![]() Dedicated to the Promotion and Preservation of American Muscle Cars, Dealer built Supercars and COPO cars. |
|
Register | Album Gallery | Thread Gallery | FAQ | Community | Calendar | Become a Paid Member | Today's Posts | Search |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
They were certainly built for road-testing. Motor Trend tested one with two aboard and 3.31s in their October 1970 issue saying "The new low-compression LS-6 lacks the punch of the original SS454 we tested last fall, running .9-second and 9 mph slower in the quarter..." It went 14.7... I have the issue, looking at it now.
The 'Hi-Performance Cars' Supercar Annual changed to 4.10s - they went 13.65. I do not have this issue so I do not know if it is the same car in the motor trend. The press pool may have had a couple cars. So the test car is at least one, maybe two. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
So the test car is at least one, maybe two. [/ QUOTE ] There's no saying a test car was an actual production car. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So the test car is at least one, maybe two. [/ QUOTE ] There's no saying a test car was an actual production car. [/ QUOTE ] Very true. It does not mean it made production. But if you owned that test car today - say someone hauls it out of a barn next week with some of the road-tester's handwritten notes in the glovebox - it would be considered a factory built 1971 LS6 Chevelle. That is all I am saying. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
Very true. It does not mean it made production. But if you owned that test car today - say someone hauls it out of a barn next week with some of the road-tester's handwritten notes in the glovebox - it would be considered a factory built 1971 LS6 Chevelle. That is all I am saying. [/ QUOTE ] But that's where I disagree again - there's no saying what the car started out as. For all we know, it could have been a regular Malibu 350 that was converted to an SS454 for more promotional purposes. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Very true. It does not mean it made production. But if you owned that test car today - say someone hauls it out of a barn next week with some of the road-tester's handwritten notes in the glovebox - it would be considered a factory built 1971 LS6 Chevelle. That is all I am saying. [/ QUOTE ] But that's where I disagree again - there's no saying what the car started out as. For all we know, it could have been a regular Malibu 350 that was converted to an SS454 for more promotional purposes. [/ QUOTE ] This doesn't answer my question. The reason I possed it was to see if the engines WERE coded in order to keep them seperate for over the counter sales applications OR simply for installation applications on the vehicle assembly line. This COULD determine if these engines were in fact slated for new vehicle installation. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Very true. It does not mean it made production. But if you owned that test car today - say someone hauls it out of a barn next week with some of the road-tester's handwritten notes in the glovebox - it would be considered a factory built 1971 LS6 Chevelle. That is all I am saying. [/ QUOTE ] But that's where I disagree again - there's no saying what the car started out as. For all we know, it could have been a regular Malibu 350 that was converted to an SS454 for more promotional purposes. [/ QUOTE ] This doesn't answer my question. The reason I possed it was to see if the engines WERE coded in order to keep them seperate for over the counter sales applications OR simply for installation applications on the vehicle assembly line. This COULD determine if these engines were in fact slated for new vehicle installation. [/ QUOTE ] They did sell both stick and auto trans versions OTC that were coded as such, for a year or two after the car's production. I've seen both CRR and CRV code 454's that were casting dates of `71, but those codes were used originally in 1970. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The copy says they "ordered it", and "checked the box for LS6" but who knows.
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Tracker1 For This Useful Post: | ||
markinnaples (03-25-2025) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
But that's where I disagree again - there's no saying what the car started out as. For all we know, it could have been a regular Malibu 350 that was converted to an SS454 for more promotional purposes. [/ QUOTE ] if you knew ANYTHING about Chevy's at all, you wouldn't have typed that... go back to your Schwinn bicycles... oh wait, you weren't born then either..
__________________
aka - Mighty Mouse |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
the 3680# test weight is interesting in itself...
uhhhhhh, nope.. LOL
__________________
aka - Mighty Mouse |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
] if you knew ANYTHING about Chevy's at all, you wouldn't have typed that... go back to your Schwinn bicycles... oh wait, you weren't born then either.. [/ QUOTE ] So are you going to offer evidence? Or are you going to remain satisfied at being smug? I've encountered people like you for 13 years so this is old hat for me. ![]() |
![]() |
|
|