Team Chevelle banner

"Earliest" built '70 Chevelle: WIW?

22K views 165 replies 43 participants last post by  GotGrunt 
#1 ·
  • Like
Reactions: chevydog66
#82 ·
Do those cheese puffs have little mickey mouses on them? Whoa man!
 
#84 ·
I have been taking these GM 68-72 A bodies apart since 1985. Its this simple, GM was tight a$$ about any new things being made and designed, you better build it off that platform, they milked it for years. 1969-72 Grand Prix used that platform with convertible side frame boxed rails and the Monte Carlo also used that same platform. Then you had the 4 door platform also used for the 68-72 Elky, most of the wagons except the Vista Cruiser which was a little longer. The only difference on a coupe body was the the outer wheel houses to match the quarters and then basically the outer skin of the new car. (minor difference is floor brace for middle seat belts and seat belt holes) I can not see anytime or money being spent other then designing the new body that would last from 70-72. But with someone like Rick Nelson backing it up, who has built so many of these 1970 documented SS Chevelles, his word is the buildsheet and people at Barrett Jackson are going to bid on it for that reason.
 

Attachments

#87 ·
I would like to hear what Rick Nelson does have to say about it. The fact that he hasn't contributed to this thread makes me wonder if there's something about the car that he would rather not talk about. That may just be my skeptical nature showing.
 
#88 ·
Like I said, I doubt Rick Nelson is going to stick his neck out too far. That is probably why he hasn't had anything to say on this thread. From what I have read here the car will be on display this weekend so I'm sure those that see it will have something to add. There is always things to discover on these cars and there is probably a story to tell about this one.
 
#95 ·
Well, obviously not YOU! :)

I see some variance from production in it, but not as much as what the owner and restorer see. The car raises more questions than it answers. No one that worked on the car in 1969 is probably still alive to answer the questions.

Biggest thing I see is a few hand made prototype parts, and things that are located in areas that are not normal production. Things like the TCS solenoid are screwed to the firewall instead of the wiring gutter, it has a '69 master cylinder and booster, '69 PS brackets, things that would have been off-the-shelf '69 stuff. The biggest thing is, what was altered on it to test different parts during the 3 month stay at the plant before it slipped out into the public. We will never know exactly how it was built but it's a legit pilot test mule.
The width difference was based on the guys picking up a supposed NOS windshield from a local glass place, that wouldn't fit into the opening. They put the original PPG glass back into the car. After them doing some comparative measuring on the cars sitting beside them at the show, it's only about less than 1/4" different. Thats' normal 1970 production tolerance. I didn't go over the car with a tape measure and yard stick. Not my place.
All in all it's a beautiful restoration of a historically significant car in the sense of it being a pre-production test vehicle that somehow got released to the public. You can form your own opinions about the value.
My personal opinion, the car doesn't vary THAT much from normal production with the exception of a couple nuances that wouldv'e been easy to change before normal production went into effect.
I've explained the seat belt light in a prior post. GM knew it was coming and needed to test the new for '70-72 dash to be sure stuff would fit when it became mandated on 1-1-72.
Time for this post to end. No more questions can be answered or asked. If you didn't bother to come see the car in person then don't speculate or argue.
 
#99 ·
I think the consensus says it's just too unique to put a price tag on. We see this quite often with very rare parts, just no history to base a price on. it boils down to how serious the seller is and who wants it and just how bad.
I didn't hear a lot of doubt on the car's authenticity, just no one was buying the narrow body thing.
 
#103 ·
Cool story. Speculate as it what its worth? Hard to put a # on a story. Even if true,which I'd assume, the question is, so what? They threw a VIN on a mule and offed it. No amount of spin alters that alleged fact. Is that worth a 20% premium, 100% or more? Not super likely imho. But the stock market is back up, and these old collector prices seem rather stuck ( correlated) with the DOW. Still, I doubt it fetches a monster premium.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACES1
#105 ·
Sorry Dave I think we are going to keep talking about it. It sounds like there is enough evidence to confirm it is the earliest known 70 Chevelle and quite likely a test car for GM to gather information. What it does lack is documentation. No one knows what engine it left the line with and what the car was actually used for. It sounds like a really neat car but I think the missing pieces of the puzzle will hold some people back from bidding come auction day. I assume the owner of the car tried to go back as many previous owners as he could to try and find some history?
 
#106 ·
Or, someone along the way had a four door and swapped the roofline or uprights. Why would they build something like this with 4 door parts? All of the things added to the car are explainable...and simply explainable.

We also cant get under the panels and see the welding, or how everything is put together.

idk, I would just hate to see major money spent and someone get ripped off.
 
#111 ·
Mike, in NO way was I referencing you. LOL I just used your quote to start my post and am sorry you took it the wrong way. I actually don't recall anyone on this thread doing that but have heard from many on background comments that were made, hence my mention of it. All is good buddy.
Rick
 
#112 ·
Rick-Anyone who knows you (and knows you well) also knows that you call it like you see it, no matter who is involved. You are honest as the day is long and I see no reason that anyone would say anything bad about you? I guess I, like you, look for the good in people. Good to see that you were able to meet up with Chuck, too!



