1968 Yenko Questions

[csx289]

I'm sure this stuff has been covered before, but I have a few 68 Yenko Camaro questions. I know what I think are the correct answers, but all three of these questions have started a debate among Yenko experts, so, if you have any thoughts please chime in! I'm trying to get my car ready for judging at Vettefest and want to make sure I get it as good (correct) as I can prior to the show...so here come the questions:

-What is the correct Holley carb list number?

-The Pontiac Rally II wheels: 14x6 or 14x7? And the code?

-Lug nuts: Stock Chevrolet lug nuts, Pontiac Rally II lug nuts, or ???

Any input is greatly appreciated.

Thanks!!
Colin
YS-8021

[camarojoe]

I don't know the carb number, nor the wheel codes, but I do believe they were 14x7 wheels and used the Rally II style lugnuts. Here are 2 original photos of a 68 Yenko taken in 68 prior to the car's delivery, while still in Canonsburg. They're blurry, but hopefully will help you out a little.

[camarojoe]

another.

[Chevy454]

Sweet...

[csx289]

Joe,

That is awesome! I guess that settles the question, or at least gives me a decent photo to use if I get into any more arguments over the wheels and lug nuts

So, I am assuming they would have used trim rings (as is the accepted practice), but this car didn't have them because it wasn't prepped for sale yet??

Thanks!
Colin

[camarojoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Joe,



So, I am assuming they would have used trim rings (as is the accepted practice), but this car didn't have them because it wasn't prepped for sale yet??

Thanks!
Colin

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about that... I have photos of several cars WITHOUT trim rings, including one that was used for advertising purposes, so I would almost thing no trim rings was more the standard practice than the exception in 68. Yenko was buying the wheels to replace the standard steelies, GTO's didn't have trim rings, trim rings cost extra...and we all know about Don's thoughts on spending extra money...would make sense to say he likely didn't use them unless the customer specifically requested it. One oddball thing I should note, is I have some pics of a 68 Yenko (possibly the same car as in the above photos) with trim rings on one side, and none on the other... I'm guessing they were deciding at that time if they were "necessary" or if they could get away with selling the cars without them. This is all of course total speculation on my part, just using old photos as a guide. Compared to the 69's, it seems like there's still alot of unknowns when it comes to how the 68's were equipped and sold. -JB

[427freak]

Colin
I researched this for my car and pretty much came to the concensus that the carb is the 4053 DZ part# 3923289 that was used on the L78 and the Z28 cars. They would have just used the parts that came with the original 396. Also the wheels were JA coded 14X6's. Hope this helps.

[SuperNovaSS]

If all the parts on the 68 COPO L78 Camaro engine were the same as the standard L78 than why do the COPO engines have a different suffix code?


Jason

[427freak]

My understanding is that when the cars were converted at Yenko the 396 was pulled out and the shortblock was swapped with the crate 427 L72. Everything including topend that could be used from the 396 was put back on the 427. This saved money for the dealer and the parts worked. The MV suffix on the 396 was probably an emissions issue. I think there have been several threads outlining both of these issues here before. There are more knowledgable people here than me that can help with the suffix question. We are talking 1968 here only not the factory copo's of 69. Good question.

[SuperNovaSS]

I agree, all the top end parts would have been saved. The must be some original cars out there to verify which parts are original. I heard the 851 intake was used on the 68 COPO but have never had it verified.



Jason