Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
the story that has been heard around the machine shops for years is that the cores for the 396 castings had wore-out and the .03 over size got the yield back to acceptable levels. the other story that I have heard over and over is there was a misprint on a blueprint for the new casting cores with the same result . Geoff Right Foot Engine Shop - Original Message - From: "Chuck Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "The Chevelle Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only I've tried to dig up some "official" original factory documentation on the 396/402 change, but came up empty. I remember seeing/reading something years ago, and the reason stated in the article discussing the 402 (396ci +.030") was to produce a more favorable bore/stroke ratio in the pursuit of reduced emissions. Back then, emission controls were in their infancy and the OE's were trying lots of different methods to help them mitigate the expulsion of unburned hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. Playing with bore/stroke ratios was one of them. Some of you may also remember the 307 small-block, which was contrived by combining the 327 stroke and a 283 bore. It, too, was an experiment in emissions reduction. Getting back to the 402, it was first introduced in late-production '69 Chevelles, and the easiest way to ID them is the addition of a "C" prefix to the engine code stamped on the front of the engine block. For instance, a "normal" 396/350hp/4spd Chevelle engine would have a "JC" engine code, while the 402 version of the same engine would feature a "CJC" stamping on the front of the block. The addition of the "C" prefix carried over to the '70 and subsequent engine codes. To the best of my knowledge, the 402 supplanted the 396 in all '70 and later Chevys. As for retaining the '70 SS396 moniker (even though the engine actually displaced 402ci), that was a marketing ploy pure and simple. Since it's inception in '66, the SS396 just kinda rolled off the tongue easy and became synonymous with Chevy high performance. Understandably, Chevy was reluctant to give up the equity they had in such a catchy name and kept it as long as they could. In '71, however, the Super Sport with the 402ci big-block was referred to as merely an SS, and the "396" emblems that hung below the SS badges on the fenders were eliminated as well. Please feel free to add or edit my recollections if your differ from mine... Chuck on 6/16/05 11:14 AM, Clint Hooper at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gene is correct and brings up a very good point; why did GM increase the displacement to 402ci? Maybe Chuck Hanson or someone else in the know can shed a little light on the subject. Clint Hooper H&H Custom,owner 1969 El Camino ProTourer 2001 H-D FLHR custom bagger http://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm - Original Message - From: "Gene's General Restoration Parts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi, What I remember is up to 69 it was a 396 and after 70 the bore was increased .030 which made it a 402 but was still badged and called a 396. Some cars like the Monte Carlo and I think full size it was refered to as a 400 Big Block and they also had the 400 Small Block to make it more confusing... I don't know why they went .030 over, maybe they had a bunch of blocks they were able to rework with the over bore? Anyone know why they went .030 over? Gene www.genesgeneralrestorationparts.com
Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
Here are two direct quotes from Musclecarclub.com-Chevrolet Chevelle-History 1969 - "Late in the 1969 model year, the 396 was bored out to 402 cubic engines, reportedly to meet new emission standards." 1970 - "Responding to the lifting of GM's ban on engines larger than 400 cid in midsize cars, Chevrolet responded by dropping in a new 454 cubic engine into its Chevelle SS." Larry (Z)
Re: [Chevelle-list] rear control arm question
To be honest,I'm not sure I can answer that question,Ryan. However,Moog chassis parts are sold by most auto parts stores and their stuff has a very good reputation for quality. Clint Hooper H&H Custom,owner 1969 El Camino ProTourer 2001 H-D FLHR custom bagger http://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm - Original Message - From: "Ryan Langstraat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Clint, > I was looking at PST's bushing sets and couldnt make up my mind. > Do you think the rubber bushings that the local auto parts store carry are > that much different from the ones from like year one? I know the price is > quite a bit lower but is the quality that much different? Has anybody dealt > with them enough to know??? > Thanks again > Ryan
Re: [Chevelle-list] rear control arm question