Sorry that we didn't make it out to MCACN this year. we'll try for next year. In the meantime...you and Annie need a break, so come stay at our place and enjoy the auctions in January!:thumbsup:
 
#115 ·
Got home a while ago, unpacked the bags, had a bite of supper, and thought I'd post up my thoughts here but WOW! you guys are quick.... the points have all been pretty much covered by Dave and Rick. And I concur with them. With one small exception: since this was a "mule" car, and there is no tangible documentation presented on its original configuration, it would be difficult to ascertain whether or not the Chevelle began life as an SS396. The "136" VIN however, would infer that it could be either a Malibu or SS (396 or 454), but w/o the presence of original VIN-stamped drivetrain components or a build sheet, there's just no tellin'.

As for the '69-style master cylinder and p/s setup, there's no way to confirm that they were installed at the factory either. But by including them as part of the restoration process, their presence easily becomes palpable evidence that helps make #42's story more believable. There was no information offered on the rearend, either, as to casting #s and dates or the axle tube stampings, so it's difficult to confirm what may have been the original third member.

I had a good visit with both the owner and restorer and learned that the "42 of 49" part of the story stemmed from a conversation with Richard Downing (GM exec), who also allowed that was one of "only 10 or 12 Chevelles" to find their way into the hands of public consumers. At this point I believe they are aware that in order for #42 to fully realize its historical and financial significance, it's imperative for Mr Downing to confirm the context and content of that conversation in written form.

As for the Chevelle itself? I think that it's a very nicely restored Chevelle. What's it worth? Same as any other transaction.... It's worth what one person will pay, and the owner will accept. At some point in time, when and if the Chevelle ever changes hands, I'm sure we'll all get to learn what one person paid.....

And finally, if you haven't attended the MCACN show, you owe it to yourself to make the trip. The diversity, rarity, and quality of the cars there in attendance are sure to make it worthwhile, no matter what your interests may be. Even better yet are all the old friends you'll get to see and all the new ones you'll add to your list. I know I really enjoyed the time there this past weekend, and truly appreciate the (old and new) friends who were kind enough to share their time with me.
 
#117 ·
Thanks Rick for your post. I think we all have a better understanding of what this car is and isn't. Your reputation is top drawer and I don't think anyone was doubting that your would do a fair assessment of the vehicle. As can be seen in previous posts I was very leary of the claims that the owner of the vehicle made and still question the purpose behind such claims, ie: 3/4" narrow, 1 1/2 narrow windshield, 4 door 69 roofline " standard parts don't fit, must be hand made". It appears none of this is accurate. If the owner is going to hype a car to this extent, with its own FB page, little video's, appearances at dealerships, shirts made up, he better have some documentation or on boards like this people like me and others are going to call him out. That being said it is a interesting car and I will look forward to seeing if more info can be found about it.
 
#118 ·
My brain is somewhat small and at this time of the year it is also somewhat dormant. However at 3:00 am this morning it decided to wake up and remind me of something that could have answered a lot of questions for people regarding this car and if it started life as a small block or a big block. Correct me if I am wrong as I do not study small block cars but the engine, front lighting and dash harnesses are all different on small block cars versus big block cars. Since I was given all the original 'Pilot' tagged harnesses to restore or replicate I documented the differences of these harnesses versus the assembly line ones forgetting the fact that they were coded for a big block car until 3:00 am this morning. There is no buildsheet but there are photos of these harnesses. The dash harness is coded BN which is for a big block gauge car and there was a harness for the cowl flapper door (big block only). The front engine and lighting harnesses were also coded big block. Again, correct me if I am wrong but these are THE original as built with Pilot harnesses with factory tags on them so I know they are original tags and harnesses so this would prove that the car started life as a big block car. Since the 454 had yet to be introduced it could only be a 396. Also, I wanted to add a photo of the back of the temp/fuel gauge housing showing the stamp "HAND MADE MODEL SHOP".
 

Attachments

#120 ·
Good deal Rick. Thanks for posting.
One of the questions I had was the cowl induction hood as well as the round pod cluster with gauges. The only way you could get a tack in a non SS was to get the round pod gauge cluster. With the Cowl Induction wiring harness and the correct holes in the firewall that answers that question.
Still would be interesting to know if the car has a CONVIN on the firewall. I would assume it probably would not. Just my opinion and guess.
Also I go back to the rear end. It was stated it has a 4.10 rear gear. You could not get a 4.10 gear in a L34 normally. Would be interesting to know what or if anything is stamped on the tube. Again I almost would assume nothing is stamped on the tube. It may have been one of the "Hand Made" items as well.
Definitely an interesting car. Glad to know it survived through the years and that the people who discovered it took a close look at what they had before they just started stripping off the old stuff and putting it in the trash.
 
#121 ·
Since the SS454 was probably in the planning stages at the time this car was built, could it be a remote possibility that it was built with a 454, even though 454 specific items on the car may be for a 396 (402)? Maybe the 4.10 gear could've been part of a test since it ended up being a 454 option, or it might've just been a '69 axle assembly. Just throwing what if's out.
 
#122 ·
Exactly what I was thinking Von. That is why it would be nice to know if the rear is stamped.
IIRC one of the magazines did a test on the 70 LS6 in a November or December issue. Knowing the photos and test had to be done several months earlier before it went to print.
Another thing that would be nice to know is if it had a duel fuel line set up or a single large line.....
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top