Team Chevelle banner

"Earliest" built '70 Chevelle: WIW?

22K views 165 replies 43 participants last post by  GotGrunt 
#1 ·
  • Like
Reactions: chevydog66
#128 ·
Like I said, anything is possible. I also wouldn't say just because it has the BB gauge harness and cowl induction, that it was born an "SS 396" as we know it. FWIW, you could get a big block in a Malibu 70-72, with or without gauges. Here are some pre-production photos I came across that have a Malibu 350 dressed up as an SS with a functional cowl hood so that takes care of the ZL2 harness question. There were also a few other pictures that had a similar "SS" with Malibu 350 badges but that car had a standard dome hood and hubcaps. I also posted a picture of the L6 "SS" a few pages back. What this car started out as is anyone's guess really, but it is a pilot car for sure and that's only what I see it as.



 
#147 ·
Like I said, anything is possible. I also wouldn't say just because it has the BB gauge harness and cowl induction, that it was born an "SS 396" as we know it. FWIW, you could get a big block in a Malibu 70-72, with or without gauges. Here are some pre-production photos I came across that have a Malibu 350 dressed up as an SS with a functional cowl hood so that takes care of the ZL2 harness question. There were also a few other pictures that had a similar "SS" with Malibu 350 badges but that car had a standard dome hood and hubcaps. I also posted a picture of the L6 "SS" a few pages back. What this car started out as is anyone's guess really, but it is a pilot car for sure and that's only what I see it as.

I agree, Gary, that since this was a pre-production "mule" car, there's no tellin' what the original configuration was. The front engine compartment, lighting and dash harnesses could have been installed as part of the final iteration of the pilot car, which at this point seems to be an SS396/TH400 car. But without factory docs, or a tracking log that show the various stages of it's progress as a "mule" car, it could have been anything. I know from talking to the owner and restorer that the front sheetmetal and doors didn't have any indication of the Malibu upper fender and door trim. But since it was pre-production, I believe that it is possible they were excluded from the build, just as the "SS" emblems were not installed on the "pilot" door panels, even though the cardboard backing was pierced for the emblems. There's a lot of evidence that this is a Pilot car, and I believe that fact that been well established. And at his point I'd be also willing to say that the evidence presented so far indicates its final iteration as a Pilot car was that of an SS396/TH400 car. Further, I believe that the current owner was correct to restore it to that configuration. But without further confirmation from someone at GM, a lot of this discussion is only educated conjecture based on that evidence. Will we ever know what this Chevelle really started life as? Who knows? But one thing's for sure, this has been a very educational discussion, with lots of info and history brought to light that may have otherwise remained only in the possession of a few very knowledgeable Chevelle enthusiasts. Thanks to all who were gracious enough to share that info so the rest of can further our interest and education on America's favorite musclecar!
 
#129 ·
Car has a 3.31 gear. According to Doug he said he never told anyone but me that it had a 4.10 gear which was put in when it was raced many years ago. I am supposed to get photos of the rear end stamps and firewall CONVIN tonight.
 
#130 ·
Car has a 3/8" and 5/16" fuel line, boxed rear trailing arms, F41 upper reinforced drivers side control arm and the two big block braces, original big block engine and light harnesses as well as a round gauge harness with the correct original (an unique I might add) 396 tach and the original "Pilot" taped flapper solenoid harness. These were all present when the car was originally found. In addition I had the bodyman/painter look for ANY signs of Malibu trim holes in the doors, fenders and quarters during the tear down. There were none. Keep in mind, the two front doors were pilot doors and unique to this car in design so they ARE the original NON Malibu doors and COULD NOT have been added from a junk yard car years later.

The owner is sending me photos of the firewall CONVIN and hopefully the rear axle. However, he states he remembers it being a CCW coded 3.31 posi with a September 17 date code. What we are not sure of is if it is a 68 or 69 casting. Anyone who looks at these regularly will agree that the "9" on the date code often looks like an "8" and visa versa. I do not know the actual date that the three digit stamping went into effect but know it was started for the 1970 model year.
 
#133 ·
Since little of the original paint remained they did the stripes as was done on one of the early 1970 Chevelle promotional videos.

Here is the CONVIN.
 

Attachments

#134 ·
I posted these earlier. Door on the left is from the Pilot car, door on the right is an assembly door. The yellow tape marks all the differences between the two.
 

Attachments

#135 ·
I didn't see those pictures or may have unintentionally skipped over them. I'm just throwing this out there Rick but could there have been a very early design 1970 production door that was changed over or is it strictly a pilot run door? I'm just asking because I know that the 1970 production line fender is different than the later design by the washer jug as well as the early flapper hoods that had the underside redesigned.

That being said, do you know if this car has the correct early style flapper hood?
 
