Go Back   The Supercar Registry > General Discussion > Supercar/Musclecar Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-02-2006, 05:39 PM
442w30 442w30 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Gabba Gabba Hey! NYC
Posts: 2,529
Thanks: 219
Thanked 147 Times in 73 Posts
Default Re: Why no L35 in 1970?

Paul, I agree 100%.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-02-2006, 05:53 PM
PeteLeathersac's Avatar
PeteLeathersac PeteLeathersac is online now
Yenko Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: O' Canada
Posts: 12,051
Thanks: 14,871
Thanked 4,511 Times in 2,142 Posts
Default 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!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-02-2006, 09:58 PM
Xplantdad's Avatar
Xplantdad Xplantdad is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 32,389
Thanks: 7,439
Thanked 5,357 Times in 1,880 Posts
Default 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!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-04-2006, 03:08 AM
nuch_ss396 nuch_ss396 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Western North Carolina
Posts: 1,713
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default 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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-04-2006, 04:17 AM
Salvatore Salvatore is offline
Yenko Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 9,880
Thanks: 3
Thanked 213 Times in 178 Posts
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-04-2006, 05:28 AM
ohhawk ohhawk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Iowa
Posts: 429
Thanks: 3
Thanked 53 Times in 18 Posts
Default Re: Why no L35 in 1970?

"As it was, the leftover "396" identification on the fenders was incorrect anyway since the '70 Super Sport's standard Mk IV big-block in truth displaced the 402ci thanks to a minimal overbore first done very late in the 1969 model run. Not wanting to confuse a good thing, Chevy officials continued to advertise the '70 SS Chevelle as a 396, and all mentions of standard power listed the "396 Turbo-Jet", as did the air cleaner decal under an SS's hood. Scrambling the picture even more was the new 330hp LS3 402ci big-block, which Chevrolet labeled a 400. Not to be confused with the equally new, correctly identified 400ci small-block--a siamesed cylinder evolution of the famed Chevy V-8 that first appeared beneath the "Hot One's" hood in 1955--the LS3 Turbo-Jet 400 was available on all V-8 Chevelle models except SS 396s, the first time a big-block was offered by Chevrolet in an A-body without SS equipment."

....quote from Chevelle 1964-1972 Muscle Car History book

Sounds to me like the short answer to the original poster's question is MARKETING.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

O Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.