Go Back   The Supercar Registry > General Discussion > Supercar/Musclecar Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-30-2006, 08:31 PM
CamarosRus CamarosRus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Auburn,WA (between Sea&Tac)
Posts: 2,673
Thanks: 113
Thanked 241 Times in 89 Posts
Default Re: Why no L35 in 1970?

Duhhhhh, I obviously was not awake yet, and paying attention to WHAT site I was on...........
__________________
Chuck Sharin
[email protected]
Auburn,WA (30 miles South of Seattle)
70 Camaro R/S Z-28, L-78, R/S SS
69 Camaro COPO "recreation"
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-30-2006, 09:23 PM
YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY's Avatar
YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY is offline
Yenko Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: PA
Posts: 13,097
Thanks: 720
Thanked 360 Times in 144 Posts
Default Re: Why no L35 in 1970?

".... and then totally redeem yourself"
__________________
Marlin
70 Yenko Nova-350/360, 4speed M21, 4.10 Posi (Daddy's Ride)
69 SS Nova-396/375hp, 4speed M20, 3.55 Posi (Benjamin's Ride)
67 RS Camaro-327/250hp, 2speed Glide, & 3.08 Open (Danny's Ride)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-30-2006, 09:47 PM
Rixls6 Rixls6 is offline
Yenko Contributing Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: between Chicago and Milwaukee, IL
Posts: 2,684
Thanks: 22
Thanked 120 Times in 45 Posts
Default Re: Why no L35 in 1970?

My guess is that the LS3 was being offered in `70 as a 330 Horse 402, so it took the place of the L35, and gained 5 Horse.
Also now you could get this LS3 in a non-SS Chevelle, but not in the SS as the lowest horsepower engine was the 402/350 in the SS.

Rick
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-30-2006, 10:00 PM
PeteLeathersac's Avatar
PeteLeathersac PeteLeathersac is online now
Yenko Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: O' Canada
Posts: 12,387
Thanks: 18,608
Thanked 5,656 Times in 2,411 Posts
Default Re: Why no L35 in 1970?

What Rix says is correct as I remember reading how GM had what they called their 'engine deproliferation program' before 1970 production, deleting as many similar suffixes as possible. . Inventory of so many different suffixes was a problem also keeping them all in the pipeline so if an engine was close to what they wanted, it was slated for production and the 'excess' suffix motors dropped. . Comparing how many total suffixes were offered between '69 & '70 should show a big difference. .

~ Pete
__________________
I like real cars best...especially the REAL real ones!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-31-2006, 06:49 AM
Gregs396 Gregs396 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Pa.
Posts: 104
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Why no L35 in 1970?

The LS-3 didn't start until 1971, and it was a 300HP version in the Camaro. The 1970 had either the L-34, or the L-78 402.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-31-2006, 06:22 PM
Mr. T Mr. T is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Spokane Valley, WA USA
Posts: 1,423
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: Why no L35 in 1970?

Thanks for the replies guys. Yes, the LS3 did not become a BB RPO until 1971. Maybe adding the LS5 and LS6 to the RPO Chevelle/Camino engine list had something to do with dropping the L35, and Chevrolet thought they had enough engine variations for 1970. So, since you couldn't get the L35 in a Chevelle or El'Camino, you couldn't get it in a Camaro or Nova.
__________________
Tony
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-31-2006, 06:39 PM
Mr70's Avatar
Mr70 Mr70 is offline
Yenko Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Illinois
Posts: 20,900
Thanks: 70
Thanked 3,494 Times in 1,419 Posts
Default Re: Why no L35 in 1970?

Because in 1970,we saw the birth of these brand new engines:
*LS-3 402/330HP-Malibu & Monte Carlo
*LS-4 454/345HP-Passenger series
*LS-5 454/360 & 390HP-Corvette-Chevelle-Monte C. & Pass.
*LS-6 454/450HP-Chevelle
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-01-2006, 12:54 AM
ohhawk ohhawk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Iowa
Posts: 430
Thanks: 3
Thanked 68 Times in 19 Posts
Default Re: Why no L35 in 1970?

www.chevelles.com/shop/ss_ident.html#70

Check first paragraph on LS3 commentary.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-01-2006, 01:47 AM
nuch_ss396 nuch_ss396 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Western North Carolina
Posts: 1,713
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Why no L35 in 1970?

WAIT !

Maybe this is the rationale:

Since the 396 was bored +.030 ( actually a 402 ) in 1970,
the HP rating would have been boosted and perhaps that is
why the L/35 disappeared. Still to this day, I wonder why
they made the 402. It almost seems like a manufacturing
mistake that got away from them. Does anyone know for sure
why the 402 came into existence?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-01-2006, 06:42 AM
Gregs396 Gregs396 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Pa.
Posts: 104
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Why no L35 in 1970?

[ QUOTE ]
www.chevelles.com/shop/ss_ident.html#70

Check first paragraph on LS3 commentary.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a Camaro guy, and was referring to their BB codes...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

O Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.