COPO 9511 [Archive] - The Supercar Registry

mockingbird812

07-18-2011, 12:28 AM

This was from Wilma's link:

<span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">G80 1969 Camaro Positraction rear axle, when ordered without RPO Z28 or SS 396. $56.90 48,755
G80 1969 Camaro Positraction rear axle. $42.15 48,755
G84 1969 Camaro 4.10:1 Rear gear ratio. $2.15 8,018
G84 1969 Camaro COPO 9511 4.56:1 Rear gear ratio. $42.15 N/A
G84 1969 Camaro COPO 9511 4.88:1 Rear gear ratio. $42.15 N/A</span></span>

Last column above is for total ordered. Each of the "COPO" item above is linked to an RPO of G84....I'm confused <<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/hmmm.gif !

Nova Research Project

07-18-2011, 05:09 AM

Hey All,

Consistent repeatable facts are what will make (or break) this review.

Let's start here as this is where the order process began:

1. The 1969 Nova Order form. On the Back of one would be the Available RPO axle options.

2. The Salesman Order and Price Guide. Specifically the <span style="font-style: italic">Vehicle Price Schedule</span>. This is from the catalog not the pocket price guide. This document has the limitations associated with the RPOs. Including what axle ratio was available (or not) with certain engine / transmissions combinations. It also included the power team chart and the associated ordering procedures.

These prices guides were updated at least quarterly. As things may have changed, it would be good to reference as many versions as possible.

I do not have hard copies of these documents. I will look to see if I have digital copies. If any one else has them please post.

Greg

Schonyenko2

07-18-2011, 05:41 AM

I have a copy of the ad for Kevin Suydamn's 69 Yenko Nova. It shows 4.10 rear. Does not state BE, or BV. Marlin, you explained the other day that the people who restored the car thought it was a COPO until they figured out that the info was not lined up correctly on the sheet. Any insight from that sheet to add to this discussion? It was my understanding that the 69 Yenko Novas were BV. If they started life as L78s are there docs on how they were ordered with rear codes?

I'd like to see docs on anything higher than 3.55. I've had an e mail stating 3.55 was all you could get in 69 without going through the 9511 process.

Nova Research Project

07-18-2011, 05:54 AM

As review, here are the listed RPO Axle codes and the associated broadcast and order codes:

1969 Nova....<span style="text-decoration: underline">Broadcast Code</span>
RPO...Ratio..Standard..G80 (Posi)
G76...3.36...BC*.......BD*
G92...3.08...PA*.......PE*
G94...3.31...BM........BS
G96...3.55...BN+.......BT+
G97...2.73...BI*/BP*...BQ*/PX*
GT1...2.56...BA*/PB*..BB*/PC*
H01...3.07...BL#.......BR#
<span style="color: #FF0000">None..3.73...BO........BU
None..4.10..............BV
None..4.56..............BW
None..4.88..............BX
</span>* 10 Bolt
+ Standard for L78 Manual
# Standard for L78 Auto

This is from published Chevy documents. Which only means these would fit into a Nova not that you could actually order them. As the Camaro shared the same parts, it makes the research tricky.

<span style="font-weight: bold">So the question is, which of these were available in a 1969 Nova, and if so how was it ordered?</span>

1969 Nova....<span style="text-decoration: underline">Broadcast Code</span>
RPO...Ratio..Standard..G80 (Posi)
<span style="color: #FF0000">None..3.73...BO........BU
None..4.10..............BV
None..4.56..............BW
None..4.88..............BX
</span>
Greg

Nova Research Project

07-18-2011, 06:26 AM

Hello Ken,

The original order form would have the non-standard axle ration written in on the Special Ratio line and the ZQ6 Performance Ratio box checked. Of course it would have to meet the rules in the Vehicle Price Schedule.

The non-standard axle ratio would be listed on the Window Sticker. Either under the order code listed above or possibly as ZQ6.

Axle code would not be listed on the Fisher Body sheet. However, the Engine code could be for L48, L34, and L78 in 1969. I believe that was the part that started the COPO thought (by it being on the wrong line due to a printer misalignment).

Another document that would show the axle code would be the GM Chassis Broadcast sheet. Line 6 Box 236. I have only ever seen one for 1969. While I have seen about a dozen for 1970.

And finally the POP would show the broadcast code.

Greg.

bergy

07-18-2011, 02:03 PM

Hey folks - this might not be a consideration, but the copo designation was required for non-standard drive train items because central office had to certify that the requested combination passed government emissions certification. I recall that it was a real pain (and time consuming) to get different combinations to pass certification - thus many odd (very low projected demand) combinations were dealer installed. I'm not saying that is what happened here - just trying to add to the discussion.

WILMASBOYL78

07-18-2011, 03:21 PM

Just curious..was the COPO 9511 used to get the 4.10 gears in the 70 Yenko Deuce cars..??

Now...one of our upstate neighbors is the original owner of a 1969 L78 Camaro....TH400..4.10 gears...I will see if he has any paperwork that might help with this discussion.

