1969 ~ 440 'Cuda 'M-Code' vs. COPO #9561 Camaro

-
one of the reasons I say all your ##s are wrong because when these car came of the car lot they wouldn't fall out of a tree( for say) they would take them to the track and run them right off the lot and take them back and raise hell!!!and the dealer after he knew he was going to race them (with a void warranty)they would remove the resistor from behind the tacks that would let the tack read its true #######s they recommended shifting them at 5500 when they were really shifting at.4500 and that's why I say all you ###s are wrong, the #s you have is what's been printed from either the factory or magazine testing, but the S/S racers or the the ones that lets say volunteered their warranty the next week at the track would run a full sec.or better and then when they started changing,cams, intakes, carbs.tying the frame taking the spare tires out and grinding them so thin on the inside to make them so thin they would smear silicone in them to hold enough air to keep them on the rim!!and on and on to the point the ###s got to be very impressive I wish I could remember all the #######s but I can't and as far as that COPO chevy!! well that thing wouldn't smell the smoke of sum of those MOPARS and I think if you were to go to a national event you will see how the top runners are or who runs the ####I know there are some members on here LIKE Locomotion is one that I have raced that's on here and a few more I was hoping would chime in and back me up and or correct me..dam I could go on and on about this BUT I don't want ANYONE thinking i'm just a bench racer!!!and if you're ready to find out about the 64 S/S HEMI well after I check that thread I guess I'll tell ya!!!!:cheers: and as far as S/SA,S/SB the HEMI rules that class and if they were bêat the winners were cheating!!!!!!thanks for letting me put in my in put not trying to start any thing!!! classless Artie
 
Artie,

What did you just say............

June 1969 Super Stock NHRA National Records for the Classes these cars would fit in.

1969 - 440 'Cuda = 'SS/GA'
1969 - 'COPO' Camaro #9561 = 'SS/EA'

SS/GA....... 11.92 @ 119.16 MPH
SS/EA....... 11.86 @ 120.90 MPH
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
Production Numbers,

1969 440 'Cuda..................................................................344 'Automatic Only'

1969 'COPO' Camaro #9561 {L-72} Cast Iron 427.............822 '4-Speed'
..........................................................................................193 'Automatic'

1969 'COPO' Camaro #9560 {ZL-1} All-Aluminum 427.......47 '4-Speed'
...........................................................................................22 'Automatic'

In my area {Westchester County, New York} we had several dealerships
who moved a few 1969 'COPO' Camaro's.

* B.F. Curry Chevrolet {Scarsdale}
* Byrne Brothers Chevrolet {White Plains}
* Curry Chevrolet {Yorktown}
* Baldwin Chevrolet {Long Island}
Click to expand...


Any idea how many were made into Yenko cars?
 
Looks like '69 Yenko's were mostly cosmetic. 67&8, Yenko was ordering in big block Camaros, then switching out the 396 with an L-72 427. 69, Chevy went ahead and put the 427 in themselves.
 
And I definitely like this one also.

212637.jpg
 
I think both cars were important in the world of muscle cars. The second gen cuda really was limited by its architecture when it came to ultimate big block performance, both in a straight line and in the twisties. Mopar realized this and made the 3rd gen that could accommodate their maximum performance motor without being completely lopsided in weight distribution.

That said, the 2nd gen is my favorite.
 
Front-to-Rear Weight Distribution

1969 440 'Cuda
* Front..... 57.2% {1875 lbs.}
* Rear.......42.8% {1404 lbs.}

* E-70 x 14" Red-Streaks on 14" x 5.5" Rims

'Like Skating on a Cold Winters Day'
 
It was still a 'Missle' despite,

* Restrictive Exhaust Piping
* Pretzel-shaped {Driver side} Exhaust Manifold
* Cast iron Intake Manifold
* Carter AVS {750 CFM}
* Single Point Distributor
* 10.0-1 Compression
* Hydraulic Camshaft {.450"/.458" Lift ~ 268*/284* Duration ~ 46* Overlap}
* Valve Springs {129 lbs. Valve-Closed ~ 258 lbs. Valve-Open}
* Non-Adjustable Stamped Steel Rocker Arms
* 3.91 Gears

h6150570.jpg
 
godfatherofchry said:
one of the reasons I say all your ##s are wrong because when these car came of the car lot they wouldn't fall out of a tree( for say) they would take them to the track and run them right off the lot and take them back and raise hell!!!and the dealer after he knew he was going to race them (with a void warranty)they would remove the resistor from behind the tacks that would let the tack read its true #######s they recommended shifting them at 5500 when they were really shifting at.4500 and that's why I say all you ###s are wrong.....
Click to expand...

I dunno.....this almost sounds like some conspiracy theories I've heard! I think putting a resistor in would actually show a LOWER number on the tach when the engine would be spinning HIGHER, correct?
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
Front-to-Rear Weight Distribution

1969 440 'Cuda
* Front..... 57.2% {1875 lbs.}
* Rear.......42.8% {1404 lbs.}

* E-70 x 14" Red-Streaks on 14" x 5.5" Rims

'Like Skating on a Cold Winters Day'
Click to expand...

