]

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Hassett had his ZL-1 at the FSCMDR in Ohio last year. I'm not sure if he's gonna have it back this year or not, or if he's bringing another car.

You out there, Mark?

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

My understanding of V78 mandatory is that export vehicles, especially the Camaros that were ordered for Canada, did not have to comply with air pumps or even having the L72 engines installed if the vehicles were ordered under COPO paperwork.

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Marlin,
Yes.
V78 is defined as 'Plate, compliance, delete', which fits the Yenkos and exports.
In 68, any car that was exported got the old style tag with the ACC on the bottom like the Yenkos.
They did this cause the car did not conform to US regulations so they didn't want to put a tag on it that said it did. Always wonder how they handled this in the plant.
I think we (CRG) have about 5 export 68's documented so far - 3 in Chile, 1 in Brazil, and 1 in France (396 car). All have the ACC tag and some have documentation.
We also have info on 68's built in other 3 countries, but that's a different story.... https://www.yenko.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/smile.gif

[Edited by Kurt S (04-26-2001 at 11:09 PM).]

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Marlin,

The configuration of that fuel pump appears to be identical to the one installed on my 1969 (part number 6440482). I do know that during 1967-69 the L-88 Corvettes always received a different fuel pump than the other high performance big blocks although I haven't done any research to determine what the internal differences are. I can tell you that the external configuration is the same as the other Corvette fuel pumps used during that time period so if installation of the pump in the photo is not possible due to clearance in the Camaro subframe (DISCLAIMER - I don't know this to be true and have never attempeted this installation so I am going by Marlin's original statement), then the same would hold true with the L-88 fuel pump. If the "MV" code engines were originally slated to get the L-88 fuel pump along with the L-88 carburetor, I can see why the engineers would note this.

I have seen the fuel pumps installed on L-88 Corvettes (and one ZL-1 for that matter) as well as a couple of ZL-1 Camaros. The fuel pumps used on the two cars are VERY different in appearance; there had to be a reason for this.

I believed (like Joe) that the carburetors for the L-88s were all 850cfm models with mechanical secondaries and dual accelerator pumps. However, I'm beginning to think that this may only be true for the 1968-69 L-88s (and ZL-1s). I'm showing the original carburetor for the 1967 L-88 as part number 3886091 (Holley List R 3418 A) which is an 850cfm but with vacuum secondaries and a single accelerator pump. The 1968-69 L-88 carburetor is 3925579 (Holley List R 4054 A) which is an 850cfm "double pumper" (can you confirm these numbers Joe?). Kurt, you had mentioned in a previous post that Fran Preve knew the carburetor on the "MV" engines was changed to the L-88 unit. If you have the part number from the bill of materials, can you tell us which (if either) of these two part numbers was used?

Regards,

Stan Falenski

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Sorry, I don't have the carb part #'s. Just heard that via a CRG member who had talked with Fran.

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Kurt & Stan, I have the documents that may answer these questions. Also have 67-68-69 L88 vettes from which I could check carb numbers on. They are Bloomington Gold certified so I would believe they have the right Carbs. But I believe the GM paperwork that I have best explains our questions.

I have an Engineering Change Recommendation (ECR) dated 10-26-67 on COPO 9737, that states: "Furnish log sheets and necessary drawings covering changes required to install the 850 CFM Carburetor and intake Manifolds from the Corvette RPO L88 Engine (427 Cu In) on the Camaro L78 Engine (396 Cu In)". An accompanying ECR is specific with part numbers: "add Inlet Manifold #3933196 in place of #3931075". Also have a Deviation Notice that states: "Install one (1) additional pipe plug 444667 in the heater hose hole on the top right front of the inlet manifold assembly". Could this mean these Camaros had to be heater delete?

The above L88 carb and manifold ECRs were the first change to the COPO 9737's having L78 engine and started somewhat early in the production year. When I refer in this time frame to the COPO 9737 Exception Control Letter Sheet, dated 12-11-67, the only item listed that pertains to export is the U18 Speedometer/Export/, there is no V78 Export on this sheet.