Clint, I was looking at PST's bushing sets and couldnt make up my mind. Do you think the rubber bushings that the local auto parts store carry are that much different from the ones from like year one? I know the price is quite a bit lower but is the quality that much different? Has anybody dealt with them enough to know??? Thanks again Ryan
Re: [Chevelle-list] rear control arm question
There are different formulations of poly bushings available. I rebuilt the front end of my former 68 El Camino protourer with polygraphite bushings from Performance Suspension Technology and they worked very well for over six years w/o any squeaks. If your car is stock,I would probably install the rubber bushings,though. Clint Hooper H&H Custom,owner 1969 El Camino ProTourer 2001 H-D FLHR custom bagger http://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm - Original Message - From: "Ryan Langstraat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I was just about ready to purchase a complete set of poly bushings until I > read everybody saying not to put poly's in the rear. Does the same hold > true for the front supsension also? Will it too make noise over time?? The > rubber bushing sets are much cheaper so would I just be time and money ahead > to get the rubber bushing set instead? > Thank you for you help > Ryan
Re: [Chevelle-list] rear control arm question
I was just about ready to purchase a complete set of poly bushings until I read everybody saying not to put poly's in the rear. Does the same hold true for the front supsension also? Will it too make noise over time?? The rubber bushing sets are much cheaper so would I just be time and money ahead to get the rubber bushing set instead? Thank you for you help Ryan
Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
I've tried to dig up some "official" original factory documentation on the 396/402 change, but came up empty. I remember seeing/reading something years ago, and the reason stated in the article discussing the 402 (396ci +.030") was to produce a more favorable bore/stroke ratio in the pursuit of reduced emissions. Back then, emission controls were in their infancy and the OE's were trying lots of different methods to help them mitigate the expulsion of unburned hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. Playing with bore/stroke ratios was one of them. Some of you may also remember the 307 small-block, which was contrived by combining the 327 stroke and a 283 bore. It, too, was an experiment in emissions reduction. Getting back to the 402, it was first introduced in late-production '69 Chevelles, and the easiest way to ID them is the addition of a "C" prefix to the engine code stamped on the front of the engine block. For instance, a "normal" 396/350hp/4spd Chevelle engine would have a "JC" engine code, while the 402 version of the same engine would feature a "CJC" stamping on the front of the block. The addition of the "C" prefix carried over to the '70 and subsequent engine codes. To the best of my knowledge, the 402 supplanted the 396 in all '70 and later Chevys. As for retaining the '70 SS396 moniker (even though the engine actually displaced 402ci), that was a marketing ploy pure and simple. Since it's inception in '66, the SS396 just kinda rolled off the tongue easy and became synonymous with Chevy high performance. Understandably, Chevy was reluctant to give up the equity they had in such a catchy name and kept it as long as they could. In '71, however, the Super Sport with the 402ci big-block was referred to as merely an SS, and the "396" emblems that hung below the SS badges on the fenders were eliminated as well. Please feel free to add or edit my recollections if your differ from mine... Chuck on 6/16/05 11:14 AM, Clint Hooper at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Gene is correct and brings up a very good point; why did GM increase the > displacement to 402ci? > Maybe Chuck Hanson or someone else in the know can shed a little light on > the subject. > Clint Hooper > H&H Custom,owner > 1969 El Camino ProTourer > 2001 H-D FLHR custom bagger > http://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm > - Original Message - > From: "Gene's General Restoration Parts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Hi, >> What I remember is up to 69 it was a 396 and after 70 the bore was >> increased .030 which made it a 402 but was still badged and called a 396. >> Some cars like the Monte Carlo and I think full size it was refered to as > a >> 400 Big Block and they also had the 400 Small Block to make it more >> confusing... >> I don't know why they went .030 over, maybe they had a bunch of blocks > they >> were able to rework with the over bore? Anyone know why they went .030 > over? >> Gene >> www.genesgeneralrestorationparts.com > > >
Re: [Chevelle-list] Clutches
Great...Thanx alot ...You have been very helpfulJohn
Re: [Chevelle-list] Clutches
