68 yenko camaro

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

Tom/Rob;
When you guys acquired your collection of Yenko paperwork ect, did you happen to get old purchase orders? Specifically, from 1967-1970? If not, do you know if John Connelly has them?
Marlin

[bowtie3168]

I would ask Brian Henderson, and Ed Cuneen.

[JoeC]

Stan, I have more questions then answers on the 1968 Yenko Camaros but there have been a few articles that make the claim of a COPO 427 1968 Camaro. If the factory used a standard L78 why would they put the special MV code on it? Maybe it was a special COPO L78. I do not know. Jim Mattison did recall in his interview with MCR that the 68 Yenko had a factory installed 427. The article in CHEVY ACTION Magazine Oct. 1992 written by Mike Mueller appears to prove that at least one 1968 Yenko Camaro is a COPO 427 car. The Camaro is the white 68 Yenko now in Kevin's collection. The magazine has a picture of an original COPO order form dated 2-13-68 requested by Yenko Chevrolet and Span inc. for a 9737HD sports car conversion. One line of the document listed the RPO L78 that appears to have been deleted and replaced by other components. The article on the blue 1968 Yenko Camaro raffle car also claimed it was a COPO 427. I do not know if Kevin received all the documentation when he purchased the cars but a close look at the paperwork may answer some questions.

[Kurt S]

From the Tonawanda build records, MV was a 396 with a L88 carb on it. No idea why it was done (maybe so Yenko could reuse the carb??), but that's what it was.
Lot of BS out there about the MV being a 427, but GM documentation proves otherwise.

Kurt

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

Not so fast on the 'GM documentation'!!

GM doc's say that the 'CTB' and 'CTC' engine codes are for '70 Z28 Camaros, 4speed and a/t respectively. However, GM doc's don't say that these codes were also used in COPO 9010/9737 for NOVAS!!!!! It appears that GM did not always recode the engines when they were used in COPO applications.

The 'MV' coded engines could very well fall into the same situation. It might be a 396 under normal circumstances, but when used in conjunction with a COPO application it could be something totally different. I have seen some of the paperwork on the '68 Camaro, and it does reference an L72 engine being tested in conjunction with COPO 9737 for Yenko.

I have learned; never say 'never' or 'always' where GM is concerned!!
Marlin

[Kurt S]

Marlin,
The usage of the LT1 may not have been documented completely (no real surprise since no changes to the engine assembly were required and it was low volume). GM would never issue a new engine code if the engine assembly was exactly the same. Notice how GM commonized their engines in the 70's so they could use the same engine is several car lines.
But this is the build list for the plant to make the engine. It had to be correct or they couldn't build it. Very different item.
Usage tables are notoriously inaccurate and hard to keep updated. Bill of materials have to be accurate because they are used by the engine plant.

[Rowdy Rat]

Marlin,

The situation that you describe is a bit different. GM used engines with the same broadcast code for multiple vehicle applications (e.g. L-78 Camaros and Novas in 1969), but the engines (and components) were always the same regardless of which car that they went into, much the same as your LT-1 Camaro/Nova scenario. GM also used the same broadcast codes for different engine applications in different years. I canÃt see where GM would ever use the same broadcast code for different engines in the same year. Imagine the confusion this would cause!

KurtÃs information makes a lot of sense. Joe had asked why GM would issue a special broadcast code instead of simply using a standard Camaro L-78. IÃm sure most of us are aware that the engines shipped from Tonawanda, Flint, etc., were long blocks; components like, alternators, pulleys, and such were added to the engine later at the final assembly plant. One of these components added was the carburetor. A special broadcast code would let the line worker know that the engine received a different carburetor from other L-78s on the line. Why a different carburetor was used at all is another question worth researching.

Joe, I have the Super Chevy article on the 1968 COPO Camaro˜ Any chance that you could fax or e-mail me a copy of the Chevy Action article? IÃd really appreciate it!

Regards,

Stan Falenski