March 09' Super Chevy Yenko continuation review

[x Baldwin Motion]

100% right!
1. Chevrolet didn't build it.
2. Don Yenko had absolutly nothing to do with it.
3. It isn't a Yenko.

So this is another one of those 4NJNK DYNACORN re-bodies ?
What is the attraction?

as far as the media (super chevy) not getting all the facts in print.........

[bkhpah]

I would never comment on such a car. Why bother? I think you know where I stand on this Yenko Ginsu Camaro...BKH

[ORIGLS6]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you know where I stand on this Yenko Ginsu Camaro...BKH

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing we stand together.

[m22mike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you know where I stand on this Yenko Ginsu Camaro...BKH

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing we stand together.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto that

[Andy]

Anyone have a scanned copy of this article? It seems like I got a super chevy not that long ago in the mail but I don't remember seeing it in the mag. Is the same orange car featured in it as the old article a year or so ago?

[shor]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone have a scanned copy of this article?

[/ QUOTE ]

If so, please do not post it here. That car does not deserve that kind of exposure on our site.

[farone]

DYNACORN + YENKO = .... THOSE TWO WORDS SHOULDN'T BE IN THE SAME SENTENCE.....

[lzdick]

I recall seeing the Dyna(crap)corn display several years ago when they put the first one together to promote the project. Unimpressive, as nothing fit. A very poor promotion of a new product. I'd be very surprised if these 'continuation' cars didn't have sheet metal 'fit' issues as well. Brian, you are dead on...this is simply a pricey, Ginsu-clone for about triple the $$$ of a GM built Camaro-Yenko clone.

[sYc]

I saw this car at the 2007 SEMA show. Once I read the car’s signage, seeing that is was not one of the original 198, I simply gave it a casual look, except to take a good look at the trim and VIN tags.

While at the show I did spend time visiting with Mr. Barber about this car, the sYc and the Yenko family. During our conversation, he did make mention of a few items that he felt needed to be corrected, but at no time did I give my opinion or thoughts on the build of the car.

Since that time MR. Barber and one of his employees, MS. Washam, have been in contact with me regarding these cars, 1. inquiring about the possibility of their cars being registered with the sYc, (which has not been agreed to) 2. asking if I would pass his information along to the Yenko family, which I have done.

Once Brian informed me of the Super Chevy article, I contacted CARS, speaking directly with MS. Washam, telling her how disappointed I was in what MR Barber was quoted as saying in the article. Her defense was 1. I had said those things, which I did not 2. That the article was written over a year ago, which may be true, but they were well aware that the article was about to appear in SC, as this was taken from their web site “Look for the article on our 1969 Yenko Camaro Continuation in the March issue of Super Chevy magazine, due on stands in mid January”.

Hopefully MR. Barber will come on here and defend his actions to the group, or at least contact me to try and clear this matter up.


Unfortunately this is not the first time a casual conversation between myself and another party has turned into an endorsement, nor is it the first time someone has taken liberties with the sYc name in regards to a car(s). On more then one occasion a clone/tribute car has been offered for sale, with the only documentation being “..here is the car pictured at the Super Car Reunion..”, implying that the car is legit. That is why I view clone/tribute cars the way I do.

[x Baldwin Motion]

Did these persons pay someone for the right to use the "Yenko" logos and Don Yenko's name? This just dosen't seem right? Is it open season on abusing the reputations of legends in automotive performance? The auto hobby is now seeing the Bernie Madoff of car cloning.

Whoever buys one of these things deserves all the snickering they get.