Thanks,Dale. I didn't realize the 26 spline was first introduced in 1970. FWIW,the 350 engine was introduced in the Camaro in 1967. Even the Corvettes didn't get them until 1968. Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm - Original Message - From: Dale 350's weren't introduced until 1967 so it was either a 283 or 327 car when it was built. And even then, not in the Chevelle in 1967. If you look at the case and tail shaft housing, there should be some casting numbers if it?s a Muncie. Assuming the internals hadn?t been completely changed, those numbers should help identify the year-range of the trans and the model (M20/M21/M22). With that info you should be able to determine the spline count for that particular year. See http://www.chevellestuff.com/generic/muncie.htm for a list. Basically (if it?s a Muncie) 63-early 70 M20/M21s have a 10 spline, late 70-74 M20/M21s have 26. Probably not a M22 so I won?t go there but info the link above will help. Dale
RE: [Chevelle-list] Clutches
350's weren't introduced until 1967 so it was either a 283 or 327 car when it was built. And even then, not in the Chevelle in 1967. If you look at the case and tail shaft housing, there should be some casting numbers if it’s a Muncie. Assuming the internals hadn’t been completely changed, those numbers should help identify the year-range of the trans and the model (M20/M21/M22). With that info you should be able to determine the spline count for that particular year. See http://www.chevellestuff.com/generic/muncie.htm for a list. Basically (if it’s a Muncie) 63-early 70 M20/M21s have a 10 spline, late 70-74 M20/M21s have 26. Probably not a M22 so I won’t go there but info the link above will help. Dale
RE: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
I've heard 'stories' that due to a strike in late 1969, blocks sat around and got rusty. There were some 402's in late 69 (noted by the 3-letter suffix code). When the strike was over the blocks had to bored .030 for cleanup and since pistons had to be changed, GM kept it that way. I don't buy that for a minute. Probably had more to do with meeting emission standards than anything else. FWIW, Buick managed to get over on the ban since there engine was really the same 401 as the rest of the line but advertised it as a 400 until the ban was lifted. Dale McIntosh -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Hooper Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:15 AM To: The Chevelle Mailing List Subject: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only Gene is correct and brings up a very good point; why did GM increase the displacement to 402ci? Maybe Chuck Hanson or someone else in the know can shed a little light on the subject. Clint Hooper H&H Custom,owner 1969 El Camino ProTourer 2001 H-D FLHR custom bagger http://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm - Original Message - From: "Gene's General Restoration Parts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi, > What I remember is up to 69 it was a 396 and after 70 the bore was > increased .030 which made it a 402 but was still badged and called a 396. > Some cars like the Monte Carlo and I think full size it was refered to as a > 400 Big Block and they also had the 400 Small Block to make it more > confusing... > I don't know why they went .030 over, maybe they had a bunch of blocks they > were able to rework with the over bore? Anyone know why they went .030 over? > Gene > www.genesgeneralrestorationparts.com
Re: [Chevelle-list] rear control arm question
rubber will work fine,the poly after a while make noises that you'll regret putting those hard poly's in. - Original Message - From: "James Colgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "The Chevelle Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] rear control arm question Hi Clint , why rubber an not poly in the rear control arms? just curious. Jimmy Colgan - Original Message - From: "Clint Hooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "The Chevelle Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 9:12 PM Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] rear control arm question I would buy some aftermarket boxed arms with rubber bushings. No poly bushings in the rear suspension. Clint Hooper H&H Custom,owner 1969 El Camino ProTourer 2001 H-D FLHR custom bagger http://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm - Original Message - From: "J. Brady" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Folks, > > My '66 is long overdue for new bushings on the > rear control arms.. I was wondering if the best plan > is to replace the bushings in the existing control > arms, or just junk them and get new arms w/bushings > already built in- The car's a driver, not a priceless > all-original cream puff. > > Thanks in advance, > > Jim > '66 Malibu > http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jbiii/my66.htm > > > > __ > Discover Yahoo! > Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! > http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html > >