A few months later came along the ECR dated 4-10-68 (which is posted above), it says: make Exp RPO V78 Mandatory on all exceptions with Engine Changes-add to cost sheets. (initialled ARB 4/15/68). So when I refer to the COPO 9737 Exception Control Letter Sheet dated 4-18-68, RPO V78 Less Certificate of Compliance/For Export/ is added on for the first time. Also appearing for the first time at the bottom of this sheet is Sports Car Conversion/Yenko/, as the word Yenko was not on the earlier COPO 9737 sheet.

Maybe I am wrong here, but I believe the ECR with the GM engineers words "engine changes" showing up at the same time as the V78 Less Certificate of Compliance/For Export/ on the Exception Control Letter Sheet, means that there was an engine change. I don't believe it would be an engine change from a L78 to another L78 with L88 carb and manifold, as that already took place months previously. Additionally when you see the V78 Export show up for the first time at this later date, it tells me that this is to cover an engine change to one which was one that had not been approved. If so, what was this new engine? I believe it is the L72 427, and is the reason for the request by Yenko to do the Federal Emmisions Smog test. Kevin.



[Edited by SuperCars (04-30-2001 at 09:35 AM).]

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

I have read that all L88s had the 850 Holley DP but I think Stan is right that at least in the beginning of the year the 67 L88 used a 850 vac sec. I have an old L88 Holley sitting in the garage that I hadn't looked at for 10 years and incorrectly remembered it to be a monster 850 DP. I dug it out today and it is a 850 Holley vac sec carb. The numbers are 3886091-AN list 3418-1 dated 0B2 so it must be a service part # carb made in 1970. (Al Colvin's book shows the 67 L88 Holley as 3886091 list# 3418) The throttle bore on the 850 is 1.750 dia where a 780 Holley is 1.687dia. Getting back to the 68 Yenko Camaro - the Super Chevy article on the blue 68 Yenko Camaro raffle car claims it had a L88 carb list# 4054 which would be a 1968 -69 L88 Holley DP. They also claim that this blue 68 Yenko is a COPO L72 MV code car.

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

I can see a different possible meaning to: "make Exp RPO V78 Mandatory on all exceptions with Engine Changes-add to cost sheets. (initialled ARB 4/15/68)"

I think it is a CYA move on their part. On all ECR's that have any engine modifications (9737 and any other ones in their system), they put the export style trim tag on the car because the car may not meet the federal regs that the standard trim tag claims.

I only have info on one early 68 Yenko and it skimpy on details. All the other ones I know about are April cars with the V78 export tag on them.

Still can't figure out why they would have export speedos on the ECR though....

Since we are talking 68 Yenkos, does anyone know the VIN for the 68 Yenko that was in the book "How To Restore Your Musclecar"? The body # is 113453 and it's YS-8021.

Kurt


[Edited by Kurt S (05-01-2001 at 11:20 PM).]

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

If the 68 Yenko in the "How to restore your musclecar" book was restored by the author, you can reach Greg at 352-344-4329.

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

The COPO 9737 Exception Control Letter sheet "ECL" lists all the RPO's that are combined to mke COPO 9737. Most of you know it already, but these are separate documents from the Engineering Recommendation Changes or "ECR's". The pre-April 68 COPO 9737 "ECL" does not include the V78 Export on it. But it does include the U18 Speedo/Export. Could it be that Federal regulations only allowed the standard 120 MPH speedo; and in order to have the 140MPH speedo it was only able to be permitted by labeling the car for export. It's likely that pre-April 68 Yenkos having Export Trim Tags may only be from the change to the 140 MPH Speedo and had no relevance to engine changes.