#136 ·
Good stuff Rick. Thanks for sharing. :thumbsup:
 
#137 ·
I have one more question regarding pre-production cars and this thread seems fitting to ask it in... This car was built at the Flint, Michigan plant and if I'm reading the article correctly the first 49 or so VIN sequence cars were pre-production 1970 models. Is this true for every assembly plant, where the first XX number of VIN sequence cars were pre-production, or did the testing for the 1970 model year Chevelle begin at Flint only?
 
#142 ·
Sorry Gary, I thought I posted them here but it was on Facebook. Obviously yes it is an early door. I have not seen another like it so was lead to believe it was a prototype door of some type. The hood and drivers fender were of the second design and after doing some research we believe that GM may have changed them out while the car was still in their possession to possibly test the new design and crumple zones. Just a guess as we know the car was repainted at GM for a second time but the same color.
 
#148 ·
You are exactly right Chuck, we will likely never know how this car started it's life. For all intensive purposes it could have started as a 6 cyl car or a small block car and while in the care of GM they changed things around a few times. Also as you have stated we know it was in fact a Pilot car and that is really the only thing David has ever tried to state about the car and not so much about what engine came in it. Look at the 67 Camaro Pilot car (an entirely different situation indeed) and that is only a 6 cyl car.

As far as the second paint goes, Doug talked to me about several areas of the car that had red paint on them such as the backside of the steering column to firewall foam seal where normally there would not be paint there. He also showed me where much of the floor pan inside the interior had been painted red and appeared to him to have been done after the original red was sprayed down. Unfortunately I was never in the care of this car during it's restoration phase, only the component parts so I can only go by what Doug as told and shown me. Doug was also adamant that there we no "repaired or hidden" Malibu holes anywhere. Again, I am only going by what he has told and shown me as I was never able to see the car in it's naked stage and when Doug and David started this project they had no idea of how important it's original heritage was, only that they wanted to restore this car to the highest of their standards. In retrospect, I should have made a road trip.
 
#150 ·
Wow, the passion on this thread with so many unknowns! Fabulous. No matter what, it is, at this moment what appears to be a '1 of none', mystery and all. And if it crosses the block at B-J in Scottsdale this January? Then we'll all know exactly how much the last bidder thought it was worth too. Can't wait ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve R
#151 ·
I have an automotive engineering background and wanted to clarify a few things. A "mule" is a car built from something else (such as a prior model year) in order to test a new design. These would rarely see the light of day. A "pilot" car is one that is built as close to final production as possible. A lot of times, they are indistinguishable from full production cars. Therefore, they are often sold to the public after the OEM is finished with them since all parts are identical to production. In fact, my wife's old Buick Rendezvous had documentation that it was a pilot car and I found a few minor differences from a normal production car.
 
#152 ·
Thanks for adding your insight here, Rich. So, in your estimation do we have a mule or pilot car? The #42 Chevelle seems to have some component carry over from the previous year (brake master, p/s pump & brackets), as well as several hand-made or one-off items (doors, core support, side marker bulb retainers, IP carrier) , while it also has plenty of labels, hand-written P/Ns, and parts tags that state clearly "Pilot."
I understand that occasionally "Pilot" cars are sold to the public, in fact there was a pair of LS6 "pilot" cars at MCACN, parked in very close proximity to #42. But while they were virtually indistinguishable from the actual production LS6 cars, #42 had several very noticeable deviations from actual production SS396s. Do you think it possible that #42 may have begun life as a "mule" but because its test role occurred so close to actual production, that its status was changed to reflect that proximity?
 
#153 ·
You know that production changes are made all through the production year, some times you can see the changes, some times you cant. When we ran new model changes in the GM plants that I worked at the "pilot" parts were usually hand carried to the production line, things were stopped and parts were hand fitted to see what changes were needed to run in the fixtures. Some times changes were needed before they could run, other changes were made later to improve fit or to make production easier or more consistent. This is clearly a pilot car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACES1
#155 ·
I read through this entire TC thread but have not looked at the FB thread. I was thankful that "richv70" finally pointed out that "mule" and "pilot" are completely different. The mule is a mock-up of the prior model year with specific parts for the new model year testing. The mule vehicles would likely change only those items from the prior year car which were the intent of the particular mule car.

Prior to the May ’69 pilot there are a series of events which GM requires. Normal start of regular production for 1970 would typically start in July of 1969. Prior to that GM typically requires all supplier parts to go through a production parts approval process. For the 1970 MY (Model year) that would be mid January '69. Those parts need to be from the production process and off production tooling but they do not need to be produced at the production line rate. The parts for that approval process would normally have been produced between November and December of 1968. The next major event is a run at rate where the supplier must prove their line can support the full volume of parts which GM has requested. That run-at-rate would likely be in April or May of 1969. The run at rate produces a volume of parts greater than GM has immediate need for but since these parts already have Production Parts Approval status (from January) the parts for the run-at-rate can be used in saleable vehicles. I don't know what GM was doing in the late 60's and 70's so the process I roughly described is something which dates back to at least the early 1990's.

