Why no L35 in 1970? - Page 3

**YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY** · #21 11-01-2006, 09:16 PM

You must be lexic, it's 230 and a straight 6 - ie; your orange car

**olredalert** · #22 11-02-2006, 12:25 AM

-----The problem I see with your thought, Sam, is that Chevrolet never advertised the 402s as 402s. If Chevrolet division wanted to keep up with the Joneses they would have advertised them as the cubic inches they really had not as 396s. This isnt to say I have any posative input because I dont. I have wondered about the reason for those extra 6 cubic inches for a long time as well.........Bill S

442w30 · #23 11-02-2006, 01:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I also think if I remember correctly

hearing that a bigger cubic inch motor was easier to control emissions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not being a Chevy expert, that's the thing I've heard in the past too.

Regarding dropping the 396/325, I would normally suggest it's because of the introduction of the 454, but the 454 was not announced till later, right?

Additionally, there was the 402 and the SB400. Both were available in the big cars, right? Meanwhile, the standard 396's last year in the big cars was in 1968 since the 396-2 ended up being the only 396 available in the big cars in '69.

So what does this mean? I think having one or two applications for the L35 just didn't make sense, especially with the competitive musclecar market. The GTO had 350hp, the GS had 350, and the 442 had 365hp standard. It just makes sense for Chevrolet to drop the L35.

@wot · #24 11-02-2006, 01:25 AM

Most decisions were driven by marketing. Why advertise a 402 when GM had spent years branding the SS396? It was also marketing that determined engine selection, there was no reason for lots of overlap of cubic inches and horsepower ratings.

**Salvatore** · #25 11-02-2006, 01:30 AM

I guess if you said I have a 402 in my chevelle that just would not sound rite.

The 396 was just so popular. I assume the salesman in those days had to set you right about the cubes. But....most didn't know.

**WILMASBOYL78** · #26 11-02-2006, 03:14 AM

SS 396 was a household phrase by that time, hell they even wrote a song about it!! If Chevy was smarter they would make one of the new gen small blocks a 396 cid and run up the flag....

wilma

Sammy, how many cubes you got?...not ice cubes!!

**Kurt S** · #27 11-02-2006, 08:05 AM

Paul,
That's what I get for not confirming the piston sizes.

I'll have to dig up the emissions rules in 70.....

442w30 · #28 11-02-2006, 09:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Most decisions were driven by marketing. Why advertise a 402 when GM had spent years branding the SS396? It was also marketing that determined engine selection, there was no reason for lots of overlap of cubic inches and horsepower ratings.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I was talking about the lack of L35, not the issue of calling it a 402.

**Hotrodpaul** · #29 11-02-2006, 03:43 PM

I guess if you have an LS-3 rated at 330 Hp available in a non SS car, why would you offer an L-35 engine rated at 325 Hp in the Chevelle SS? Marketing probably thought that the engine option would not sell and to simplify things, decided to only offer the L-34 Hydraulic Cammed engine for those who wanted maintenance free driving.

Why did GM drop the L-78 when the LS-6 became available? Another way to reduce engine choices. I would also imagine that the costs to produce both engines would have been roughly the same. More bang for your buck leads to increased sales in the horsepower war of 1970.

Paul

**Jeff H** · #30 11-02-2006, 04:34 PM

It really seems like they wanted to consolidate options down to a Rochester carbed hydraulic lifter engine and a Holley carbed solid lifter engine for each line. When the 454 became available they dropped the 396. And do you think they bored the 396 .030 over so it would be 402 and therefore the "big block" would still be larger than the soon to be released 400 "small block"? I seem to remember reading about the bigger bore helping to pass emission's easier but we may never really know why.