Interesting discussion...

wilma

67L78conv

07-18-2011, 07:59 PM

The G84 refers to non standard gear ratios and was used for multiple gear options 4.10 through 4.88. If I remember right I took the info directly off of the copies of GMs official sales records I have from 1969 which covers all options and models and the COPO 9511 was part of the description next to that RPO which does seem a bit odd to me as well. I will try dig them out and see if there is anything else that may be of help to the topic in particular for Novas and double check for anything else. Will take a few days though.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mockingbird812</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This was from Wilma's link:

<span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">G80 1969 Camaro Positraction rear axle, when ordered without RPO Z28 or SS 396. $56.90 48,755
G80 1969 Camaro Positraction rear axle. $42.15 48,755
G84 1969 Camaro 4.10:1 Rear gear ratio. $2.15 8,018
G84 1969 Camaro COPO 9511 4.56:1 Rear gear ratio. $42.15 N/A
G84 1969 Camaro COPO 9511 4.88:1 Rear gear ratio. $42.15 N/A</span></span>

Last column above is for total ordered. Each of the "COPO" item above is linked to an RPO of G84....I'm confused <<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/hmmm.gif ! </div></div>

Nova Research Project

07-18-2011, 08:15 PM

Hey bergy,

I am with you there. The RPO Codes were only the offered items. However the 1969 Nova Specifications did include the 3.73, 4.10, 4.56, and the 4.88. I expect they were submitted with the AMA Specifications. They were just not shown on the October 15, 1968 version of the AMA as the L78 was not listed. I do not know if the government emissions certification would have been completed accordingly.

The copy of the GM Archives 1969 Nova Model Specs (http://gmheritagecenter.com/gm-heritage-archive/docs/Nova/1969-Chevrolet-Nova.pdf) may not be the final versions. But they do offer a few clues. But only a few as there is limited coverage of the 396.

This did have a copy of the Power Team Charts. But that chart did not go past a L48 with 3.55 ratio.

This also had one copy of the Vehicle Price Schedule which did include the L78. It lists the Standard Ratio for all L78 transmissions as 3.55. Nothing higher than that is on the this copy of the chart. So how would you know to write in the others?

Greg

Nova Research Project

07-18-2011, 08:54 PM

More clues,

In 1968 (as of Jan 1868) the 3.73 for Nova has an RPO of H05. The 4.10, 4.56, 4.88 were listed but with a * to indicate they were only available in a Posi.

Again in 1968 the instructions in the dealer catalog stated there were three optional Ratios for Axles:

All for $2.15

<span style="font-weight: bold">Axles Rations:</span> See Power Teams chart for availability
<span style="font-style: italic">Economy</span> AXL1
<span style="font-style: italic">Performance</span> AXL2
<span style="font-style: italic">Special</span> (If axle ratio other than Standard, Economy, or Performance is desired, refer to Power Teams chart for availability - then list ratio on order form in box under "Special Ratio")

While in 1969 the same section lists:

<span style="font-weight: bold">Axles Rations:</span> See Power Teams chart for availability
<span style="font-style: italic">Economy</span> ZQ8
<span style="font-style: italic">Performance</span> ZQ9
<span style="font-style: italic">Special</span> ...

Again in 1968 the dealer catalog listed the 3.55 as standard on the L78. <span style="font-weight: bold">However</span> in 1968, Chevy listed the 3.73 (H05) as the Performance option. In 1969 there was no performance option listed. In 1968 the Special options were 3.07, 4.10, 4.56, and 4.88. While in 1969 the only Special list was 3.07.

In Summary, the specifications list all rations in both years. From a customer or salesman point of view:

In 1968 you can easily see the options and then write them on the order form. I.e. normal process.

In 1969 you could not see the options, but you could write them in on the order form. Would this trigger the COPO process?

Greg

Nova Research Project

07-18-2011, 09:14 PM

hey 67L78conv,

I hope you have better production data on the Nova.

I only show:

G96 (3.55)
1968 = 3,017
1969 = 3,833*

*about 73% for total L78 production (if you assume none were installed in L48 or L34). Not really realistic, so 53% of all 396s. Which means absolute best case 1,429 had other ratio axles install. More realistic is 2,500 of L78's had other axles. Could this many L78's be 3.31 or 3.07's?

H05 (3.73)
1968 = 1,127
1969 = 0

G84 (4.10, 4.56, and 4.88)
Not listed.

Greg

67L78conv

07-18-2011, 10:38 PM

As soon ass I dig the papers out I will let you know what I have. The lists are master accounting lists for all options both standard RPO and COPO options. In the case of the COPO options it tells me what vehicles the option was available on and the price but does not necessarily give the production totals for example it does not show the COPO 427 Camaro totals. If the rear end option has an RPO code like H05 even if it says COPO in the description then it will give me a total in 98% of the cases. If the option like G84 for special order gear ratio covers multiples like 4.10, 4.56 and 4.88 then it only shows the gross total and not a per gear total. These are broken down across each model and grand totals for all models.

