|
Register | Album Gallery | Thread Gallery | FAQ | Community | Calendar | Become a Paid Member | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why no L35 in 1970?
Out of complete curiosity and continuing knowledge, why did Chevrolet drop RPO L35 in 1970, for the Camaro, Chevelle, Camino, and Nova? Haven't come across any info on this subject. Thanks.
__________________
Tony |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why no L35 in 1970?
Mr 70 and others at www.yenko.net might have an answer for you ?????
__________________
Chuck Sharin [email protected] Auburn,WA (30 miles South of Seattle) 70 Camaro R/S Z-28, L-78, R/S SS 69 Camaro COPO "recreation" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why no L35 in 1970?
Duhhhhh, I obviously was not awake yet, and paying attention to WHAT site I was on...........
__________________
Chuck Sharin [email protected] Auburn,WA (30 miles South of Seattle) 70 Camaro R/S Z-28, L-78, R/S SS 69 Camaro COPO "recreation" |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Why no L35 in 1970?
".... and then totally redeem yourself"
__________________
Marlin 70 Yenko Nova-350/360, 4speed M21, 4.10 Posi (Daddy's Ride) 69 SS Nova-396/375hp, 4speed M20, 3.55 Posi (Benjamin's Ride) 67 RS Camaro-327/250hp, 2speed Glide, & 3.08 Open (Danny's Ride) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why no L35 in 1970?
My guess is that the LS3 was being offered in `70 as a 330 Horse 402, so it took the place of the L35, and gained 5 Horse.
Also now you could get this LS3 in a non-SS Chevelle, but not in the SS as the lowest horsepower engine was the 402/350 in the SS. Rick |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Why no L35 in 1970?
What Rix says is correct as I remember reading how GM had what they called their 'engine deproliferation program' before 1970 production, deleting as many similar suffixes as possible. . Inventory of so many different suffixes was a problem also keeping them all in the pipeline so if an engine was close to what they wanted, it was slated for production and the 'excess' suffix motors dropped. . Comparing how many total suffixes were offered between '69 & '70 should show a big difference. .
~ Pete
__________________
I like real cars best...especially the REAL real ones! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why no L35 in 1970?
The LS-3 didn't start until 1971, and it was a 300HP version in the Camaro. The 1970 had either the L-34, or the L-78 402.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why no L35 in 1970?
Thanks for the replies guys. Yes, the LS3 did not become a BB RPO until 1971. Maybe adding the LS5 and LS6 to the RPO Chevelle/Camino engine list had something to do with dropping the L35, and Chevrolet thought they had enough engine variations for 1970. So, since you couldn't get the L35 in a Chevelle or El'Camino, you couldn't get it in a Camaro or Nova.
__________________
Tony |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Why no L35 in 1970?
Because in 1970,we saw the birth of these brand new engines:
*LS-3 402/330HP-Malibu & Monte Carlo *LS-4 454/345HP-Passenger series *LS-5 454/360 & 390HP-Corvette-Chevelle-Monte C. & Pass. *LS-6 454/450HP-Chevelle |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why no L35 in 1970?
Once again, there was NO LS-3 until 1971......
|
|
|