Team Chevelle banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
While surfing the net the other day I found something I've never heard of before...

If you've got the time, please visit the following URL:
http://www.brooks-inc.com/ccc/projects/projects.htm
Scroll down a bit and take a look at the '66 Chevelle pictured. Then please
tell me if this car is bogus or if there actually were cars built with this
option. I haven't been able to find anything that verifies it...

Any info would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,030 Posts
A L89 is an aluminum head 396-375/ L78 is a iron head 396-375 option L89 first year was 69 and continued into 70 L89SEDAN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
While I personally think this is a bogus claim, there is a tri-power option shown in the factory assembly manual for 67s. It is shown as option code L-64, but CANCELED is stamped on those pages. If this 66 had iron heads, I might have wondered about it being an original a little more. John Walker
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
3,375 Posts
I hate to say 'no way' because so many strange things happened, but I agree with jmw. I was thinking about the planned L64 option for 67 and well, maybe they tried it out in late 66 but thought.. naaaah.

They said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is an all original car and is documented as being one of 5 -- S/S L-89 cars built..
There was only one L-89 Convertable and the rest of the 88 cars were Malabu 300 Post cars. And were L-88s.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

strike three. i think someone has their numbers a bit mixed up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,074 Posts
Chevy really didn't start installing aluminum heads on any production big blocks until the 68 model year. 3x2 induction was used by Olds & Pontiac in '66, so Chevy may have wan't to say 'me too!'. Seeing as it was planned on being introduced in for '67 there may have been some engineers cobble together a mule car prior to that (i.e. summer '66), but as for a production '66 I'd have to say No Way! Remember, Chevrolet invented the famous parts bin, and rodders were inclined to purchase the latest go-fast stuff over the counter and bolt them on. No big deal. A '66 L89 with tri-power is a tantalizing thought, though.

P.S. My wife's cousin in Warren, Michigan has an '86 IROC-Z that the engineers used to develop the '87 IROC-Z 5.7.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
Rick, the firewalls were black.

Mild68, I don't think they painted the tail panels black in 66. That started in 67.

Nonetheless, I think this is a complete BS job. I have never seen original paint that nice. There is no way that paint is original. You guys are right, the tri-power wasn't even an idea until 67.

Anyone who writes SS as S/S does not know Chevys very well in my opinion. The stuff about shifting at 7500 rpm makes the whole thing sound even more bogus. 7500 rpm is pretty damn high for a big block. Why would it "get away from you" at a lower rpm?

------------------
Jameel Qazi
#'s 67 SS
 

·
Gold Founding Member
Joined
·
1,348 Posts
Is it true that GM had GTO &442 drop the tripower so it would be a vette only thing
I had heard somewhere that they wanted the Vette to be untouched so that was why the chevelle didnt get it and also the reason GTO & 442 had to drop it MIKE
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Yeah, Mike, GM decreed that for the '67 year cars there would be no more multiple carbs, except for the Corvette. I think that a large part of the reason was the introduction of the Quadrajet. It gave enough flow to feed the big-blocks, and was a lot simpler than dealing with the linkage, jetting, etc. of multiple carbs. They probably kept it on the 'Vette for image reasons and because the Corvette motor was a 427.

Too bad. Could you imagine a stock tri-power LS-6!!!!!!
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top