That '90's knowledge also recalls GM does often require specific additional marking/labeling for pilot parts because the new model pilot cars are likely being built on the current model year assembly line (a few per day) and can look similar to current MY parts.

The dates which Rick mentioned "All the parts were dated April of 1969 thru July of 1969...." Those remaining run-at-rate parts are typically shipped to GM once they need parts for system fill. Parts from April and May of '69 could have been in many regular production vehicles. July of 1969 is obviously too late for a trim tag with 05C which would have been the 3rd week in May (presumably of 1969)... But that said any 1970 MY vehicle built the third week in May of 1970 would have exactly that same code on the trim tag, correct?!

As for roof rail being different on one of the last pilots built seems strange. GM likely has different rules for themselves than suppliers but this is apparently #42 of #49. The back of the temperature gauge being stamped that it was made in the model shop also seems strange because all of the parts for a May built pilot it seems should be made off production tooling and process. If the tools were not ready maybe GM gave an exception but I guess that temperature gauge was a supplier part.
 
#156 ·
zlotyr50: Formal PPAP dates from the late 80s. I have no doubt GM of the late 60s had a formal procedure for production part approval, but it was likely no where near as stringent as today's standards. Even still, lots of exceptions to standard practices happen all of the time in the industry due to unexpected issues.
 
#157 ·
A big "Thank you" to Rick Nelson for being at the MCACN show and also taking the time to reply to the "nay sayers" in this thread. I personally think the car deserves $1,000,000.
 
#158 ·
If you want to call me a nay sayer, ok, I never said it wasn't a pilot car, I said I doubt it was 3/4" narrow, had a 1 1/2" narrow windshield and didn't believe "standard parts wouldn't fit and had to be hand made". Did any of that turn out to be true? If you're going to make such claims you better have some proof. Good luck with the million.
 
#159 ·
I would also say that most of the doubt regarding the description was with respect to being a somehow smaller.... Virtually nobody was buying the windshield or smaller dimensions and as already pointed out those major doubt items were found to be more error in reporting.

With respect to authenticity The VIN is obviously very early and stamping was repeated on the door in one photo. That is evidence. If somebody planned to offer the number chevydog66 suggested I guess I would also want to verify the other hidden VIN locations. The easily removable dated parts are evidence but they are removable parts.

I'm not trying to make a lot out of this but I was also a little shocked that GM would stamp the trim tag as '70 model year with 05C for May of 1969 because, as I mentioned, if you showed that same trim tag to anybody they would conclude it was the trim tag from a 1970 but from the third week in May of 1970; not 1969. I am not speaking as an expert in trim tags but it seems strange... maybe that's how GM always does it. I would like to hear if "repeating" an identical date code for 2 dates one year apart, for the same MY, was standard GM procedure even considering pilots. I won't be disappointed or validated either way it would simply be interesting to know.

Understood the entire story may not be on TC but is there any history of what was happening with this car for more of the 35+ years since the current owner bought it?
 
#160 ·
The measurement part of it was an honest but costly mistake and has caused a lot of controversy. I wish I had followed up on that comment when I first heard it so I will take part of the blame. He certainly felt very bad about the mistake and was basing it on the fact that the replacement windshield he received was much wider than the one that came in the car when it came time to put it in. He then just assumed the original was smaller than the assembly line ones and maybe not the fact that the windshield he got was for a different car or had some other explanation for it being wider. Fortunately though he was able to reuse the original. One thing I never did check and need to is the date code on the original windshield. I have asked Doug to get me that information so I can check it. However, nothing saying that this windshield is the original to the car and not a replacement.

With regards to the trim tag we cannot compare it to a 69 Flint tag since Flint was not building Chevelles in 1969 but when compared to other plants in 1969 the build codes are the same as this one. One thing that I saw on this car was that the "5" fonts are different on this cars tag versus later 1970 fonts but I have very few to compare to. It also looks like the "C" of 05C is only have the width when compared to other later tags nor do I recall ever seeing one like that before. The body number clearly puts this as an early tag and not later. I can assure you they did not pull Fischer body number 138 out of the weeds in May of 1970 and run it down the line which also made me very confident that this was an May of 69 tag. These are just some of the things I saw that convinced me it was indeed a very early car.

Also and just to make sure everyone understands, the door VIN tag decal is a reproduction from ECS. I do not believe there was still on one the original door as I cannot really see it in the photo and it is fairly rusty. The hidden VIN's do in fact match the car's VIN and the trunk lid design with regards to how the skin was wrapped around and it's shape where it was attached especially near the emblem is different than assembly line as are the doors.
 
#161 ·
Although the door VIN tag is a reproduction, the #42 FB page shows the original tag that was removed from the driver's door prior to restoration. The date of the tag is not readily apparent, although the upper L/H corner has what appears to be the "D" part of the date.
 

Attachments

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