I've seen people referring to the L below the paint code on Kansas City built cars stating that proves that is an SS. Is this a proven way of showing the SS option? Were there SS's made without the "L". This is all new to me as I thought the only to prove an SS was a buildsheet or a #'s matching motor. Thanks, Matt

I've seen people referring to the L below the paint code on Kansas City built cars stating that proves that is an SS. Is this a proven way of showing the SS option? Were there SS's made without the "L". This is all new to me as I thought the only to prove an SS was a buildsheet or a #'s matching motor. Thanks, MattThose making such statements are wrong. Sellers and wishful thinkers only see the "L" and "SS" mentioned on the same page and assume it to be true.

While there is evidence it MAY mean the car was slated for SS trim at Fisher Body, there's no proof. AFAIK, there's only been one claimed KC 70 Chevelle SS without the "L" code but I don't know what proof was offered. In all the threads I've read I haven't seen mentioned a non-SS 70 KC Chevelle with the "L" however.

Only time will tell...

The same theory has been going around for the Baltimore built cars also.
Their is a huge thread about this some place...

Dale is right. There's no proof that the letter "L" on a Leeds built car (or any other plant for that matter) guarantees that the car is a true SS, no matter how hard some Kansas car owners would like to believe it's true.

It's unfortunate that sometimes a speculative theory gets repeated so many times that suddenly it becomes gospel to the unsuspecting.

I wholeheardedly agree there is no proof, but in the Kansas example, the data leans highly towards it.

I personnaly, would feel uncomfortable without it on a Kansas 69 or 70, and would need solid proof determining it to be an SS to include numbers matching engine and an undisputably authentic build sheet.

And if you did have such an Example, there would be several people extremely interested to see it.

Proof with the "L"? No...... because without specific Kansas Plant documents to prove the theory, there will never be actual proof, only theory.

But the the car's authenticity will be seriously questioned without it, and will warrent signifigant documentation to back it's claim.

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but no matter what "proof" is offered up by people who are hard at work researching the All seeing "L" or any of our other experts. I support Andy's work wholeheartedly, and tip my hat for all the work he has done for the discovery process. Unless GM comes out publicly and states, "Yep, you guys discovered the true meaning of the cowl tag codes". It will NEVER be definitive. Sorry. And I really don't think they would ever do it for several reasons.

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but no matter what "proof" is offered up by people who are hard at work researching the All seeing "L" or any of our other experts. I support Andy's work wholeheartedly, and tip my hat for all the work he has done for the discovery process.

Who's Andy?

Who's Andy?
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/olp/images/statusicon/post_old.gif Mar 2nd, 06, 11:40 PM
SS69Chevelle (http://www.chevelles.com/forums/member.php?u=23359) http://www.chevelles.com/forums/olp/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif
Team Member http://www.chevelles.com/forums/team_member.gif
Andy

http://www.chevelles.com/forums/olp/images/statusicon/post_old.gif Mar 2nd, 06, 11:40 PM
SS69Chevelle (http://www.chevelles.com/forums/member.php?u=23359) http://www.chevelles.com/forums/olp/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif
Team Member http://www.chevelles.com/forums/team_member.gif
Andy

Thought you referenced someone who posted on this thread and saw no Andy - Thanks Thought maybe you meant Dale who did post this thread and has done an unbelievable amount of research himself.

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but no matter what "proof" is offered up by people who are hard at work researching the All seeing "L" or any of our other experts. I support Andy's work wholeheartedly, and tip my hat for all the work he has done for the discovery process. Unless GM comes out publicly and states, "Yep, you guys discovered the true meaning of the cowl tag codes". It will NEVER be definitive. Sorry. And I really don't think they would ever do it for several reasons.


We are all in agreement there is no definitive proof, but Andy has collected data on approx. 550 Kansas SS Chevelles with the "L"...

As Dale mentioned, we have yet to see documented Proof, of a legitimate Kansas SS without the "L"....

So yes, no documented proof of....... No documented proof against, and 550 cars thus far, say it's so.

Use your own mathmatical speculations on whether it's fact or fiction.

It's certainly a little bit more conclusive than a common wives tale and again....... I'd be very uncomfortable having a 69 or 70 Kansas SS car without the "L" without having solid, unwavering documentation.


