Dedicated to the Promotion and Preservation of American Muscle Cars, Dealer built Supercars and COPO cars. |
|
|
|
#1
11-02-2006, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why no L35 in 1970?
I guess if you have an LS-3 rated at 330 Hp available in a non SS car, why would you offer an L-35 engine rated at 325 Hp in the Chevelle SS? Marketing probably thought that the engine option would not sell and to simplify things, decided to only offer the L-34 Hydraulic Cammed engine for those who wanted maintenance free driving.
Why did GM drop the L-78 when the LS-6 became available? Another way to reduce engine choices. I would also imagine that the costs to produce both engines would have been roughly the same. More bang for your buck leads to increased sales in the horsepower war of 1970. Paul
__________________
70 Camaro LA Z-28 03B Citrus Green LT-1 M-40 3.73's 69 Camaro X-77 Z-28 10C Cortez Silver M-21 3.73's Deluxe Project X - SOLD 69 Camaro X-77 Z-28 01B Garnet Red w/Black top, M-20 3.73 Deluxe Houndstooth 
|
|
#2
11-02-2006, 04:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why no L35 in 1970?
It really seems like they wanted to consolidate options down to a Rochester carbed hydraulic lifter engine and a Holley carbed solid lifter engine for each line. When the 454 became available they dropped the 396. And do you think they bored the 396 .030 over so it would be 402 and therefore the "big block" would still be larger than the soon to be released 400 "small block"? I seem to remember reading about the bigger bore helping to pass emission's easier but we may never really know why.
__________________
69 Z28 JL8, #'s match - being restored
|
|
#4
11-02-2006, 05:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Why no L35 in 1970?
Yes on these thoughts and again GM went through what they called their 'Engine deproliferation program' before 1970 production, deleting as many similar applications as possible and cutting their suffix totals by maybe as much as half? .
I'll look for this info also know I've read something on the 402 bore reason before too...I'm thinking it was maybe 15-20 years back in one of Preve's columns in All Chevy mag? .  ~ Pete
__________________
I like real cars best...especially the REAL real ones!
|
|
#5
11-02-2006, 09:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Why no L35 in 1970?
From what I remember reading...it was to control emissions...Plus If I'm not mistaken...didn't the compression ratio drop to 8:5 to 1?
__________________
Bruce Choose Life-Donate!
|
|
#6
11-04-2006, 03:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why no L35 in 1970?
I think I have it. Back in the day, everybody was boring-out
their 396 to +.030 to gain performance, so I guess GM just decided to save them the trouble of buying new pistons. 
__________________
|
|
#7
11-04-2006, 04:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why no L35 in 1970?
Don't laugh Steve. That is what we said all along in the old days. We bored the 283 out to 301 so we all figured Chevy started doing it for us when they came out with the 302.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
