COPO 9511 - Page 2

Nova Research Project · #11 07-18-2011, 08:54 PM

More clues,

In 1968 (as of Jan 1868) the 3.73 for Nova has an RPO of H05. The 4.10, 4.56, 4.88 were listed but with a * to indicate they were only available in a Posi.

Again in 1968 the instructions in the dealer catalog stated there were three optional Ratios for Axles:

All for $2.15

Axles Rations: See Power Teams chart for availability
Economy AXL1
Performance AXL2
Special (If axle ratio other than Standard, Economy, or Performance is desired, refer to Power Teams chart for availability - then list ratio on order form in box under "Special Ratio&quot

While in 1969 the same section lists:

Axles Rations: See Power Teams chart for availability
Economy ZQ8
Performance ZQ9
Special ...

Again in 1968 the dealer catalog listed the 3.55 as standard on the L78. However in 1968, Chevy listed the 3.73 (H05) as the Performance option. In 1969 there was no performance option listed. In 1968 the Special options were 3.07, 4.10, 4.56, and 4.88. While in 1969 the only Special list was 3.07.

In Summary, the specifications list all rations in both years. From a customer or salesman point of view:

In 1968 you can easily see the options and then write them on the order form. I.e. normal process.

In 1969 you could not see the options, but you could write them in on the order form. Would this trigger the COPO process?

Greg

Nova Research Project · #12 07-18-2011, 09:14 PM

hey 67L78conv,

I hope you have better production data on the Nova.

I only show:

G96 (3.55)
1968 = 3,017
1969 = 3,833*

*about 73% for total L78 production (if you assume none were installed in L48 or L34). Not really realistic, so 53% of all 396s. Which means absolute best case 1,429 had other ratio axles install. More realistic is 2,500 of L78's had other axles. Could this many L78's be 3.31 or 3.07's?

H05 (3.73)
1968 = 1,127
1969 = 0

G84 (4.10, 4.56, and 4.88)
Not listed.

Greg

67L78conv · #13 07-18-2011, 10:38 PM

As soon ass I dig the papers out I will let you know what I have. The lists are master accounting lists for all options both standard RPO and COPO options. In the case of the COPO options it tells me what vehicles the option was available on and the price but does not necessarily give the production totals for example it does not show the COPO 427 Camaro totals. If the rear end option has an RPO code like H05 even if it says COPO in the description then it will give me a total in 98% of the cases. If the option like G84 for special order gear ratio covers multiples like 4.10, 4.56 and 4.88 then it only shows the gross total and not a per gear total. These are broken down across each model and grand totals for all models.

Based on what I have seen from Camaro L78 production it would not surprise me at all if that many L78s were 3.55/3.31, 3.07 seems less common but I admit my overall data is not sufficient to draw any strong conclusion on it. A rough rating for overall gear ratio popularity when ordered would be most common to least 3.55, 3.73, 3.31, 4.10, 3.07, 4.56, 2.73, 4.88 when ordering the L78 package. A lot of people seem to have taken what was standard for the gear ratios on the engines for all first gens unless they knew what they were ordering or the dealer nudged them in another direction. Again this is more opinion than fact based on limited data and word of mouth from original owners.

Nova Research Project · #14 07-23-2011, 07:24 AM

Hello,

I did find evidence of what the Axle Code would display on Chevy documents.

Not a Nova but... Here is an example from ssl78396 back in '09 posted to this site.

1968 H05 3.73 Ratio

Just need a bunch more to see the others.

Greg

Nova Research Project · #15 07-23-2011, 08:15 AM

Hello,

In this thread over at Steve's, there is a Document that states the the 3.55 was not available on the Nova with the L78/M22 combo. It is dated 13 Sep 1968.

1969 Nova SS Documentation Thread Cool story and a few other documents.

Greg

Schonyenko2 · #16 07-23-2011, 05:34 PM

I'd like to comment on the importance of this discussion. I, and I think may others have believed that you could order any rear ratio on a 69 Nova through 4.88 RPO. Not in 70 unless it was a COPO deuce.
The discussion now is that in 69 any ratio higher than 3.55 was a COPO order. That becomes significant as we all know how the COPO designation is thrown around to try to increase value.
The other issue relates to judging these cars, and what is now going to be correct, and accepted.
Is this an actual COPO specialty item, or is it determined to be like -- special pnt which is interpreted as a "special order" not a COPO order even though the order process is similar?