Then when V78 Less Certificate of compliance is listed for the first time on the COPO 9737/Yenko "ECL" of April 68; it most likely was a result of this GM engineers words on the April 68 9737 "ECR" pertaining to Yenko; "make RPO V78 mandatory with Engine Changes". Since the V78 Export prompted by "Engine Changes" came into effect in April 68; the cars "without engine changes" prior to April may've had the Export trim tags only because of the U18 Speedo/Export designation.

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Kevin,
Have you tried to contact Jim Mattison or JohnZ? They may be able to shed some light on the COPO documentation since they were witness to some of the activities. JohnZ posts on TeamCamaro and the Corvette Forum sites. Here is a recent post of JohnZ's on a COPO thread.
"Zone Sales Managers had nothing whatsoever to do with COPO's or product promotion - their job was to make sure sales targets were met and cars were distributed/allocated to dealers to keep their inventories in line with demand - to "move the iron".
All COPO activities were managed from Detroit, by Ed Barlow, Jim Mattison and Joe Pike in Sales and Marketing, and by Vince Piggins in Product Promotion Engineering.

There was no shortage of cars to be modified at Chevrolet, whatever the purpose, without going to the trouble of ordering them and having to wait for them to be built; Chevrolet Engineering had over 1,300 cars in their fleet (including mine), and there were several thousand more in the Sales/Marketing/Public Relations fleet.

Inidvidual dealers occasionally modified their own cars for local community activities to create their own marketing opportunities, but all COPO activities and Product Promotion "special cars" were handled from Detroit"

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Kevin;
Your various items of information are starting to come together in a 'timeline, or chronological process. It appears that some changes superceded others, ect, and therefore required export exceptions. Very interesting, I also wonder what Mattison and others remember about the export compiance ect.
Marlin

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Guys, I see that there is quite the debate on if the '68 Yenko Camaro COPO 9737 actually came with the L72 engine. Hopefully, I can help to set the record straight on this issue!

In 1968, I worked in the Chevrolet Fleet & Special Order Department that processed all COPO orders. We were the sales and marketing arm of Chevy Special Vehicles. It was also in 1968 that I first met Don Yenko. At that innitial meeting, Don wanted to get close to the person at Chevy who was handling the orders and paperwork for Yenko Sportscars, a division of Yenko Chevrolet. I was that person.

What started as a business relationship, became a real friendship between Don and I, although he was conciderably older than I was. He loved life and people and it was very easy to like him.........as he loved to party and have a good time!!! As we became friends, he confided to me many of the behind the scenes things that effected the Yenko programs.

The authorization for the 1968 Yenko Camaro (COPO 9737) came about in quite an unorthodox way, as passed-down from Ed Cole, who was the President of GM at the time, to E.M. "Pete" Estes, Chevrolet General Manager. Having those two names on anything at Chevrolet gave a project the highest priority. I later found out that the Yenko family, through Don's dad, Frank, were very close with Ed Cole.

Don told me that in a meeting that he had with Ed Cole, he proposed his idea for a "factory warranted" 427 Camaro. The conversions that his people were doing at the dealership were costing him a fortune in conversion time and warrantee expense. I don't know all of the details of the meeting, but in the end Cole told him that if he could sell half of the cars he claimed to be able to sell, Chevrolet would help him out..........however, he could not publish, nor tell anyone that the cars were actually factory produced.

Cole and Estes also wanted to be able to track these vehicles for ownership, as well as warrantee expense. They had the Chevrolet Product Planning Department issue a special engine code for the "427" engine that went into the 1968 Yenko Camaro COPO 9737. That code was "MV".

Tonawanda records show that a total of 79 engines were built in 1968 with the "MV" engine code. I don't know if all of these engines went into vehicles (some were held for warrantee), but I do know that they were (L72) 427's.

The success of the 1968 Yenko Camaro opened the door for the 1969 COPO program......... and as they say "the rest is history".

I apologize for the lengthy post.