We all agree however, there is no definitive Proof.

We are all in agreement there is no definitive proof, but Andy has collected data on approx. 550 Kansas SS Chevelles with the "L"...

I'd be very uncomfortable having a 69 or 70 Kansas SS car without the "L" without having solid, unwavering documentation.


We all agree however, there is no definitive Proof.

Do all the 550 Kansas SS chevelles researched have solid unwavering documentation?

We are all in agreement there is no definitive proof, but Andy has collected data on approx. 550 Kansas SS Chevelles with the "L"...

As Dale mentioned, we have yet to see documented Proof, of a legitimate Kansas SS without the "L"....

So yes, no documented proof of....... No documented proof against, and 550 cars thus far, say it's so.

Use your own mathmatical speculations on whether it's fact or fiction.

It's certainly a little bit more conclusive than a common wives tale and again....... I'd be very uncomfortable having a 69 or 70 Kansas SS car without the "L" without having solid, unwavering documentation.


We all agree however, there is no definitive Proof.
John, I'm not in any way disagreeing with the statistics. In fact, I'd very much like it to be so, this way we could thwart the criminals in yet another way. The fact remains, that this is not about math, it's about getting GM to guarantee the numbers ACTUALLY mean what we think they do. I doubt they will ever come forward and confirm the data mostly because of the lawsuits that would arise. I too, agree I would not be buying a Baltimore or Kansas City built car if I was looking for an SS car if the cowl didn't read "L", but the ball always rolls back to bullet proof documentation and that's just the way it is. Period.

I totally agree....... There's just enough out there to make you nervous enough about it to totally discredit it as a wives tales.

I too, would want the "L" when purchasing a Kansas SS because of that.

That's my only point. No proof, just enough to make you nervous without it.

hey Guys, I am Andy, my research is based specifically in the 1969 year which is not what this thread is about, but the discussion is related. Pretty sure someone is tracking 70 tags, I'm not sure who though. I appreciate the comments of support mentioned before and concur with the discussion about proof of the L meaning. we do know some facts based on current research and available info, both Kansas and Baltimore for what ever reason used the L on their trim tags, that's pretty much where the known facts stop. The real meaning of the L may never be known. I'm pretty sure that it is Fisher process info that we need to help determine the meaning since I am leaning on the fact that it is body related, trim or something else perhaps. I welcome any input, agreed or against any theories that are out there so I can use them to help guide the research. One thing needed for my 69 research is more input and data. I am currently adding VINs and limited trim tag data but one person limits the scope of data. I could really use a combined effort of many Chevelle owners to obtain more and complete info. To answer the other question about the 550 Kansas cars, No they do not all have proof. There are a limited few that are complete with other documentation at this time. That is the gray area of my research, yes the others may be original SS bodies but until proven each one must be suspect. I also talk with Dale on occassion and we have shared some info to help the hobby. I'm in Afghanistan right now but I continue to monitor and add numbers when I can. I can be reached at andrew710@aol.com if anyone wants to send new data or further contact. I do not release data to third parties without owner approval. take care guys and have a great holiday. I hope to post updates to the 69 data soon. Andy

Anddy thanks for the work and for answering my question.

So we are saying that the "L" would be a good sign? My Baltimore car has no L so I hope its an ss. Have no other documents...oh well enjoy it anyway

So we are saying that the "L" would be a good sign? My Baltimore car has no L so I hope its an ss. Have no other documents...oh well enjoy it anywayThat is what counts the most is to enjoy your car :thumbsup::yes:

So we are saying that the "L" would be a good sign? My Baltimore car has no L so I hope its an ss. Have no other documents...oh well enjoy it anywayNo, the "L" theory is for KC-built Chevelles in 1970. The theory for 1970 Baltimore Chevelles is "B D" on the body tag. A search on "Baltimore Tag" will turn up some threads.

I wholeheardedly agree there is no proof, but in the Kansas example, the data leans highly towards it.

I personally, would feel uncomfortable without it on a Kansas 69 or 70, and would need solid proof determining it to be an SS to include numbers matching engine and an undisputably authentic build sheet.

And if you did have such an Example, there would be several people extremely interested to see it.