Re: [Chevelle-list] Shaved Door Handle Kits
My Dad dechromed and shaved the handles on one of his cars. One day he had the radio on all day while working outside - trunk lid open for better sound, but windows rolled up to keep dirt out. Battery drained to the point the doors would not open. Hood release is inside the car and rear set unable to be removed from trunk. He eventually was able reach the positive side of the battery from the underside of the engine compartment to connect some power to open the doors. Krister Hey everyone, We are now an authorized dealer for Electric-Life. They are a manufacturer of power window kits, alarms, remote entry systems, remote starter systems, and reverse hood opening systems. In celebration of this new product line, we have put their shaved door handle kits on sale. Each kit comes with two high powered 60lb Solenoids operated through a Power Driver 4-channel keyless entry control module. The kit comes complete with relay pack, wire harness and mounting hardware. These kits can be used on virtually any car or truck. Our normally discounted price is $269.95. But, for the next two weeks, we have them for only $219.95! A $50 savings! You can order them on-line on our website, or by phone. More cool stuff coming soon!! Sincerely, Trevor Auto Obsession 805-306-0795 http://www.AutoObsession.com
Re: [Chevelle-list] Shaved Door Handle Kits - good story
My Dad shaved Hey everyone, We are now an authorized dealer for Electric-Life. They are a manufacturer of power window kits, alarms, remote entry systems, remote starter systems, and reverse hood opening systems. In celebration of this new product line, we have put their shaved door handle kits on sale. Each kit comes with two high powered 60lb Solenoids operated through a Power Driver 4-channel keyless entry control module. The kit comes complete with relay pack, wire harness and mounting hardware. These kits can be used on virtually any car or truck. Our normally discounted price is $269.95. But, for the next two weeks, we have them for only $219.95! A $50 savings! You can order them on-line on our website, or by phone. More cool stuff coming soon!! Sincerely, Trevor Auto Obsession 805-306-0795 http://www.AutoObsession.com
Re: [Chevelle-list] Shaved Door Handle Kits
Trevor,can you give us a price quote for one of their power window kits for an El Camino? Electric-Life makes good stuff. Clint Hooper H&H Custom,owner 1969 El Camino ProTourer 2001 H-D FLHR custom bagger http://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hey everyone, We are now an authorized dealer for Electric-Life. They are a manufacturer of power window kits, alarms, remote entry systems, remote starter systems, and reverse hood opening systems. More cool stuff coming soon!! Sincerely, Trevor Auto Obsession 805-306-0795 http://www.AutoObsession.com
[Chevelle-list] Shaved Door Handle Kits
Hey everyone, We are now an authorized dealer for Electric-Life. They are a manufacturer of power window kits, alarms, remote entry systems, remote starter systems, and reverse hood opening systems. In celebration of this new product line, we have put their shaved door handle kits on sale. Each kit comes with two high powered 60lb Solenoids operated through a Power Driver 4-channel keyless entry control module. The kit comes complete with relay pack, wire harness and mounting hardware. These kits can be used on virtually any car or truck. Our normally discounted price is $269.95. But, for the next two weeks, we have them for only $219.95! A $50 savings! You can order them on-line on our website, or by phone. More cool stuff coming soon!! Sincerely, Trevor Auto Obsession 805-306-0795 http://www.AutoObsession.com
Re: [Chevelle-list] Clutches
Thats the problem...I am not sure what tranny is in there..I want to order the clutch kit but don't want to take anything apart until I have the parts in my handIt is still drivable but does need a clutch in the near future..John
Re: [Chevelle-list] Clutches
Good question,Gene. We haven't asked yet but is the trans a Muncie or BW T-10? Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm - Original Message - From: Gene's General Restoration Parts Don't the early trannys have a stud/nut holding on the shifter linkage and the newer ones have a bolt? I know the bolt style would have a possibility of either but shouldn't all stud/nut trans have ten splines? One way to tell. Gene - Original Message - From: Clint Hooper Probably could run the transmission ID numbers and find out what year trans you have. Odds are it's a 10 spline. Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm - Original Message - From: John I'll have to check into that a little further..You have a point thereAnywaysback to the spline question...is there a way to tell without pulling the trans..??.John