This is an important determination to make. I/we would appreciate any input anyone here might have. We want to get it right.

Nova Research Project · #17 07-23-2011, 05:51 PM

Hello,

Speaking of 1970. There was a Scunico Chevrolet Fathom Blue / black interior L78/M21 Nova on Ebay back in October 2009. It had a very fuzzy shipper copy listing what look like 4.10. The shipper was dated 4/13/1970. Anyone know of this Nova? Or have a copy of the shipper?

Greg

**PeteLeathersac** · #18 07-23-2011, 06:32 PM

Being the instigator of this Copo 9511 mission w/ my postings of the previous thread, I thought I'd better weigh in w/ what I understand..
Any and all Copo 9511 info is great to learn but specifically the situation for 1969 is most interesting, especially w/ respect to X-body Novas!.

Keep in mind that rear axle gear options were available for 1969 production a few different ways including dealer installation, other Copo options that included it w/ their package also the Copo 9511 option we're now discussing..

Being a Copo 9511 rear axle is a true performance Copo option, this is an important fact and waaaay different than an appearance option supplied by a Copo # or other special order method..

* Again I believe the Copo 9511 option for 1969 model production was available for 4:56 or 4:88 only so higher than, NOT including 4:10..

Copo 9511 Rear Axle/1969 Chevrolet model year production:

- Copo 9511 was necessary to get factory installed rear axles
beyond 4:10 in a 1969 model year Chevrolet..

- This applied to A-Body, F&X Body cars also Corvettes too!.
(Different situation in years other than 1969 also unknown what
was req'd w/ other GM brand A-Body cars etc for '69?)

- 1969 A/F/X-Body cars & 'Vettes were built/delivered w/ the Copo
9511 rear axle option..

- Documents for Copo 9511 '69 Camaros shipped exist including a
Z28 also a Copo 9561 L72 car, hopefully more!.

- The Copo 9560 or 9561 Camaro w/ 9511 would be a Double Copo
without having 9737..

- A Copo 9560 or 9561 car w/ 9511 and 9737 could be a 'Triple Copo'..

- Since at least one Z28 Copo 9511 was produced, if any non
9560/9561 cars were built w/ 9511 & 9737 they'd be a
Double Copo too!.

- If Copo 9511 included components other than the rear axle supplied is unknown but questionable considering the option $ amount?. (rad etc)

- Other Copo # 1969 model A and F-body cars also 'Vettes were produced although a '69 Nova w/ Copo 9511 may be the only '69 F-body Copos built but regardless is a real '69 Copo Nova!!!

----------

An interesting document to review is the below ECL Sheet from CRG..
Note the references to Copo 9511 appears a few times..
Keep 'er going fellas and lets learn all we can!.

[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif[/img]
~ Pete

**PeteLeathersac** · #19 07-26-2011, 01:22 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PeteLeathersac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
- Other Copo # 1969 model A and F-body cars also 'Vettes were produced although a '69 Nova w/ Copo 9511 may be the only '69 F-body Copos built but regardless is a real '69 Copo Nova!!!
</div></div>

Fixing my own typo above,
I meant to say X-body here not F as in...a '69 Nova w/ Copo 9511 may be the only '69 X-body Copos built but regardless is a real '69 Copo Nova!!!

So where'd everybody go on this topic anyway?.
Out searching for '69 9511 cars?.
Especially those real '69 COPO N[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/headbang.gif[/img]VAS!!!

[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif[/img]
~ Pete

67L78conv · #20 07-26-2011, 02:27 AM

I am still working on it, for my part as I had PM'd Nova Research Project I am still digging through my GM paperwork. It just happens to be a much larger task than I anticipated but I am getting closer for sure. Hopefully my search of the documents will yield something useful to the discussion.