Based on what I have seen from Camaro L78 production it would not surprise me at all if that many L78s were 3.55/3.31, 3.07 seems less common but I admit my overall data is not sufficient to draw any strong conclusion on it. A rough rating for overall gear ratio popularity when ordered would be most common to least 3.55, 3.73, 3.31, 4.10, 3.07, 4.56, 2.73, 4.88 when ordering the L78 package. A lot of people seem to have taken what was standard for the gear ratios on the engines for all first gens unless they knew what they were ordering or the dealer nudged them in another direction. Again this is more opinion than fact based on limited data and word of mouth from original owners.

Nova Research Project

07-23-2011, 07:24 AM

Hello,

I did find evidence of what the Axle Code would display on Chevy documents.

Not a Nova but... Here is an example from ssl78396 back in '09 posted to this site.

1968 H05 3.73 Ratio

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=24170&filename= 421468-IMG00112.jpg

Just need a bunch more to see the others.

Greg

Nova Research Project

07-23-2011, 08:15 AM

Hello,

In this thread over at Steve's, there is a Document that states the the 3.55 was not available on the Nova with the L78/M22 combo. It is dated 13 Sep 1968.

1969 Nova SS Documentation Thread (http://www.stevesnovasite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1584549&postcount=11) Cool story and a few other documents.

http://www.bracketracer.com/nova/misc/1969NovaL78-AttentionSalesManager.jpg

Greg

Schonyenko2

07-23-2011, 05:34 PM

I'd like to comment on the importance of this discussion. I, and I think may others have believed that you could order any rear ratio on a 69 Nova through 4.88 RPO. Not in 70 unless it was a COPO deuce.
The discussion now is that in 69 any ratio higher than 3.55 was a COPO order. That becomes significant as we all know how the COPO designation is thrown around to try to increase value.
The other issue relates to judging these cars, and what is now going to be correct, and accepted.
Is this an actual COPO specialty item, or is it determined to be like -- special pnt which is interpreted as a "special order" not a COPO order even though the order process is similar?

This is an important determination to make. I/we would appreciate any input anyone here might have. We want to get it right.

Nova Research Project

07-23-2011, 05:51 PM

Hello,

Speaking of 1970. There was a Scunico Chevrolet Fathom Blue / black interior L78/M21 Nova on Ebay back in October 2009. It had a very fuzzy shipper copy listing what look like 4.10. The shipper was dated 4/13/1970. Anyone know of this Nova? Or have a copy of the shipper?

Greg

PeteLeathersac

07-23-2011, 06:32 PM

Being the instigator of this Copo 9511 mission w/ my postings of the previous thread, I thought I'd better weigh in w/ what I understand..
Any and all Copo 9511 info is great to learn but specifically the situation for 1969 is most interesting, especially w/ respect to X-body Novas!.

Keep in mind that rear axle gear options were available for 1969 production a few different ways including dealer installation, other Copo options that included it w/ their package also the Copo 9511 option we're now discussing..

Being a Copo 9511 rear axle is a true performance Copo option, this is an important fact and waaaay different than an appearance option supplied by a Copo # or other special order method..

* Again I believe the Copo 9511 option for 1969 model production was available for <span style="text-decoration: underline">4:56 or 4:88 only</span> so higher than, <span style="text-decoration: underline">NOT including 4:10</span>..

<span style="text-decoration: underline">Copo 9511 Rear Axle/1969 Chevrolet model year production:</span>

- Copo 9511 was necessary to get <span style="text-decoration: underline">factory installed rear axles
beyond 4:10 </span> in a 1969 model year Chevrolet..

- This applied to A-Body, F&X Body cars also Corvettes too!.
(Different situation in years other than 1969 also unknown what
was req'd w/ other GM brand A-Body cars etc for '69?)

- 1969 A/F/X-Body cars & 'Vettes were built/delivered w/ the Copo
9511 rear axle option..

- Documents for Copo 9511 '69 Camaros shipped exist including a
Z28 also a Copo 9561 L72 car, hopefully more!.

- The Copo 9560 or 9561 Camaro w/ 9511 would be a Double Copo
without having 9737..

- A Copo 9560 or 9561 car w/ 9511 and 9737 could be a 'Triple Copo'..

- Since at least one Z28 Copo 9511 was produced, if any non
9560/9561 cars were built w/ 9511 & 9737 they'd be a
Double Copo too!.

- If Copo 9511 included components other than the rear axle supplied is unknown but questionable considering the option $ amount?. (rad etc)

- Other Copo # 1969 model A and F-body cars also 'Vettes were produced although a '69 Nova w/ Copo 9511 may be the only '69 F-body Copos built but regardless is <span style="text-decoration: underline">a real '69 Copo Nova</span>!!!

----------

An interesting document to review is the below ECL Sheet from CRG..
Note the references to Copo 9511 appears a few times..
Keep 'er going fellas and lets learn all we can!.

<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif
~ Pete

http://hotimg23.fotki.com/a/76_75/112_38/ECLsheetZL1Camaros-vi-th.jpg (http://hotimg23.fotki.com/p/a/76_75/112_38/ECLsheetZL1Camaros-vi.jpg)

PeteLeathersac

07-26-2011, 01:22 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PeteLeathersac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="font-style: italic">- Other Copo # 1969 model A and F-body cars also 'Vettes were produced although a '69 Nova w/ Copo 9511 may be the only '69 <span style="font-weight: bold">F</span>-body Copos built but regardless is <span style="text-decoration: underline">a real '69 Copo Nova</span>!!!</span>
</div></div>

Fixing my own typo above,
I meant to say X-body here not F as in...a '69 Nova w/ Copo 9511 may be <span style="text-decoration: underline">the only '69 <span style="font-weight: bold">X</span>-body Copos built</span> but regardless is a real '69 Copo Nova!!!

So where'd everybody go on this topic anyway?.
Out searching for '69 9511 cars?.
Especially those real '69 COPO N<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/headbang.gifVAS!!!

<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif
~ Pete

67L78conv

07-26-2011, 02:27 AM

I am still working on it, for my part as I had PM'd Nova Research Project I am still digging through my GM paperwork. It just happens to be a much larger task than I anticipated but I am getting closer for sure. Hopefully my search of the documents will yield something useful to the discussion.

mockingbird812

07-26-2011, 03:41 AM

So, only a solid lifter Chevy could get a 9511?

PeteLeathersac

07-26-2011, 07:46 PM

Found a bit more 9511 info on this below CRG link w/ more clarification Copo 9511 was req'd to get 4:56 / 4:88 only and 4:10 available w/ RPO G84...

http://www.camaros.org/pdf/options.pdf

Note beside RPO G84;
4:10 available as the RPO alone..
4:56 and 4:88 req'd Copo 9511..
Also note under the 'requires' column is 12x37 for Coupe only
(so there goes the ragtop Copo possibilities!)..
Nothing indicating it required any specific engine so a Copo 9511 6-cylinder car possible?.

Also waaay down the page 9511 clearly notes 4:56 and 4:88 ('69 only)..

Keep digging!.
<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif
~ Pete

WILMASBOYL78

07-27-2011, 02:31 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nova Research Project</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hello,

In this thread over at Steve's, there is a Document that states the the 3.55 was not available on the Nova with the L78/M22 combo. It is dated 13 Sep 1968.

1969 Nova SS Documentation Thread (http://www.stevesnovasite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1584549&postcount=11) Cool story and a few other documents.

http://www.bracketracer.com/nova/misc/1969NovaL78-AttentionSalesManager.jpg

Greg
</div></div>

This is interesting...my 68 L78 Nova has the M22 with a 3.55 rear...really don't see the issue...if you could get an m21 the 1st gear is the same..?? certainly would be helpful to ahve the M22 with 4.10 or stronger gears...given what the car would probably be doing <<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/burnout.gif

Schonyenko2

07-27-2011, 10:05 PM

Please check out the post uhnder COPO USA on the DH Nova. It shows a BV coded rear that he states is original to the car.
So how do we classify this. COPO, or RPO?

mockingbird812

07-27-2011, 10:20 PM

DH '69 Nova axle code info here, (http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=455739#Post4557 39)

PeteLeathersac

07-28-2011, 12:53 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schonyenko2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please check out the post uhnder COPO USA on the DH Nova. It shows a BV coded rear that he states is original to the car.
So how do we classify this. COPO, or RPO? </div></div>

Again click on this CRG F=Body chart, X cars too?.
http://www.camaros.org/pdf/options.pdf

'69 RPO G84 = 4:10 / BV
'69 Copo 9511 4:56 / BW
'69 Copo 9511 4:88 / BX

<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif
~ Pete

Schonyenko2

07-28-2011, 06:01 AM

Well, according to this, if we're going to take it literally, there should be some L89 Novas. There's nothing saying L89 Nova N/A. (Big smile)

I do see what you're referring to on the COPO rears. Again, I 'd like to see a couple of window stickers that have that callout listed. Those rears are nothing special other than their rarity. They aren't like a BE which is a heavier duty unit than a BV.

WILMASBOYL78

07-28-2011, 01:25 PM

That would be cool <<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/3gears.gif...L89 Nova with a 4.88 COPO rear...maybe one will turn up now...Kwizz you around??

wilma <<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/rolleyes.gif

PeteLeathersac

07-28-2011, 04:26 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schonyenko2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I do see what you're referring to on the COPO rears. Again, I 'd like to see a couple of window stickers that have that callout listed. Those rears are nothing special other than their rarity. They aren't like a BE which is a heavier duty unit than a BV. </div></div>

I feel differently and think <span style="text-decoration: underline">any</span> '69 Copo 9511 cars are indeed something special, especially F-cars and ultimately more so if an X-body!.
Again 9511 being a Copo performance option is an important part of the equation and much different than appearance options!.
Also any '69 X-body 9511 cars are real Copo Novas!!!

Yes a BE was more HD than a BV but we haven't determined BW/BX and/or any 9511 rear components factory supplied or that they're lesser to BE parts?.
Keep in mind 9511 was an available option to the BE's supplied w/ the 9560/9561 cars!.

Lets look for any '69 9511 cars w/ factory build documents/parts, again a couple of F-body cars are supposed to exist w/ authentic paperwork?.
Actual components and tube stamps shipped w/ 9511 cars will be interesting to note too as what info exists suggests the factory may have supplied some cars w/ 9511 components using BE or other stamped carriers on hand and factory 4:56/4:88 cars not always w/ a BW/BX?.

On the L89 Nova topic, I'm still a believer some may've been factory shipped but until bulletproof history/build documents show up am not convinced the head games/Pop car or any others claiming to be genuine really are?.

Back to the '69 9511 X-body cars, all seems to indicate they were built so lets find these real '69 Copo Novas!.

<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif
~ Pete

69L72RS

07-28-2011, 09:08 PM

The 9511 should have two letters after it to designate the axle ratio and type of ring and pinion.

The 9511 codes for a Nova that got a 4.56 and a COPO Camaro that got a 4.56 would have different suffixes.

The Nova would have received a standard duty 4.56 ring and pinion set (3862527-3862515) while the COPO Camaro/Chevelle would received a 3917973 (HD 4.56)(3916230-3916231) ring and pinion set.

The same applies for the 4.88s.

I know of a few COPO Camaros that have original "BE" rears with
the original 3917973 (4.56) gears. Two have window stickers that have the same suffix after the 9511 optional ratio code.

Hope this helps.

PeteLeathersac

07-28-2011, 09:52 PM

Thanks for your input and great info!.
Yes the A/F/X-body codes you're referring to were different depending on which ratio 9511 was ordered..

1969 F-body 9511 order codes;
<span style="font-style: italic">(<span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> tube stampings)</span>

4:56 = 9511-<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">DT</span></span>

4:88 = 9511-<span style="font-weight: bold">'__'</span>
<span style="font-style: italic">* If someone has this 4:88 order code, please post it here</span>

Good info on the two known 9560/9561 window stickers w/ the 9511-DT..
Also being originally supplied w/ the BE tube stampings!.

Are you absolute and how so on different gears only being supplied unless first a 9560/9561 F-body or 9562 A-body cars?.

Love to see paperwork etc of known 9511 '69 F-body cars if anyone can share?.
Or any Copo 9511 info, especially for 1969!.

<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif
~ Pete

69L72RS

07-28-2011, 10:18 PM

9511CB = 4.88 (3862528-3862516)

I have the "DT" suffix listed for the 3916230-3916231 COPO HD 4.56 and a different suffix for the standard 3862527-3862515 4.56.

PeteLeathersac

07-28-2011, 11:08 PM

Purrrfect and thanks for the '69 9511-<span style="text-decoration: underline">CB</span> 4:88 order code!.
Aside from availability questions, is there any indication X-body cars would be any different than an F-body?.

Can you please share any of the non HD codes too?.
And for certain are the <span style="text-decoration: underline">non</span> HD 4:56 ring/pinion #'s posted what was factory installed w/ a '69 <span style="text-decoration: underline">non</span> 9560/9561/9562 A/F or X-body Copo 9511 order?.
Also are these the same/different than part #'s ordered for counter parts and/or installation at the dealer level?.

Thanks and please post anything Copo 9511, Vette's too!.
No '69 Copo 9511 X-cars yet but we're certainly learning something!.

<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif
~ Pete

-----------------------------------------------

1969 F-body 9511 order codes;
<span style="font-style: italic">(not tube stampings)</span>

4:56 = 9511-<span style="font-weight: bold">DT</span>

4:88 = 9511-<span style="font-weight: bold">CB</span>

-----------------------------------------------

hubleyman

07-29-2011, 05:53 AM

It seems like you are looking for cars that were built with some unique rear gears…

Here’s a 02A Fremont built 69 Chevelle that came from the factory with 4.88 posi. A friend of mine swapped out the entire rear diff with a more drivable ratio for the previous owner (he sold it at a swap meet some 20 years ago) so unfortunately I can’t get any codes off of it.

This car was the terror of my neighborhood back in the early 70’s when I was a teenager. It ran the typical Cragar SS’s with TA’s – which got smoked on a daily basis. Smoke occasionally came out of the cabin as well, but that’s a different story….. It always had a 454 in it and sported SS454 badges on the fenders from way back then. Bench seat, T400 on the column, gauge package and not much else.

Without an original rear housing to view, and no window sticker or build sheet (at least not yet, the interior is still all original and intact), I don’t think I have anything important to offer at this point in time???

My question is – are there any details that may be left on the car that would help this info gathering exercise? I don’t think the different ratios would require anything else special on the car, but if there is please let me know and I’ll look for it.

Charlie

http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k560/hubleyman/69Chevelle.jpg

Nova Research Project

07-30-2011, 06:30 AM

Hello,

I have hit bottom with most of my paperwork and manuals. I am still searching the pictures in my files. However my laptop died and will have to wait until I am back from the Nova Nationals.

Greg

PeteLeathersac

08-01-2011, 10:31 PM

Great postings everyone and please keep adding anything useful also keep your eyes peeled for any paper on that '69 Chevelle Hubleyman|.
The more we understand the facts of this whole 1969 Copo 9511 thing the better as more previously unrecognized real Copo performance option cars are exposed!.

Here's another possible below, read the ad and note the KM rear axle tube #'s and POP..
Original L78 block admittedly MIA but may be a deal for a real '69 Copo 9511 Chevelle?!

http://cars.trovit.com/index.php/cod.fra....14/org.1/pop.1 (http://cars.trovit.com/index.php/cod.frame/url.http%253A%252F%252Fwww.hemmings.com%252Fclassi fieds%252Fdealer%252Fchevrolet%252Fchevelle%252F12 50455.html/id_ad.519N1X41N-r/type./what.l78%20nova/pos.14/org.1/pop.1)

<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif
~ Pete

67L78conv

08-02-2011, 03:47 AM

Quick update, I am still rummaging through papers as well but did come across a hand written note that I had forgotten about in one of my binders of dealer paperwork. Apparently the RPO G80 positraction was mandatory when ordering the steeper gears under 9511. This is why I had placed the price at $42.15 instead of $2.15 in my sites RPO listings. I did note it on the site for future reference.

Small steps.

PeteLeathersac

08-02-2011, 04:18 AM

The info posted above including this link noted below all indicate G84 was req'd w/ a '69 Copo 9511 order, not G80?.
http://www.camaros.org/pdf/options.pdf

<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif
~ Pete

COPO_Anders

08-02-2011, 09:55 AM

When you ordered 4.56 gears in a 1969 COPO Camaro you had to pay something like $40 extra over the standard 4.10 gears, if I remember correctly. Had this something to do with COPO 9511 ? Otherwise the cost for installing 4.56 gears shold be almost the same as installing 4.10´s, I think. <<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/dunno.gif

PeteLeathersac

08-02-2011, 05:25 PM

From the great info shared above and what we've learned so far, yes a '69 Copo 9560 or 9561 car required Copo 9511 to be supplied w/ a factory 4:56 or 4:88 rear axle..
Same w/ a '69 A-body w/ Copo-9562 ('69 L72 Copo Chevelle)..

From what we've learned, a '69 F-Body Copo 9560/9561 car w/ a Copo-9511 rear axle besides noting 9560/9561 would also have included one of these below codes on their original window stickers;
Copo 9511-DT (4:56)
Copo 9511-CB (4:88)

Also from what we've uncovered, these '69 9560/9561 F-body cars w/ 9511 were shipped w/ a BE (4:10) tube stamping but containing factory installed;
3916230/3916231 ring/pinion components (4:56)
3862528/3862516 ring/pinion components (4:88)

Unconfirmed but probable is any 1969 Copo-9562 A-body cars ('69 L72 Copo Chevelles) w/ Copo-9511 would've been shipped w/ their KQ (4:10) tube stamping but containing the same factory installed components as the '69 9560/9561 F-cars w/ 9511 would;
3916230/3916231 ring/pinion components (4:56)
3862528/3862516 ring/pinion components (4:88)

* Again any 1969 Copo-9560/9561 F-body or Copo-9562 A-body cars without the Copo-9737 pkg but with Copo-9511 factory installed 4:56 or 4:88 rear axle would be a 'Double Copo'!.

--------------

Different story for any other 1969 non Copo-9560/9561/9562 cars shipped w/ Copo-9511 rear axle as they'd get window stickers w/ yet to be learned Copo-9511-'__' suffix #'s..
Being Copo-9511 was available for 1969 A-F-X-Body cars & Vettes, also unknown is if these code suffixes appearing on window stickers etc were the same or different than those of an F-body or each other?.

Although order code suffixes unknown, factory 1969 Copo-9511 cars should have the below tube stampings and components (again these are '69 F-body w/ Copo-9511 but non Copo-9560/9561 or '69 A-body w/ Copo-9562 cars)..

1969 F/X Body w/ Copo-9511 - <span style="text-decoration: underline">non</span> Copo-9560/9561 cars;
Tube stamping = BW (4:56)
3862527/3862515 ring/pinion components
Tube stamping = BX (4:88)
3862528/3862516 ring/pinion components

1969 A-Body w/ Copo-9511 - <span style="text-decoration: underline">non</span> Copo-9562 cars;
Tube stamping = KM (4:56)
3862527/3862515 ring/pinion components
Tube stamping = KO (4:88)
3862528/3862516 ring/pinion components

Anyone please feel free to add missing/more info or point out mistakes needing correction..
Same w/ anything on the '69 Vettes w/ Copo-9511, please add any info known also anything on '69 B-Bodies if available w/ Copo-9511?.

This whole 1969 Copo-9511 thing has been a great fact-finding exercise but besides confirming the above, most exciting and yet to come is finding and confirming any real 1969 Copo-9511 cars!!!

<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif
~ Pete

PeteLeathersac

08-02-2011, 07:31 PM

Fixing my own mistakes again, the part #'s I posted above for the <span style="text-decoration: underline">non</span> Copo 9560/9561/9562 cars w/ Copo-9511 4:88 ring/pinion are incorrect..
We still need these #'s!.