Re: [Chevelle-list] Clutches
Don't the early trannys have a stud/nut holding on the shifter linkage and the newer ones have a bolt? I know the bolt style would have a possibility of either but shouldn't all stud/nut trans have ten splines? One way to tell. Gene - Original Message - From: Clint Hooper To: The Chevelle Mailing List Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Clutches Probably could run the transmission ID numbers and find out what year trans you have. Odds are it's a 10 spline. Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm - Original Message - From: John I'll have to check into that a little further..You have a point thereAnywaysback to the spline question...is there a way to tell without pulling the trans..??.John
Re: [Chevelle-list] Clutches
Probably could run the transmission ID numbers and find out what year trans you have. Odds are it's a 10 spline. Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm - Original Message - From: John I'll have to check into that a little further..You have a point thereAnywaysback to the spline question...is there a way to tell without pulling the trans..??.John
Re: [Chevelle-list] Clutches
I'll have to check into that a little further..You have a point thereAnywaysback to the spline question...is there a way to tell without pulling the trans..??.John
Re: [Chevelle-list] Clutches
350's weren't introduced until 1967 so it was either a 283 or 327 car when it was built. Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm - Original Message - From: John NoIts not the original engine Clint.It was originally a 350cid .. powerglide carJohn
Re: [Chevelle-list] Clutches
NoIts not the original engine Clint.It was originally a 350cid .. powerglide carJohn
Re: Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
I had read somewhere that the 396's ('66 - '69) actually measure out to be
a 402, but were called 396 to just come under some criteria at that time.
Anyone else able to support this?
Krister
GM had a policy in the 60's that all mid size and smaller cars couldn't
have engines over 400 CI. The policy was changed in the 70's to allow the
454's and 455's in Chevelles, 442s, GTOs, and Buick GSs.
BillL
[Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
Gene is correct and brings up a very good point; why did GM increase the displacement to 402ci? Maybe Chuck Hanson or someone else in the know can shed a little light on the subject. Clint Hooper H&H Custom,owner 1969 El Camino ProTourer 2001 H-D FLHR custom bagger http://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm - Original Message - From: "Gene's General Restoration Parts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi, > What I remember is up to 69 it was a 396 and after 70 the bore was > increased .030 which made it a 402 but was still badged and called a 396. > Some cars like the Monte Carlo and I think full size it was refered to as a > 400 Big Block and they also had the 400 Small Block to make it more > confusing... > I don't know why they went .030 over, maybe they had a bunch of blocks they > were able to rework with the over bore? Anyone know why they went .030 over? > Gene > www.genesgeneralrestorationparts.com
Re: [Chevelle-list] rear control arm question
Pete is correct. Poly will bind up the factory four link. Clint Hooper H&H Custom,owner 1969 El Camino ProTourer 2001 H-D FLHR custom bagger http://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'm not Clint but let me throw my two cents in... > The rear suspension geometry is not perfect apparently. > It needs a little rubber to allow it to travel smoothly. > Global West offers better bushings and spherical joints too. > see: > http://www.globalwest.net/1964-72%20A-BODIES.htm#Lemans > Go to bottom of page for rear control arms. > (But the whole page is well worth reading.) > Pete Geurds > Douglassville, PA
Re: [Chevelle-list] Clutches
If I'm not mistaken,Muncies didn't have a 26spline input shaft until around 1972. A 66 L79 Chevelle,huh. Is that the original engine? Clint HooperH&H Custom,owner1969 El Camino ProTourer2001 H-D FLHR custom baggerhttp://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm - Original Message - From: Chevelle List Hi again all I have to do the clutch in my 66...I am wondering what the best kind to put in is and also if there is a way you can tell how many splines there are on the trans. shaft without pulling it...I am told there are two kinds a 26 spline and a 10 splineAny help in knowledge would be app Its a 327/325hp engine...John
RE: Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
I think that it was other way around.. in 70 (71?) and later, what they were
calling 396s were actually 402s. 402 = .030"-over 396, I believe.
