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


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-04-2011, 03:20 AM
Kurt S Kurt S is offline
Yenko Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 2,968
Thanks: 2
Thanked 603 Times in 298 Posts
Default Re: Any truth to this 396/402 update?

To go back to this, I suspected it was related to emissions too. But I've never found any 1970 rule change that being over 400 cu in would help. And .030 wouldn't affect emissions enough either.

But for some reason, they made the change. And it got really confusing cause they called it a 396, but it was a 402. But all the service docs called it a 400 - and there was also the SB 400. Reading service docs can be like a replay of 'who's on first...'
__________________
Kurt S - CRG
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-04-2011, 04:36 AM
Nova Research Project's Avatar
Nova Research Project Nova Research Project is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chesapeake, Virginia
Posts: 647
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: Any truth to this 396/402 update?

This might be what the dealer was talking about. Here is some 1970 Model Year Info. It does mention the 1969 Camaro 396 as it relates to the 402 introduced in 1970. See page 7.

1970 New Model Summary

And information on the 402 Mark IV Block

400 Cu. In. Engine Released

However would not apply to an earlier 1969. That would have probably be a green block issue.

Greg
__________________
Nova Research Project at chevynova.org
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 03:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

O Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.