Proof with the "L"? No...... because without specific Kansas Plant documents to prove the theory, there will never be actual proof, only theory.

But the the car's authenticity will be seriously questioned without it, and will warrant signifigant documentation to back it's claim.
I agree with John ........
Any authentic 1969-1972 Leeds/Kansas buildsheet, will match "some" numbers on the Kansas/Leeds trim tag.

When speculation and rumors are at epidemic proportions, the only way to solve this mystery, is to have the people with hard core, rock solid proof, come forward, and prove it with their cars authentic buildsheet,
and with pictures of their cars original trim tag, only then will we be able to determine the "real purpose"
["of what the "L on the trim tag really meant", during the Fisher Body process, of building these cars"] .....

Then we, can "rest assured", that the sweep dashed, original chrome side moldings, amber turn signal cars, WITHOUT THE L CODE, are not mistaken for the REAL Chevelle Super Sports......

The only useful way to dis-prove any logical theory, is with authentic original factory documentation......
Any of these (4) authentic original factory documents ... can help prove it left the factory, an original SS ...
1) the original buildsheet .......
2) the original P-O-P .......
3) the original number matching engine ..... w/ partial v.i.n# .......
4) the original dealer invoice ......

"box 24 of the original 1970 Kansas buildsheet can be matched to the original Kansas trim tag ...
thats the only logical way, in my opinion, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt", to most skeptical Chevelle enthusiast's, that their Kansas/Leeds built 1969-1972 Super Sport came from the factory, originally dressed as a [SS454-LS6 or LS5], or as a [SS396-L78 or L34] or a small block SS .....

although I am still a confirmed believer that the trim tag's [L] original purpose, was a way to signify "Super Sport" cars...... I have no proof ...but, I've never seen a SS in person, without the [L] ...........

With the possibility of, 30,000, "[Leeds] Super Sport Chevelles/El Caminos/Monte Carlo/GMC Sprint SP built",
between 1969-1972,....... you would expect to see several hundred, non-L trim tag coded,
documented Super Sport or (Special Performance) cars, if the trim tag [L] really did mean nothing...

If it did'nt mean anything, then I wonder why, they did'nt put the "L" on all the cars built at the Leeds/Kansas factory ... or ... why they put the "L" on any of these cars, in the first place .....

These are the only Kansas/Leeds built vehicles, that I have seen, that came with the [L], on the trim tag ...
1969-1972 Chevelle Super Sport ....
1969-1972 El Camino Super Sport .....
1971 Monte Carlo Super Sport ...............
1971 GMC Sprint SP (Special Performance) Invader 454 ......

If any TC member has a documented authentic 1969-1972 Kansas/Leeds built non-Super Sport coupe, or a 4door, a wagon, a 6cylinder, ect. with the original buildsheet, [WITH the L code, on the trim tag], we'd like to hear about it ..... and we'd also be interested in seeing, the buildsheet.... Don.

I don't have the car yet, but it's paid for and I have the build sheets, the car has two mentions of SS on the build sheets 1) =Z15 SS GROUP 2) DR PNL MLDG SS.

There is a big chunk of space rotted out of the first column on the build sheets so I don't know what else it may contain. But the car is a Kansas car made at the Leeds plant and here is the tag info is on my 71 SS 350 4 bbl is, if anyone cares:

ST 71 12637 K 047795 BDY
TR 714 67 67 PNT
04B 01424 L

Don't forget Leeds Chevelles were built in Kansas City, Missouri, not Kansas.

Sorry...nitpicker here:p

Anyways, my dad's 70 Concours wagon is a #'s matching, KC built car with a buildsheet. I will check the trim tag next time I am in his garage.

I don't have the car yet, but it's paid for and I have the build sheets, the car has two mentions of SS on the build sheets 1) =Z15 SS GROUP 2) DR PNL MLDG SS.

There is a big chunk of space rotted out of the first column on the build sheets so I don't know what else it may contain. But the car is a Kansas car made at the Leeds plant and here is the tag info is on my 71 SS 350 4 bbl is, if anyone cares:

ST 71 12637 K 047795 BDY
TR 714 67 67 PNT
04B 01424 L


thread hi-jack? WTF???

i think this should be re-posted as its own new thread.:cool: