68 yenko camaro

[BEAUMONTBILL]

I JUST PURCHASED A CAMARO THAT I BELIEVE TO BE A 68 YENKO. IT HAS BEEN SITTING FOR OVER 15 YEARS AND IS IN NEED OF TOTAL RESTORATION. HOW CAN I VARIFY THAT IT IS A YENKO CAR. I OBVIOUSLY HAVE THE VIN NUMBER
AND THERE IS A YENKO NUMBER ON THE TAG BUT I DON'T KNOW WHO TO TALK TO. CAN SOMEONE HELP ME DOCUMENT THIS CAR? THANKS

[elcamino]

I can't help but if you post the VIN and cowl tag data I am sure someone will be able to look at it and render an opinion.

mike

[JoeC]

There is not much info available on the 68's. From what I have read, the 1968 Yenko Camaro should have a 140 mph speedometer, larger front sway bar, and some other upgrades although they may not all have it. There have been some articles on the 68 Yenko Camaro that state the original engine is a 427 with a MV code. Other people claim that all 68 Yenkos had the 427 engine transplant done by Yenko. There should be a Yenko ID tag with a YS-80xx number. I don't know if anyone other then Vince E. has all the 1968 Yenko Camaro vin. numbers. Does this car have the original engine and/or rear end? There appears to be some evidence that some of the 68 Yenko's were done as COPO 427/425 cars and maybe some were COPO 396/375 but I would guess that they at least used the COPO system to receive the 140 speedo and other HI Performance parts.

[Kurt S]

I should be able to tell you if you post the VIN, trim tag and YS #'s.

BTW, there's nothing that anyone can do with a VIN #. Anyone could walk up to the car in a parking lot and get it. Then what? http://www.yenko.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/smile.gif

Kurt

[Rowdy Rat]

Joe,

I guess you can count me in with the group that believes that all of the 1968 427 cars were transplants; at least with the data available at this time.

I know that there have been several articles written about an "MV" code 427 in 1968. I have personally seen one of these "MV" blocks (and am still trying to purchase it http://www.yenko.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/smile.gif ); it is most definitely a standard bore 396, casting number 3916323. The information stamped on the pad is for a 1968 Camaro with casting and assembly dates in early 1968. The owner of the block was told that the car was delivered to Yenko Chevrolet and subsequent data I have received from NCIB records confirm this. The final piece of evidence would be to find the car that this engine belongs to, but so far, I haven't been successful in locating it.

Regardless, I believe that what has been discovered to this point rules out the possibility of an "MV" code 427 (I don't see GM using the same broadcast codes for both a 396 and a 427 during the same model year). The more likely scenario is a special code assigned to the L-78s installed in COPO 9737 Camaros in 1968.

Regards,

Stan Falenski

[Edited by Rowdy Rat (02-20-2001 at 08:52 AM).]

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

Tom/Rob;
When you guys acquired your collection of Yenko paperwork ect, did you happen to get old purchase orders? Specifically, from 1967-1970? If not, do you know if John Connelly has them?
Marlin

[JoeC]

Stan, I have more questions then answers on the 1968 Yenko Camaros but there have been a few articles that make the claim of a COPO 427 1968 Camaro. If the factory used a standard L78 why would they put the special MV code on it? Maybe it was a special COPO L78. I do not know. Jim Mattison did recall in his interview with MCR that the 68 Yenko had a factory installed 427. The article in CHEVY ACTION Magazine Oct. 1992 written by Mike Mueller appears to prove that at least one 1968 Yenko Camaro is a COPO 427 car. The Camaro is the white 68 Yenko now in Kevin's collection. The magazine has a picture of an original COPO order form dated 2-13-68 requested by Yenko Chevrolet and Span inc. for a 9737HD sports car conversion. One line of the document listed the RPO L78 that appears to have been deleted and replaced by other components. The article on the blue 1968 Yenko Camaro raffle car also claimed it was a COPO 427. I do not know if Kevin received all the documentation when he purchased the cars but a close look at the paperwork may answer some questions.

[Kurt S]

From the Tonawanda build records, MV was a 396 with a L88 carb on it. No idea why it was done (maybe so Yenko could reuse the carb??), but that's what it was.
Lot of BS out there about the MV being a 427, but GM documentation proves otherwise.

Kurt

[bowtie3168]

I would ask Brian Henderson, and Ed Cuneen.

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

Not so fast on the 'GM documentation'!!

GM doc's say that the 'CTB' and 'CTC' engine codes are for '70 Z28 Camaros, 4speed and a/t respectively. However, GM doc's don't say that these codes were also used in COPO 9010/9737 for NOVAS!!!!! It appears that GM did not always recode the engines when they were used in COPO applications.

The 'MV' coded engines could very well fall into the same situation. It might be a 396 under normal circumstances, but when used in conjunction with a COPO application it could be something totally different. I have seen some of the paperwork on the '68 Camaro, and it does reference an L72 engine being tested in conjunction with COPO 9737 for Yenko.

I have learned; never say 'never' or 'always' where GM is concerned!!
Marlin

[Kurt S]

Marlin,
The usage of the LT1 may not have been documented completely (no real surprise since no changes to the engine assembly were required and it was low volume). GM would never issue a new engine code if the engine assembly was exactly the same. Notice how GM commonized their engines in the 70's so they could use the same engine is several car lines.
But this is the build list for the plant to make the engine. It had to be correct or they couldn't build it. Very different item.
Usage tables are notoriously inaccurate and hard to keep updated. Bill of materials have to be accurate because they are used by the engine plant.

[Rowdy Rat]

Marlin,

The situation that you describe is a bit different. GM used engines with the same broadcast code for multiple vehicle applications (e.g. L-78 Camaros and Novas in 1969), but the engines (and components) were always the same regardless of which car that they went into, much the same as your LT-1 Camaro/Nova scenario. GM also used the same broadcast codes for different engine applications in different years. I canÃt see where GM would ever use the same broadcast code for different engines in the same year. Imagine the confusion this would cause!

KurtÃs information makes a lot of sense. Joe had asked why GM would issue a special broadcast code instead of simply using a standard Camaro L-78. IÃm sure most of us are aware that the engines shipped from Tonawanda, Flint, etc., were long blocks; components like, alternators, pulleys, and such were added to the engine later at the final assembly plant. One of these components added was the carburetor. A special broadcast code would let the line worker know that the engine received a different carburetor from other L-78s on the line. Why a different carburetor was used at all is another question worth researching.

Joe, I have the Super Chevy article on the 1968 COPO Camaro˜ Any chance that you could fax or e-mail me a copy of the Chevy Action article? IÃd really appreciate it!

Regards,

Stan Falenski

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

Kurt;
I agree with you, but why did the '69 COPO cars receive new engine codes? Are they different than other L72 engines? I always thought it was really strange why GM would issue new codes for some engines, and reuse codes for others. I speak mainly from the Yenko Nova perspective, where the Z28 codes were reused but GM did issue a unique rear end code!

Stan;
Good explanation, I'm starting to understand!! I can fax you the Chevy Action article, let me know your fax number via email.
M

[Edited by YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY (02-21-2001 at 10:59 AM).]

[Edited by YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY (02-21-2001 at 11:00 AM).]

[JoeC]

The Super Chevy article states that Fran Preve has Tonawanda documents that list the 1968 MV code 396 as a "CONV L78 COPO F BODY". They speculate that this was "Pigginese" for hiding a special 427 engine installation. This would not be the only time Chevy would spec out a L78 but install a L72. Chevy also did this with the COPO Chevelle. In the option field of the COPO 427 Chevelle build sheet it lists a "L78 396 4BL-V8". The L72 or the 427 is not indicated on the build sheet unless you can decode the 9562 or the engine code box. The COPO guys were hiding the 427 engine in the codes. Maybe they did this on the 68 Yenko Camaro. Maybe they didn't but it was possible to do. The Chevy Action article states that two 68 Yenko Camaros have been found with original MV code 427 engines with a "321" casting number and they also have the POP with the MV code. The COPO document is also shown. Of course, just because it is in a magazine doesn't make it true but this is what they claim.

[Kurt S]

The L72's in 69 got different codes because something on the engine assembly was different, probably ex manifolds, the most common reason. That's why the L48 (SS350) engine in 69 is a different code in the full-size cars versus the Camaro/Chevelle/Nova (rams horn vs log style).

I've heard several people with more knowledge than me dispute that article. And it was Fran that later found the bill of material that showed it was a 396. I may be mistaken, maybe it was a L88 intake (cause the carbs were installed at the assembly plant).
Several people have found 396 MV blocks (including Stan), and noone has yet come forth with a 427 MV block. Someone was blowing smoke in that article. http://www.yenko.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/smile.gif

[Keith Tedford]

Joe C. is right about the build sheets. The engine codes were there in boxes 5 and 27 and the COPO code was at the bottom of the sheet. Without knowi8ng what these codes meant, you would just assume that the car had an L78 motor as listed with the rest of the options.
In our area at least the 427 Camaros and Chevelles were no secret. We found out about the COPO options in early Calendar year '69. Several dealers in the Toronto, Oshawa area sold COPO Chevelles and Camaros as did several others. Not too many could afford the cost of the car and the insurance so they didn't exactly jump off the lots. Even the L78 was not shown in the normal option lists but the hard core people knew they were available. Same with the COPO cars. GM had a lot of government agencies hounding them in those days so low key worked best in these situations. GM sure didn't seem to be hiding anything from us. GM sent him all the COPO information for ordering the cars right away.
The 4 speed cars came to the assembly plants with the clutch assembly, pilot bearing, bell housing and exhaust manifolds. The automatics came with the flex plate. Each engine had its own code. The big cars had different exhaust manifolds attached which would not fit a Chevelle chassis. Different engine code again. If everything was identical, as in the '68 Chevy II and Camaro 4 speed cars, then you got the same MQ engine in both. The 50 COPO automatic Chevy II cars in '68 were coded differently again. Then again just when everything starts to make sense GM changes the rules.

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

Bill;
Any update on the '68 Yenko Camaro purchase??
M

[BEAUMONTBILL]

thank you very much to all the people that e-mailed to offer there help with my 68 yenko
purchase. i have to admit that i was overmelmed by almost everyones willingness to offer advice. i am relatively new to the yenko owners family and have not met most of you yet. i have had the positive experience to meet brian henderson who was nice enough to travel hundreds of miles to help me purchase my yenko chevelle.his seemingly endless enthusiasm towards the yenko/supercar hobby is incredible. i'd also like to thank marlin spotts who i met when i purchased my first yenko, a red deuce. marlin was genuine in his efforts to help me every step of the way. his feedback and experiences haved helped more then he could imagine. chuck huber spent several e-mails with me and several phone calls talking about the 68 camaro's. omar in california talked with me at length about his experiences restoring his 68 yenko and has even offered detailed photo's of his car.there are others that e-mailed and offered there help and to everyone a heartfelt thanks. now the rest of the story....... my 68 yenko camaro is the real deal. unfortunetly when i picked up the car the owner told me the 140 mph speedometer was "stolen the night before". if anyone knows where i can get another one from please e-mail me. oh yea one more thing to get off my chest. whats the problem with vince emme? after all the helpful clues and suggestions i received i followed one which suggested i call vince.
he i was told was the guru,the man ,the one true source to look to. easy enough, i thought. after a brief introduction i told him what car i bought and asked him how i would go about having him document it for me.
the answer was quick and to the point."i was supposed to get that car. i'm not helping you at all......click,hangup,end of conversation. quite a different experience then i had had with everyone else i contacted. several people have now informed me they had similar responses. i didn't realize i was doing something wrong by calling mr emme. i was just seeking some help. oh well, live and learn. thanks again to everyone for there help. i will be starting a frame off restoration soon and will be in tennesse with my chevelle. hope to meet some of you there.

[Chevy454]

Bill:

You are not alone! That is almost the exact same response Vince gave us on our '69 Yenko Nova, only I think the word "pissed" was used somewhere in there! It sounds like you met the majority of the "true enthusiasts" first, though, and got to see that there really are people out there who are willing to help another eunthusiast out, even if it doesn't benefit their pocket book...unlike "you know who".

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

Bill;
Good Luck with the car, bummer on the speedo though. Unfortunate situation with Vince.
M

[Charley Lillard]

I feel I should speak up. I have talked to Vince a few times and have never had a Problem with him. He has always been OK to me. Just my personal experience's.

[johnk]

charley;
i also have spoken with vince a few times
with no problem at all.mind you,this was way
before these cars got really popular with enthusiasts.he verified my vin for my deuce
which i bought close to 20yrs ago.i've spoken
with him probably when he first obtained the
records,& he answered any questions i had for him.like i said,this was in the early 80's.i would just like to mention that not only was this web site a great idea,enough can't be said about the people that are willing to share their information with others on the bulletin board towards any questions they might have concerning a purchase or restoration of one of these cars!
it's a FUN hobby to be enjoyed!!!i also i felt i had to speak out&would like to thank marlin for always taking the time to answer anything i could throw at him !!!&will continue to throw at him in the future!!a little common courtesy is not too much to ask for!!!