Before '70, GM had a restriction of no more than 400ci in a mid-size.
-Dave
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Krister Meister
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:23 AM
To: The Chevelle Mailing List
Cc: Chevelle-list@chevelles.net; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
I had read somewhere that the 396's ('66 - '69) actually measure out to be
a 402, but were called 396 to just come under some criteria at that time.
Anyone else able to support this?
Krister
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by:To: The Chevelle
Mailing List
[EMAIL PROTECTED]cc:
evelles.net Fax to:
Subject: Re: Re:
[Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
06/16/2005 09:57 AM
Please respond to The
Chevelle Mailing List
Ed,you don't have a 396,,unless the motor isn't original,,all 70 -72's
were 402's,,fact.
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu Jun 16, 12:16 AM
> To: Chevelle-list@chevelles.net
> Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
>
> 1970 Chevelle SS Convertible. 396, Muncie M-21, original 14 inch wheels.
A
> few things have been changed out over the years, headlights, top, things
like
> that, but the drivetrain is still intact.
>
>
> Ed Fleshman
> Columbia, SC
> EFMF - My Personal Automotive Page
>
>
1970 Chevelle SS Convertible. 396, Muncie M-21, original 14 inch wheels. A
few things have been changed out over the years, headlights, top, things
like that, but the drivetrain is still intact.
Ed Fleshman
Columbia, SC
EFMF - My Personal Automotive Page
Re: Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
Hi,
What I remember is up to 69 it was a 396 and after 70 the bore was
increased .030 which made it a 402 but was still badged and called a 396.
Some cars like the Monte Carlo and I think full size it was refered to as a
400 Big Block and they also had the 400 Small Block to make it more
confusing...
I don't know why they went .030 over, maybe they had a bunch of blocks they
were able to rework with the over bore? Anyone know why they went .030 over?
Gene
www.genesgeneralrestorationparts.com
- Original Message -
From: "Krister Meister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "The Chevelle Mailing List"
Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
I had read somewhere that the 396's ('66 - '69) actually measure out to be
a 402, but were called 396 to just come under some criteria at that time.
Anyone else able to support this?
Krister
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by:To: The
Chevelle Mailing List
[EMAIL PROTECTED]cc:
evelles.net Fax to:
Subject: Re: Re:
[Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
06/16/2005 09:57 AM
Please respond to The
Chevelle Mailing List
Ed,you don't have a 396,,unless the motor isn't original,,all 70 -72's
were 402's,,fact.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Jun 16, 12:16 AM
To: Chevelle-list@chevelles.net
Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
1970 Chevelle SS Convertible. 396, Muncie M-21, original 14 inch wheels.
A
few things have been changed out over the years, headlights, top, things
like
that, but the drivetrain is still intact.
Ed Fleshman
Columbia, SC
EFMF - My Personal Automotive Page
1970 Chevelle SS Convertible. 396, Muncie M-21, original 14 inch wheels. A
few things have been changed out over the years, headlights, top, things
like that, but the drivetrain is still intact.
Ed Fleshman
Columbia, SC
EFMF - My Personal Automotive Page
Re: Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
I had read somewhere that the 396's ('66 - '69) actually measure out to be
a 402, but were called 396 to just come under some criteria at that time.
Anyone else able to support this?
Krister
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by:To: The Chevelle
Mailing List
[EMAIL PROTECTED]cc:
evelles.net Fax to:
Subject: Re: Re:
[Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
06/16/2005 09:57 AM
Please respond to The
Chevelle Mailing List
Ed,you don't have a 396,,unless the motor isn't original,,all 70 -72's
were 402's,,fact.