This. They just couldn't hook. Even with 7 or 8" slicks. The 3rd gen had about 8"more hood, 12" less trunk, wider track and bigger tires. Also almost 2" lower.
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
January 1969

Both 'Musclecars' were released as 1969 mid-year additions.

69' 440 'Cuda {440/375 HP - 'M-Code'}

69' COPO Camaro #9561 {427/425 HP - L-72}
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that 440 horsepower be "adjusted" with those quirky exhaust manifolds?.......is there a true reading?
 
cudavert said:
I dunno.....this almost sounds like some conspiracy theories I've heard! I think putting a resistor in would actually show a LOWER number on the tach when the engine would be spinning HIGHER, correct?
Click to expand...
you got it,they didn't have computers then to stop over reving and they also knew what they would be run like
 
Jeez, I just looked up the cam in that L72. 242 @ .050, 306 advertised. .520 lift. Solid

Apples to apples, put a .528 purple shaft in that m-code and boil the tires. ;)
 
Cudavert,

I have the 1969 440 A-Body Exhaust Manifold 'flow numbers' somewhere in my files.
I'll try to locate them, and post the 'numbers'.

It was 'not' pretty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1973 and 1974 'Stock Class', we fit into B/SA {8.50 - 8.99 Wt/Hp} ~ and in Super/Stock = SS/FA.

In 1975, the NHRA refactored the 1969 - 440/375 HP down to '356 HP'.

From 1975 thru 1983, we were in C/SA {9.00 - 9.49 Wt/Hp} ~ and in Super/Stock = SS/GA.
 
godfatherofchry said:
you got it,they didn't have computers then to stop over reving and they also knew what they would be run like
Click to expand...

He is saying that a resistor would give the opposite effect of what you claim it did.

You say the resistor caused the tach to read higher than actual Rpm
He says resistor would cause the tach to read lower than actual Rpm.

I feel it would have little effect, as the tach is just displaying ignition pulses from the coil. Putting a resistor in line would just weaken the signal.
 
Regarding 'Doctored Tachometers',

The 'Doctored Tachometer' was utilized by the Factory, Central Office or Regional
Zone Office.

Not the Dealers.

Basically, the Tachometer read a higher RPM than what the Engine was Revving at.

This was 'only' done on 'Factory-Installed' Tachometers.

The Tachometer usually read at approximately {+10%} over the true Engine RPM's.

Example #1, if the Tachometer was reading 1000 RPM's, the true Engine RPM was at 900.

Example #2, if the Tachometer was reading 5000 RPM's, the true Engine RPM was at 4500.

This helped {minimally} in warranty claims.

The 'amateur' didn't know he was getting the 'Royal Plum', but the experienced guys
never went by the Factory Tachometer.
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
Regarding 'Doctored Tachometers',

The 'Doctored Tachometer' was utilized by the Factory, Central Office or Regional
Zone Office.

Not the Dealers.

Basically, the Tachometer read a higher RPM than what the Engine was Revving at.

This was 'only' done on 'Factory-Installed' Tachometers.

The Tachometer usually read at approximately {+10%} over the true Engine RPM's.

Example #1, if the Tachometer was reading 1000 RPM's, the true Engine RPM was at 900.

Example #2, if the Tachometer was reading 5000 RPM's, the true Engine RPM was at 4500.

This helped {minimally} in warranty claims.

The 'amateur' didn't know he was getting the 'Royal Plum', but the experienced guys
never went by the Factory Tachometer.
Click to expand...

interesting the factory tach in the green m code read like 400rpm over at idle.
 
Kid,

Yes,,,,,,

The 'Doctored Tachometer' in the 'M-Code' would read 4400 RPM at........'IDLE'

He He He.............

In all honesty, I don't ever remember a Mopar having a 'Doctored Tachometer'.

That was reserved for GM Products {Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick and Oldsmobile}
 
MTmopars said:
He is saying that a resistor would give the opposite effect of what you claim it did.

You say the resistor caused the tach to read higher than actual Rpm
He says resistor would cause the tach to read lower than actual Rpm.

I feel it would have little effect, as the tach is just displaying ignition pulses from the coil. Putting a resistor in line would just weaken the signal.
Click to expand...
what did I do ??? get It bass asswords ???weaken the signal yes I guess you could say anybody want to explain this better! Im :-?
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
1969 COPO Camaro #9561 {L-72 ~ 427/425 HP}

Tachometer


Click to expand...

Don Godfather,

I knew what you meant, it just didn't come out the way you wanted it to.

It could be called a 'positive reading' Tachometer, where it registers a
higher reading than the 'true' Engine RPM's.

1000 RPM reading on the Tach Dial, when the Engine is at a true 900 RPM's. A {10% variation}.

A purposely incorrectly calibrated 'electronic' Tachometer from the {Factory}.

{Below; AC Delco Circuit Board}

elect.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top