Again the ring/pinion #'s 3862528/3862516 are the HD parts supplied w/ an original '69 9560/9561 car ordered w/ 4:88's factory installed in their BE stamped tube rear axle carriers..
Also again maybe the same part #'s supplied w/ a KQ stamped rear in a 1969 Copo-9562 A-body ('69 L72 Copo Chevelle) ordered w/ 4:88's as Copo-9511?.

The above #'s make the BE w/ ring/pinion #'s 3862528/3862516 that Beater68427 found in his '68 more interesting?.
4:88 HD ring/pinion components added to a BE shipped w/ factory 4:10's or could it be a whole assy from a Copo-9560 or 9561 '69 Camaro w/ Copo-9511 shipped w/ 4:88's?.

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=356147&page=3

<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/hmmm.gif
~ Pete

PeteLeathersac

08-02-2011, 08:59 PM

Peeling back more layers of the 1969 Copo-9511 onion, check out this '69 in the below links.. (Link title suggests a '68 but the car a '69)
Sure the deck job can't help but make a fella suspect the originality of the L89 claims but if the BW stamping is genuine it's a '69 Copo-9511 car!.
If so it's a more rare car than an L89 anyway but especially so being this BW 4:56 is also a JL8!.

http://www.collectormotors.com/1968L89.htm

http://www.collectormotors.com/L89/27.jpg

What's anyone think?.
<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/hmmm.gif
~ Pete

69L72RS

08-02-2011, 10:22 PM

Here are a few clarifications. Sorry, I was in a hurry when posting earlier.

The "9511CB = 4.88 (3862528-3862516)" is from a Z28 not a L72 Camaro.
The 3862528-3862516 set is the standard duty gearset for a BX coded rear.
To the best of my knowledge the 4.88 was not able to be ordered with the L72 cars under any code.

The HD 4.88 gears were over the counter only (3916232-3916233)as
part 3917972.

The 9511DT code is from a factory ordered L72 Camaro with 4.56 gears [(3916230-3916231)set number 3917973].

Also, the "BW" axle cars that I have had in the past were rear drum brake cars.
The 4.56 ratio JL8 axles that I had were all "QZ" coded.
The rear that is pictured doesn't look like any JL8 that I have ever had.

PeteLeathersac

08-02-2011, 11:41 PM

Thanks again Julian for your input also the clarification!.
Not today but I'll pick up and make changes to the last postings that reflect your information supplied..
Please check back and make any notes you see fit..

Again I'm far from an expert on this 1969 Copo-9511 subject but hope we can all learn some solid facts that can be applied to any cars we may find..
1969 Copo-9511 A/F/X body cars also 'Vettes were built so lets find some!.
The previously posted link to the '69 NOM L78 Chevelle w/ KM rear axle tube and POP looks the most promising so far!.

<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif
~ Pete

67L78conv

08-03-2011, 03:36 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PeteLeathersac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The info posted above including this link noted below all indicate G84 was req'd w/ a '69 Copo 9511 order, not G80?.
http://www.camaros.org/pdf/options.pdf

<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif
~ Pete </div></div>

As I understand it which may be revised, the COPO 9511 is an override of the G84 4.10 gear set replacing it instead with the 4.56 or 4.88 (have not seen mention of any other gears as of yet). This option (COPO 9511) according to the note is available only when ordered with a posi rear which is G80 $40.00 and the gears cost the same $2.15 as the 4.10's making it $42.15.

In a nutshell to get a 4.56/4.88 you needed to order RPO G84 along with RPO G80 and then override the gear set by adding the COPO 9511 to replace the gear set, final price is still the same as ordering a regular old 4.10 posi at $42.15.

I know I have more on this but need to keep digging, I have gone through a good 8 feet of stacked papers so far so I will keep trying. This is the prime reason I had started my scan everything and post it campaign on my site so we can find info in seconds not days or weeks. Still a long way to go though on that one.

PeteLeathersac

08-04-2011, 05:35 PM

The way I understand it was ordering G84 w/ Copo-9511 automatically included the G80 being 9511 was a Posi only option, not available peg-leg?.
We really need to find some 1969 Copo-9511 window stickers!.
They're supposed to exist and hopefully can answer these and other questions?.
And again too, lets find some '69 Copo-9511 cars!.

<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif
~ Pete

John Brown

08-05-2011, 03:10 AM

So, would these be the right gears for a 9511 4.88 rear end?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/12-bolt-4...sQ5fAccessories (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/12-bolt-4-88-gears-camaro-chevelle-nova-COPO-oem-chevy-_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem19c76b6141QQitemZ11071 9885633QQptZMotorsQ5fCarQ5fTruckQ5fPartsQ5fAccesso ries)

http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif

69L72RS

08-05-2011, 03:20 PM

John

From what I have seen, the set on ebay has never turned up in a 9511 ordered rear. That doesn't mean that it isn't out there somewhere.

All of the 4.88 geared rears that I have seen were built with the 3862528-3862516 ring and pinion sets and have matching 4.88 axle coded stamps on the housing. None of these cars have been L72 cars.

