[sYc]

Stefano; While the bulls eye on my back is still fresh [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif[/img] , here goes. According to the Yenko documents I have, there were a lot more '67 cars built/sold then once thought. The rest is just my opinion, based on what documents I have. '68, I do not have as much proof, but do feel that number may be incorrect as well. The '69 Camaros and Chevelles are close, on the '69 Novas, the jury is still out. New found paperwork and cars may may change that figure. The Deuces are also close.

Now, and this is my opinion, is now I see the picture. We all know who had the Yenko information first. But, from time to time, a car, with documentation would appear, but Vince would say it was not on the list. As this happened, time after time, I kept asking myself the same question. WHY. Then one day I was reading some of the Yenko articles. It suddenly came to me. Vince used the same numbers that Don had used in the often quoted, but very inaccurate 1987 article in, I believe MCR. I think most Yenko fanatics will agree that Don was just pulling facts and figures out of the sky. If Don was having trouble remembering the make up of a Yenko Chevelle, and missed the number of Camaros by 300, and even mis-spoke about the Stinger, how can we hang our hats on the exact figues of 54 and 64?

IMO, NO ONE has all of the records/information. My records, plus the new Nova info proves this. It was too much hit and miss in '67 and'68, and even in '69, on the Novas. Most records were hand written. Also, how many or what performance items had to be added to a car to be classified a Yenko? This one gray area could influence the numbers a lot. So, lets not get caught up in how many were built, but how many are left. Finally, I would love to put all of the paperwork (pieces of the puzzle) together and see what the final picture is. Tom