[BEAUMONTBILL]

Thanks everyone for the suggestions I received about the 140 mph speedometer. After much discussion with the previous owner of my 68, he was able to "find" the original speedometer. The mileage shows just over 4000 miles. No doubt that equals about 16,000 trips down the 1/4 mile.

[JoeC]

BEAUMONTBILL, Glad to hear you recieved the 140 Speedometer. Does the car have the "MV" code engine block and the "QD" rear end code?

[BEAUMONTBILL]

JOE,
THE BLOCK IS NOT A MV CODE, IT IS A CE.
THE PREVIOUS OWNER CLAIMED IT WAS ORIGINAL. HOW CAN I TELL FOR SURE? LUCKILY THE CAR DOES HAVE THE CORRECT REAR. THE CAR IS YS#8051. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY INFO THEY WOULD SHARE? THANKS

[Belair62]

CE code would be a replacement or warranty block.Original block was probably a "casualty of war" back then.Pretty common situation. Seems Chevrolet was quick to yank out the motor and replace shortblock rather than fix the original under warranty.Anyone have any insight as to why they did this ? Was it strictly because it was faster and cheaper to replace than repair ? I have a COPO Chevelle with a CE which was replaced at 11k miles under warranty according to original owner due to a cracked piston/scored cylinder.By the way...need a Jack head Chevrolet dealer emblem/license frame for this car still if anyone knows of one.Dealer was in Alhambra california.

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

Bill;
Check the dates next to the CE stamping, and also the casting date of the block located on the bellhousing flange. Hopefully, they will be within a few months AFTER the build date of the car. I believe this car should have a CE block, since they were short block transplant cars.
M

[GMH454]

Well if he claimed a CE was original he's got more guts than I have. I may not know all the possible derivations of the codes but if it says CE it is a warranty replacement engine or an over the counter engine. I have 2 L-88 engines, one in a A-Prod Vette, together with the parts invoice that have CE codes. I have heard that CE stands for "Chevrolet Enfgine" or "counter Exhange"
Put up all the numbers on the pad the casting dates and casting numbers on the block and we can be more specific.
Terry

[GMH454]

Dumb question on my part but when did Chevy start using the CE code.

[JoeC]

That is a good question. The earliest I have seen is 1968. I don't know if it was used before this. Here is a link with some information on the CE block.
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/3000/ceblock.html

[Chevy454]

This is off the top of my head, but didn't "CE" blocks replace the "IP" blocks? Wasn't it the "IP" blocks that dealers originally used for transplants in '67, then went to "CE" in '68? Any of this sound right?

[Belair62]

Joe...thanks for posting the link....site said my CE0 74444 block is a 1970 Tonawanda block which falls in line with original owner stating he had a warranty block put in at 11k miles due to a cracked piston/scored cylinder...

[elcamino]

CE is a warranty engine. It most likely is only a short block but it not an original engine block. The big blocks were problematic back then. I had a 1970 SS454 and it used oil right from the get-go. 500 mile to a quart was normal, the car was a the dealer so many times they were sick of seeing it.

I know fella that had a 1971 SS454 and he blew up the engine in the first few months he had it. Beat the hell out the car in the 2 yrs he owned it, anyone who wanted to drive it he let them. I know another that blew 4th gear (could not shift into 4th) in his trans on a 1969 442 and drove it for years without fixing it because his warranty was up. I remember riding with him and he was hard on the car, scare the crap out of the passengers. I don't thing he ever did fix it, car was a piece of junk when he traded if off for a 1975 GMC Jimmy.

[Edited by elcamino (03-25-2001 at 08:20 AM).]

[Kurt S]

Bill,
I sent you a couple of emails about your 68 Yenko and the CE block.
Did you get them?

Thx.
Kurt

[BEAUMONTBILL]

KURT,
SORRY KURT I NEVER RECEIVED THEM. TRY AGAIN AND I'LL BE SURE TO ANSWER. THANKS BILL

[Kurt S]

I had sent it to [email protected]. Resent it.

New email ID, old one is dead: [email protected]

Kurt

[Edited by Kurt S (04-05-2001 at 10:55 AM).]