So what's the deal on L79s?

[442w30]

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.

[70 copo]

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.

[442w30]

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?

[Lee Stewart]

Originally Posted by 442w30

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).

As you stated . . . not to compete with the brand new 1966 Chevelle SS396. The Muscle Car Wars were just getting up steam for the model year 1966. And it was all about big block engines with lots of horsepower and torque.

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.

- Why was the L79 available in 1966 for the Chevy II but seemingly not available till the end of the model year for 1967?

The 1967 model year, for Chevrolet, was all about the brand new Camaro. Chevy wasn't going to offer any models that would compete with it if they could help it. So the Nova SS got a max engine of 275 hp, the full size Chevrolet had a single 427, the 385 hp engine. They couldn't cripple the Chevelle like they did those cars (though Chevy did hold back the L78 option for most of the model year) because sales were way up as were sales of the GTO which Chevy looked at as it's main competitor.

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.

[GM Powertrain]

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..

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

As you stated . . . not to compete with the brand new 1966 Chevelle SS396. The Muscle Car Wars were just getting up steam for the model year 1966. And it was all about big block engines with lots of horsepower and torque.

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.



The 1967 model year, for Chevrolet, was all about the brand new Camaro. Chevy wasn't going to offer any models that would compete with it if they could help it. So the Nova SS got a max engine of 275 hp, the full size Chevrolet had a single 427, the 385 hp engine. They couldn't cripple the Chevelle like they did those cars (though Chevy did hold back the L78 option for most of the model year) because sales were way up as were sales of the GTO which Chevy looked at as it's main competitor.

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.

[x33rs]

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.

[Lee Stewart]

Originally Posted by GM Powertrain

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..

I was referring to sales:

Pontiac sold 96946 GTOs in 1966 while Oldsmobile sold 21997 442s.

[70 copo]

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/

[Bill Pritchard]

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

[GrumpyJeff]

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 !