Jim Mattison

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

I feel very strongly that the MV code is a 396/375 and here is why. I have gone over this before, but this time we are on top of a new car. My friend has in his garage a MV code standard bore 1968 396/375 block with a Norwood Camaro VIN. I would be happy to share the VIN if you like at a later date. This motor has been rumored to have been one of the sold short blocks from a Yenko conversion 1968. Also I have just been in contact with a owner of a 375 68 Yenko Camaro 9737 car that is a non converted car. It has all the 9737 things like 1 1/16 sway bar, 140 speedo, special trim tag and rear code. But it was never a 427. It was sold to the original owners as a 396. It has warranty book and POP. I am going to inspect the car in a few weeks. It was Corvette Bronze a Yenko color. I have also talked with another local Canonsburg Yenko 68 396 Camaro owner that bought a new car with all the goodies but a 427. That makes two. If the MV total was 79 and Yenko only sold 64/65 cars that leaves a few unconverted and sold as 396 cars. There may have been a mule 427 test car, but the rest seem to have been delieverd as 396's. Would not at least one MV code 427 engine have shown up by now that is not a restamp? If I am wrong about this I will be the first to admit it. I may have not been there in the day, but the MV code just does not add up to a 427 engine...BKH

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

I'll agree that some of the early '68 Camaros were converted at Yenko's dealership and those cars could have started out as most anything. You wouldn't believe what some of the early Yenko conversions "really" started out as!

As for the 1968 "MV" 427 engine issue, I can still remember quite clearly the conversations that I had, not only with Yenko, but also with our engineering release engineers on this subject. I think that part of the confussion exists because Chevrolet didn't "officially" recognize the 427 engine in the Camaro until 1969....... Remember, Yenko couldn't tell anyone that these cars were factory built 427's.

Jim Mattison

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

If I can show you a engine with a Yenko Camaro 1968 VIN that is an MV code standard bore four bolt main 396 what would your opinion be? Stan, your opinion on this engine, you have seen it. The newly discovered non-converted Yenko Camaro that I just talked to the owner of knows what he has an it was never a 427. It has all the tell tail signs of a 427 Yenko without the 427. This car still has glovebox paperwork. I get to meet with this owner in just a few weeks. Yenko took out ads in the local paper selling unused 396 engines to help get rid of the extras. If you would like I will bring this block to the Super Car Reunion as part of our Yenko display we set up every year. Jim,I respect your work and opinion and have talked to you before. This is just what I have learned on my own...BKH

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Jim - Welcome and its great to see you adding to the discussion here.
I know it was many years ago but do you remember this name "Excalibur”? It seems like Engineering used it as some sort of code name like in a James Bond movie. I have been following the story on the 68 Yenko Camaro engine for many years and there appears to be evidence for a 427 MV and a 396 MV. One thing I notice is the date on that emission test document is 6-21-68 which is very late in the 1968 model year since change overs began in late July 68 for the 1969 model year. That "GSD-578" form dated 2-13-68 requesting the 9737HD build for Yenko is also half into the 68-model year. If Yenko wanted to sell COPO 1968 Camaros I would think the paperwork would have to be started in late 1967. This leads me to believe that early 68 Yenkos were transplants. Just my observation. On the other hand, the paperwork Kevin has especially the GSD-578 seems to indicate a COPO 427. Also the article on the blue 68 Yenko Camaro in Super Chevy claims that car has the original motor and it is a MV code 427. They claim to have the POP and a broadcast sheet and the original owners name which they state in the article bought the car in December of 1968. I also heard of a 3rd 68 Yenko owner claiming to have a 427 MV code block with a Dec 67 date. (I have his name and have been trying to contact him) I am curious if the build dates of the MV 396 cars are all early and the build dates of the cars claiming 427 MV motors are later build dates. I guess it would be very odd for Chevy to build a MV code 396 and a MV code 427 but that sure would hide it from management if that were their intention.