I have only seen the set that is on ebay, listed in HD OTC parts books.

YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY

08-12-2011, 07:40 PM

Here is a pic of one of the Yenko Bulletins describing a new '69 Yenko Nova with the 4.10 gear:

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h68/aacorp/Ybulletin.jpg

SS427

08-12-2011, 09:53 PM

$3150 for a 69 427 Yenko Nova. Gee, I will have to give that some thought. The economy is in a downward spiral you know...... <<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/rolleyes.gif

PeteLeathersac

08-12-2011, 11:12 PM

Cool bulletin and thanks for posting it Marlin!.
Being a '69 w/ 4:10 I suppose it's not a 9511 car, unless 4:56/4:88 gears were swapped down to the 4:10's?.

Is this bulletin car the GR #393985 Stauffer car on the list/pictured below?.
Was the '69 Yenko Nova 'EC fiasco' car a red one and this same Vin or another?.

Someone needs to update this below linked page to include Copo 9511..
Charley/Mods?.
http://www.yenko.net/dealers/copos.htm

<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif
~ Pete

Bulletin/Stauffer car?.
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h68/aacorp/69YenkoNovaSuydam-1.jpg

YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY

08-13-2011, 12:32 AM

Yes, the bulletin car and the picture are one & the same. Note the separate '427' emblem on the fender vs. some that had the integreated version (ala Impala).

Sorry, I thought the discussion was around whether a '69 Nova could come with a gear ratio higher than 3.55 without it being a copo. I'm a little late to the party, but I always thought that the 9511 was for the special gear in the 'vairs. Maybe not, my memory is going....

Schonyenko2

08-13-2011, 05:52 AM

While Pete is talking about 9511 COPO for 4.56, and 4.88 availability, there's a 2nd sub discussion going on about rear ratio availability in 69 Novas. They are connected, but I suppose are two different discussions.
The 1st discussion about the 4.56-4.88 rears lead to the 2nd when I had some people acert that 3.55 was the highest ratio (BT) and 4.10 was a dealer installed option. I can't refute that acertion with any paperwork, or documentation, nor at this time can Greg Roberts.
So we actually have two discussions going on here that really are pretty inportant, and could change the way we look at some Novas. The Yenko 69s are one big important example. We assumed they had BV 4.10 rears, but now are wondering if they were BTs that Don changed to 4.10. We would hope to find some answers here. So, please try to find some documentable evidence to show how this all was done. If we need to move the thread again to a more heavily trafficed area., that's fine, as I'd sure like to get as much input as possible.
Or if the mods would like to split the subject, that's fine, but at some level I tend to think they may be related.
Schonye

PeteLeathersac

08-13-2011, 05:49 PM

For whatever reasons the Non Copo 3:55/4:10 and other factory and dealer supplied axles were included in this Copo 9511 discussion at the beginning and I've been trying to nicely bump it into the true 4:56/4:88 only facts all along..
So yes please let's separate the two subjects!.

Here's a link below to a new Copo 9511 thread and more specifically to <span style="text-decoration: underline">1969</span> when Copo 9511 included factory installed 4:56 & 4:88 only ratios..
1969 Copo 9511 A/F/X Body cars also 'Vettes were built and although largely unrecognized are true performance option '69 Copo cars to look for...especially the built but not found yet real '69 Copo Novas!.

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=457575#Post4575 75

<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif
~ Pete

JoeC

09-04-2011, 02:09 PM

Yenko used a COPO 9513 for the Stinger Corvair project 3:89 positraction differential

some info may be found by researching the speedo cable adaptors that were needed for the 4:10 rear.

I am not sure if they were needed for 4:56 or 4:88 or if they had anything to do with the RPO G84 that was added to the window sticker for 4:10 gear. It was only $2.15.

Looking at 1969 window stickers a 3:73 gear car only has RPO G80 but a 4:10 gear car has RPO G80 and RPO G84

Maybe the COPO 9511 needed a special speedo cable adaptor?

Pat70Z

11-07-2024, 06:18 PM

Looks like it's been a while since anyone posted on this thread, but I have questions.
In going over my recently purchased 1970 Z28 I found I do not have a COZ or COO coded differential. Sometime in the last 54 years the differential was swapped. It has also been re-geared to 3.55. What I have is something that may be of interest to the folks on this forum.

Differential tube stamp: BW 0429 G2
- 4.56 12 Bolt April 29 Second shift, Detroit Axle Plant

Casting Number: 3894860 NF
- 1967 - 69 Camaro (also 68-70 Nova)

Casting Date: D 189
- April 18, 1969

wheel mount to wheel mount: 60.00 inches = 1967-69 Camaro

Research says the 4.56 was not available as a standard option in 1969 and was only available with a COPO 9511 option.

The '69 housing is 2.5 inches narrower than the 1970 Gen 2 version. I will be searching for a correctly coded COZ housing for my 1970 Z. If someone has need of a 1969 BW coded differential housing, let me know.

DAVE H

11-07-2024, 08:23 PM

P.M. sent.

big gear head

11-07-2024, 08:36 PM