Team Chevelle banner

"Earliest" built '70 Chevelle: WIW?

22K views 165 replies 43 participants last post by  GotGrunt 
#1 ·
  • Like
Reactions: chevydog66
#11 ·
Nothing special except the low body number and the build date of May '69.

Thanks to Dale MacIntosh for the pic from his website.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12stones
#6 ·
As a vehicle starts to be formed at the beginning of the line, the build sheet, sometimes with copies on front and sides, is attached. As it goes through the plant, the workers looked at the sheet to know what parts to install. They knew what section of the sheet to look at for their part station.

Without a build sheet, they have no idea what parts to grab.

Two or three copies of the sheet are on the vehicle so whatever side the worker is on, he can see it. This is why some cars have more than one build sheet hidden in them.

It's done the same way today but with a hand scanner they hit a code on the vehicle carrier and their computer tells them what stuff to install.

Hand built one off pre-production builds are made before the line is started for a new production year to confirm things fit but they're usually test beds, driven for durability then scrapped. These may not have build sheets.
 
#10 ·
Rick Nelson has been working with the owner Dave. I get to see the car close-up next weekend in Chicago at the MCACN show. I have heard it's going to Barrett-Jackson in January. No idea what it's worth.

Flint didn't use the traditional "build sheet" so I don't know what they were implying, maybe that it was built before the normal production would have codes for all the parts that didn't exist yet... :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: chevydog66
#14 ·
Short explanation is is was a prototype for testing that. The dash is dated for the car.
 
#15 ·
So..... Only one estimate as to its value? Interested in opinions here, too. Is this a true "one of none" car because it somehow escaped the normal disposal process of OE prototype builds? Or is it simply a pieced together scrapyard refugee with a lot of "weird" parts and pieces? I read the reference that the "42" in the VIN means it was one of 49 prototypes built, and "GM execs" have reportedly confirmed that. But I see no written or email evidence of that confirmation. Playing the devil's advocate here: How did this one manage to "escape" the normal GM scrappage procedures? The '65 Z16 "prototype" with all the unique parts was another example that somehow fell into private ownership, but the unique hardware found on it was endemic to only the Z16, and added to a regular production Chevelle. I'm really surprised that the prototype '70 Chevelle here was built so close to regular production start-up, but used so many dimensionally different components. I would have thought this late in the pre-production process they would have had all the dimensions and other elements pretty much set. As for its value? I think it's either a priceless piece of Chevelle history, or since it lacks any specific documentation, it's just another '70 Chevelle with a low VIN and some very unique parts. Since we all hang so much importance on validation and verification, I think in order to try establish any valuation that evidence needs to be forthcoming. Not trying to unnecessarily stir the s**t here, but rather trying to keep us all thinking and moving forward on establishing true Chevelle history. Sooooo.... This is either in immensely incredible find for the Chevelle community, or there may exist the possibility of a hoax. There are just a few things here that make me rub my chin a bit and go "Hmmmmm." Other opinions or speculation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DROPTOP L-89 LS-6
#20 ·
Interesting car.....
I'm not on FB so this info may be out there on this car.
I am assuming the car was pretty complete when discovered for some of the claims to be correct that they are making.
I would like to know if the original engine was with the car and also how or if it was stamped.
I would also like to see how or if the rear end is stamped since it has a 4.10 rear gear.
I see other things that raise questions as well. Not doubting it is what it is just would like to learn more about how the claims were verified.
 
#21 ·
The engine was long gone Joe. It may have had more than one engine in it during it's tenure as a test mule for GM. Don't know how it could be narrower, 69's had about the same dimensions and both used the same floor pans. I'll reserve a value until I see it next week. It's a historically significant car, but is it THAT special? I don't know.
Would we think a pre-production '68, being a totally new model, as being MORE significant than this car if one was to turn up?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACES1
#23 ·
Dave I know you will put the EYE on it at MCACN!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACES1
#24 ·
There's nothing "one off" about it. My 70 has the same dash except the warning light is for the line lock. ;)
 

Attachments

#27 ·
I agree with that also. Why wouldn't it be tested on a 1971 pilot car if the actual seat belt light law didn't go into effect until Jan. 1st 1972? This is why some early build 72's don't have the light. There are some "before" pictures of this car on that facebook page. If I saw that car for sale in that condition I wouldn't even think it was a real SS. That brings me to my previous question I asked in this thread... how can this car be "verified" without a build sheet or any documentation of any sort. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about these cars but I'm always learning. That being said, what makes this car the earliest known 70 SS 396 as opposed to the earliest known 70 Chevelle Malibu?
 
#26 ·
Well Dan... in my case it absolutely did not. It came from a 72 Monty Carlo, I'm sure, I pulled it along with several others. :) I was just messing around.
Re-pining 17 wires in the fuse box wasn't fun either.

 
#30 ·
People, you have to understand this is a pre-production prototype. It's a 1:1 scale model handbuilt to test assembly line processes. Rick Nelson has explained the dash. It has a 70 mold number, and it has the seat belt light that all manufacturers knew was going to be mandated on 1/1/72. Manufacturers didn't wait until the week before chit was supposed to go into effect... :)
Here's my thought... since the 70 dash was completely new compared to previous models, things had to be tested to be sure they would fit in a specified space, and would not be hard to put together as to delay the assembly line. GM knew the seat belt light was going to come online in '72, so why not make sure it would fit the new model on down the road??

Body number 138, it's clear that GM started to run some of these down the body shop jigs to test the jigs and spot weld processes, and they must have used cowl tags to keep track of them. Somewhere down the line someone decided that this, and a few previous cars, were good enough to get VIN's to be used as test mules. Not sure if the IIHS or other insurance crash departments were doing crash testing on new models back then, but I'm sure someone was smashing a few of these prototypes to see if there were any inherent design flaws. Magazine cars had to be available for testing, cars had to be available for brochures, etc... as Rick has said, most of these cars were crushed. This one somehow got most likely used as a regional Zone demo car, then sold to an employee. It was found in New Hudson MI. which is in the shadows of the Milford GM proving grounds.

Is it a "true SS" ??? I don't think there's any way of knowing EXACTLY what it is, because we don't know exactly what it was built WITH. They only know waht they found when they got it home and taken apart. As told, it was a test mule to test assembly line processes and we don't know what GM changed on the car in the few months it was used around the plant. I'm excited to see what it is and hear about what they discovered in the restoration of the earliest known '70 Chevelle.
 
#32 ·
Here's a GM ad for the all new 1970 Chevelle SS 396, note the dash has chrome around turn signal indicators and lowers, proto car does not. Did the 70's come with chrome around them ever? Also, watch at about 13-15 second mark in the ad, watch right above the cig lighter, could of swore I just caught a glimpse of a seatbelt warning light.



I don't have a clue how to approach a value on a possible 1 of a kind. It's in it's own category if valid.
 
#34 ·
Gary, watch again, right as the ad changes scenes, right above the lighter, maybe just a glare but it caught my eye. Keep your eyes on the lighter as the ad changes. Go full screen right at the 14 second mark.
 
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