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Jim:

Thanks for stopping by! It will be good to see what you have to say, and maybe you can help shed some light on the COPO paperwork, and explain what moves were made to make a thing like a COPO car happen.

JoeC:

Could "Excalibur” possibly have been a name that Yenko came up with? Kind of like "Stormer" & "Stinger"? Maybe he was considering this name, and GM used it just to kind of keep track of the combo? Who knows...just thinking out loud...although it might not be very loud!

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

I've been trying to purchase the engine that Brian mentioned for about five years now. It is definitely a standard bore 396, casting number 3916323. The casting date is B 15 8 and the assembly date/broadcast code is T0223MV. The VIN derivative is 18N412### which appears to be for a mid-April 1968 car. The NICB records as well as information given to the current owner of the block indicate that the car it was installed in was originally delivered to Yenko Chevrolet. It is the real deal; there is nothing about this block that makes me believe it was restamped or altered in any way. I hadn't realized that there were other "MV" 396s out there until Kurt spoke up about the ones he he has found as well as Brian's recent finds. This leads me to believe that "MV" code 396s were being installed in Camaros as late as April 1968. Whatever theory you may have for 427 engines in 1968 has to account for these 396s.

Jim, good to see you here. A couple of questions that I have that perhaps you can comment on as you were involved in the project and with the people. First, federal emissions compliance went into effect for all 50 states for the 1968 model year (hence the emissions testing data that Kevin was kind enough to provide and Marlin to post). Would Cole or Estes jeopardize their professional careers (and pensions/retirement plans - they were both getting close to retirement, right?) by selling cars in the U.S. without emissions compliance. Doing so would certainly risk a run in with the federal government. If not, then the earliest possible date for production would have been 6/21/68 according to Kevin's documents. That's assuming that the tests were satisfactory and GM was ready to immediately start building cars at that point (I doubt that GM moved that quickly). Second, if the purpose of the "MV" code was to identify the engines for warranty issues, then you've created a real problem by using "MV" for both 396s and 427s in the same platform. Which is which?

Joe, I appreciate you digging out that 1967 L-88 carburetor. It adds some support to what I had discovered so far.

Regards,

Stan

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Kevin;
I will take a stab at your question! Florida??
M

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Marlin,
You got me grinning here. https://www.yenko.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/smile.gif Is that just a stab, or is there some basis for that guess?

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Kevin;
With all honesty, that is a guess. Although, it is based on the fact there has seemed to be a strange amount of '68 Yenko Camaros being sold out of Florida within the last few years. I'm assuming that they all weren't brought there after being sold new.

I know that one of the Island Teal cars was sold by the Camaro Club, which is/was in Florida. I believe one of the red, RS cars was sold in Hemmings a couple of years ago - from Florida (?). I know that a member of this board has YS-8030 - in Florida. The car on the screensaver has a Florida license plate. BeaumontBill just purchased the Corvette Bronze '68 Yenko that I know was sold new in Florida. I believe there are others. I checked my dealer listing that I have been assembling over the years, and found that Florida had at least 4 dealers in the Yenko network.

So, that is my guess!! Is it correct??????
M

[Edited by YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY (05-03-2001 at 02:10 PM).]

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Marlin,
You are correct. What I couldn't understand is what prompted this region of the country to get these? It must have been all in the marketing and sales. Which ever Dealership promoted them best, got the sales and sold cars.



[Edited by SuperCars (05-03-2001 at 02:46 PM).]

Re: '68 Yenko, Transplant vs. COPO
 

Whoa, Marlin! You are like Sherlock Holmes...or Kreskin...or lucky...something! Did you peak at the answer or something https://www.yenko.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/wink.gif?

Interesting post, Kevin. You are probably right about the marketing thing in Florida. You'd think, though, that he could have sold them around PA easier, but who knows. Wouldn't it be cool to somehow get Vince on here and pick his brain a little, and see what info we are leaving out? Then, maybe, we could be put a BUNCH of pieces of the puzzle together!