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu Jun 16, 12:16 AM
> To: Chevelle-list@chevelles.net
> Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
>
> 1970 Chevelle SS Convertible. 396, Muncie M-21, original 14 inch wheels.
A
> few things have been changed out over the years, headlights, top, things
like
> that, but the drivetrain is still intact.
>
>
> Ed Fleshman
> Columbia, SC
> EFMF - My Personal Automotive Page
>
>
1970 Chevelle SS Convertible. 396, Muncie M-21, original 14 inch wheels. A
few things have been changed out over the years, headlights, top, things
like that, but the drivetrain is still intact.
Ed Fleshman
Columbia, SC
EFMF - My Personal Automotive Page
Re: Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
Ed,you don't have a 396,,unless the motor isn't original,,all 70 -72's were 402's,,fact. > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu Jun 16, 12:16 AM > To: Chevelle-list@chevelles.net > Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only > > 1970 Chevelle SS Convertible. 396, Muncie M-21, original 14 inch wheels. A > few things have been changed out over the years, headlights, top, things like > that, but the drivetrain is still intact. > > > Ed Fleshman > Columbia, SC > EFMF - My Personal Automotive Page > > 1970 Chevelle SS Convertible. 396, Muncie M-21, original 14 inch wheels. A few things have been changed out over the years, headlights, top, things like that, but the drivetrain is still intact. Ed Fleshman Columbia, SC EFMF - My Personal Automotive Page
RE: [Chevelle-list] Re:Classic Auto Air Group Purchase
Do you have a copy of the manual for a 64 Chevelle? If so can you e-mail it to me off list? [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank You>Describing how hard is it to install is kind of a subjective thing! >Have you ever had the dash out, changed a heater core or the fan >motor in the vehicle?>>>I've got copies of the installation manuals that I can e mail (15 >megs so you'd have to have dsl or BB) or mail. Then you can decide >if it's something you can do.>>Gary>>
Re: [Chevelle-list] rear control arm question
> From: "James Colgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi Clint , why rubber an not poly in the rear control >arms? just curious. - I'm not Clint but let me throw my two cents in... The rear suspension geometry is not perfect apparently. It needs a little rubber to allow it to travel smoothly. Global West offers better bushings and spherical joints too. see: http://www.globalwest.net/1964-72%20A-BODIES.htm#Lemans Go to bottom of page for rear control arms. (But the whole page is well worth reading.) Pete Geurds Douglassville, PA
[Chevelle-list] Clutches
Hi again all I have to do the clutch in my 66...I am wondering what the best kind to put in is and also if there is a way you can tell how many splines there are on the trans. shaft without pulling it...I am told there are two kinds a 26 spline and a 10 splineAny help in knowledge would be app Its a 327/325hp engine...John
Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only
I have a 70 LS5 car but it unfortunately isn't near original showroom condition but a nice cruiser. Walt http://www.personal.kent.edu/~wbainey/CHEVELLE.htm - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 1:07 pm Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] 70 ss only > can some one do a count on the list of who has a 1970 original ss > chevelle > IM curious to see how many owners are on here >
Re: [Chevelle-list] rear control arm question
Hi Clint , why rubber an not poly in the rear control arms? just curious. Jimmy Colgan - Original Message - From: "Clint Hooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "The Chevelle Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 9:12 PM Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] rear control arm question > I would buy some aftermarket boxed arms with rubber bushings. No poly > bushings in the rear suspension. > Clint Hooper > H&H Custom,owner > 1969 El Camino ProTourer > 2001 H-D FLHR custom bagger > http://dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint/clint_hooper.htm > - Original Message - > From: "J. Brady" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Folks, > > > > My '66 is long overdue for new bushings on the > > rear control arms.. I was wondering if the best plan > > is to replace the bushings in the existing control > > arms, or just junk them and get new arms w/bushings > > already built in- The car's a driver, not a priceless > > all-original cream puff. > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > Jim > > '66 Malibu > > http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jbiii/my66.htm > > > > > > > > __ > > Discover Yahoo! > > Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! > > http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html > > > > > > >
