|
So what's the deal on L79s?
Excepting the Corvette, it was introduced in 1965 for the A-body, then in 1966 it went MIA but now was available for the Chevy II.
And then it reappeared for the A-body for 1967 but then seemed to have gone MIA for the Chevy II till later in the year? Does someone know more about this? Thank you. |
Displacement was increased from 327 to 350 and the heart of the motor was always the cam. It essentially became the L-46 and then soldiered on as the L-82 in later years.
I took my boring stock 350/300 L-48 equipped 69 Z-11 and converted the internals to L-46 specifications and the car is a completely different animal and fun to drive. |
Thanks for your response, but I'm more curious about this:
- Why was the L79 not available in the Chevelle in 1966? To not compete with the new SS 396? Okay, but it returned for 1967 (now rated 325 hp). - Why was the L79 available in 1966 for the Chevy II but seemingly not available till the end of the model year for 1967? |
Here is a couple of great reads on this motor and its later 350 offspring.
http://www.superchevy.com/features/s...vy-l79-engine/ http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/eng...-dyno-testing/ |
Diego,
I'll give you my best-guess answers to each of the two questions you posed. 1. The Chevelle SS396 was a new offering for 1966 (ignoring the very limited production Z16 for 1965). It came standard with 325 HP. Chevy wanted to steer performance-minded Chevelle buyers into the SS396 model, and if they had offered the 350 HP L79 in the Malibu and the 300 models, it could have stolen some of the SS 396's thunder. 2. In 1967, the Camaro was a new offering for a small, sporty car. Chevy wanted to steer buyers into the SS350 Camaro so did not offer the higher performance engine in the Chevy II. There were so few L79 Chevy II's made late in the 67 model year that you might as well say it was unavailable all year. Those are my best guesses, and I'm stickin' to 'em :) |
I had a butternut yellow 65 SS Chevelle, L79,4spd,4:10's Right out of high school in the early 80's. once I perfected the launch on the street. There wasn't a lot of cars in my area that could hang w/me from red lite to red . Big block or small block !!! Lots of fun & hurt a lot of feelings out of the hole !
|
L79 one step below the L78. lol
|
Quote:
Both Chrysler and Ford really weren't contenders yet - they would get serious the following model year (at least Chrysler would. Ford waited until 1968). Pontiac lead the way with the GTO followed by (a great distance behind) Olds with the 442. The accepted definition of a Muscle Car is a big engine in an intermediate sized car. Chevy put it's toe in the water so to speak with the 1965 SS396 Malibu - to get media and dealer reaction- all very positive. Chevy knew it had a great engine with the L79. But marketing felt that big blocks were where the Muscle Car sales would be . . . and they were correct. If you wanted handling and a Muscle Car, the L79 would be a great choice as we all know that big block cars are nose heavy. But at the same time you had to give up many of the features that became standard on a Muscle Car like hood treatment, stripes, redline tires and badges. Quote:
Small block Muscle Cars only became popular when the insurance companies started raising the premiums on BB Muscle Cars into the stratosphere. AFAIK the L79 was never an option on the 1967 Nova SS. At least a published option. How those handful of cars made it out of the factory - I don't know. |
I've always been under the assumption that something happened at General Motors in 1967 that limited the big-horse stuff on everything except Corvettes. The late year re-introduction of the L78 in Chevelles & Camaros, the extremely rare '67 L79 Nova, and let's not forget the big-car L72's. There were lots of L72 full-size cars in 1966 and 1968 but the '67 L72's are practically non-existent. There's probably a VERY interesting Chevrolet-issued memo floating around somewhere to explain this.
|
Quote:
I was always under the impression that the introduction of the L78 to the Camaro SS was timed with it being chosen as the Pace Car for the Indy 500. Am I wrong? |
L79s were still available in Chevelles, and Novas in 68 at 325 HP. Both ran very well. Would blow the doors off most SS Chevelles up to the L78s and give them a good run depending on rear end ratios.
The early Chevy lls were the prodigy of Bill Thomas who started dropping 375 hp Corvette 327s transplants in. The "Deuce" legend started with those cars and continued with the factory L79s in 66. They were one of the most feared street cars prior to the big dog LS6 Chevelles. Yenko redefined the Chevyll L79 with the LT/1 350 70 Deuces. Neither one was much afraid of any semi stock car on the street. |
Wasn't the '68 engine slightly different? Like no aluminum intake anymore?
|
Yep, I had one of '68 L79 Novas and despite their 11:1 compression and famous #151 camshaft, it had a cast iron intake and Q-Jet perched on top of it (with its original 14x3 open element air cleaner). It was a one-owner car (non-SS) with factory buckets, Muncie 4-gear, 3.55 12-bolt, and a set of Goodyear Blue Streak slicks in the trunk!
|
68 l79....
Quote:
The L79 is one of those engines that has an almost mythical quality...it was a real runner. As others have mentioned, many a big block Chevelle was surprised by this little power house :biggthumpup: -wilma |
My old 68 L79 nova I restored ran very well. Was by far the fastest small block I have ever driven.
|
2 Attachment(s)
It has been a myth to this day why they only made 6 or 7 {67} Chevyll L79
Here is a factory order sheet for 66 and 67 Chevyll 66 Chevyll with L79 on order sheet https://photos.app.goo.gl/Tbn8T16K8eKw8q477 https://photos.app.goo.gl/NFPkLoUXeNGXnNuM7 67 Chevyll without L79 https://photos.app.goo.gl/87cUB7aeDFXcydYW6 Here is Jacks 67 Chevyll L79...very rare car. One of 6 |
Lee with all due respect I disagree that the '66 442 was a "great distance behind" the '66 GTO. The base 400 that year had 15 horsepower and 9 ft/lbs of torque on the base GTO 389. The L-69 Tri powered 400 cars were every bit the equal of the Tri powered GTO's and the W-30 (yes very rare with only 54 built) had similar if not better performance than the Royal Bobcat cars out of the box. Don't forget the 442 came equipped with a rear sway bar standard for far superior handling while John Delorean didn't find it necessary on the GTO. The cars were not marketed and promoted like the GTO's were so sales lagged behind. The styling and interiors were better IMO on the Pontiac but all in all the 442 for '66 was every bit the GTO's equal that year. Just my .02..
Quote:
|
Can't seem to post a pic but ran a 66 L79 in our Nomad. Was my daily driver throughout the 80's. Engine got tired (I ran it pretty hard those years) so I parked it about 1989-ish. Still have it. Pulled the L79 and rather than rebuild I installed an original HE code low mile 327 my father bought from a wrecked 66 vette back in 1971 along with it's matching M-21. He installed an old Sig Erson solid flat tappet back then and the engine sat. That engine/trans now resides in the Nomad. Mainly have BB stuff here but have always been a huge 327 fan.
|
Quote:
Pontiac sold 96946 GTOs in 1966 while Oldsmobile sold 21997 442s. |
Quote:
|
On the Chevy II departure for 1967 my guess would be that the L-79 was removed from the ChevyII due to power to weight ratio concerns. Curb weight was only about 2900 pounds with the V8 in the 1967. The motor was approved for return in 1968 with the Nova redesign.
On the Horsepower reduction, the smog up of the L-79 was a direct result of the enactment of the 1966 National Safety Act which required smog by 1968. As a result of the emissions controls the HP dropped to 325HP. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.