The 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS396 offered a complete performance package with image, name recognition, and the power of the vast Chevrolet dealer network. There was only one problem: As Car Life found in this January 1970 road test, it just wasn’t very fast.
1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS396 / Pastandpresentmotorcars via Hagerty Marketplace
The Chevelle SS396 arrived in 1965, initially as a pricey limited-production option package (RPO Z16). It went mass-market for 1966, and quickly established itself as one of the major players in the intermediate Supercar game. Curiously, except for the early Z16 cars, most contemporary road tests found the SS396 to have only average performance in stock form, and its handling and braking were not great even by the standards of the time. However, the performance potential of the hot Turbo-Jet 396 engines was considerable, and it was a Chevrolet, which made it a force to be reckoned with in this segment.
Car Life began:
SEE THAT BRUISER over there, the one with the bulging shoulders, broken nose and HARD LUCK tattooed on his knuckles? He’s a devoted family man, brings home puppies he finds abandoned in the road and has a glass jaw. But he looks so mean, when he talks, people listen.
As the politician-peddlers say, it isn’t what you are, it’s what projects. The Chevelle SuperSport [sic] 396 projects. While Ford rules NASCAR and Plymouth concentrates on the drags, the Chevelle moves out of showrooms everywhere.
It always has, and it will in 1970.
By the end of the 1969 model year, aggregate Chevelle SS396 production had reached 284,370 units, plus the 201 1965 Z16 cars. The GTO had been stronger overall, selling 338,639 units from 1966 to 1969, but Pontiac’s bag of marketing tricks was getting stale by the end of the ’60s, and the vast Chevrolet sales network and sheer marketing muscle counted for a lot. For 1969, the GTO had fallen behind both the Plymouth Road Runner and its Chevrolet cousin. (If you combine the sales of the Road Runner and the pricier GTX, Plymouth actually came out on top, selling more than 100,000 B-body intermediates for 1969, but on a model for model basis, the Chevelle SS396 narrowly edged out the Road Runner.)
In 1970, a Chevelle/Malibu hardtop was 197.2 inches long on a 112-inch wheelbase, 4 inches shorter than the four-door sedan / Pastandpresentmotorcars via Hagerty Marketplace
The original Z16 Malibu SS396 had been a complete package: heavy-duty frame, heavy-duty suspension with front and rear anti-roll bars and wider wheels, quicker steering, and bigger brakes as well as the big engine. Chevrolet had dropped most of those extras for later years in the interests of lower price, but the 1970 was a return to the original concept:
The SS396 is a complete bill of fare. Chevrolet invented the cafeteria system, where the customer meandered down the line, picking an engine, a suspension option, brakes, trim, tires, etc. But it confuses the salesmen, or the computer or something, and the factory is edging away: Order the dinner and you get the salad and the vegetables whether you want them or not.
But eat, eat! It’s all good. With the SS396 comes what used to be the F-41 suspension; stiffer springs, firmer shocks and a rear anti-roll bar. And power-assisted front disc brakes, 7-in.[-wide] wheels, and F70 belted-bias tires. Transmissions are either the wide or close-ratio four-speed manual or Turbo Hydra-Matic.
The F41 suspension was actually still available as a regular production option for the rest of the Chevelle line in 1970 — it was just included as part of the $445.55 SS396 package. This price did not include the four-speed or TH400 automatic, although you had to order one or the other.
For 1970, Chevrolet had actually bored out the 396 cu. in. (6,488 cc) Turbo-Jet 396 to 402 cu. in. (6,587 cc), but the “396” designation had such name recognition that they were loath to give it up. So, while the milder 330 hp LS3 version offered on other 1970 models was now called Turbo-Jet 400, the more powerful L34 version in the SS396 was still advertised as the Turbo-Jet 396, and you had to read the specifications to find its actual displacement.
The 1970 ZL2 Cowl Induction system opened only at full throttle / Pastandpresentmotorcars via Hagerty Marketplace
Car Life‘s test car had the ZL2 “Cowl Induction” hood, which was only available with the SS package, for an extra $147.45:
The cold-air scoop looks like the ones on last year’s Corvettes and Camaros, but it’s not. The emissions controls tightened, remember. When an engine is working, as in full-powered acceleration, it’s cleaner than at idle, cruise or deceleration. So Chevrolet heats the air most of the time. The cold air only comes in when the accelerator is floored. The trap door is held shut by engine vacuum. When it drops, the door opens. It probably adds some power, and kids love it. (The Chevrolet people think the Plymouth equivalent, controlled from the dashboard, is too childish for words.)
Regarding the tightened emissions standards: The initial California and federal emissions standards for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons were based on exhaust fraction as a percent or parts per million, which had given bigger engines an edge. For 1970, the standards were restated in terms of total emissions weight per vehicle mile, which effectively reduced the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon limits by roughly one-third compared to the original federal standards.
In straight-line performance, the SS396 disappointed:
There’s the bulging shoulder and tattoos. The glass jaw is that the SS396 doesn’t go very fast. Falls out of the Supercar class, in fact. It’s picked up some weight, like it’s a 3900-lb. Intermediate, but the SS396 never has been quick in street trim. We tested one in 1968. with performance gearing, four-speed and the 375-bhp version of the 396. and it barely made it into the class. We expressed disappointment then, and sales went up. so we have no qualms about expressing disappointment now.
The 396 is a good engine. The 350-bhp version isn’t highly tuned, and it’s smooth and all that. Compared to the average car. the test SuperSport is fast, indeed. But it won’t keep up with the competition, and the ads say the competition has a hard time keeping up with the SuperSport.
Car Life‘s informal definition of a “Supercar” was an intermediate with a big engine, capable of running the standing quarter mile in 15 seconds or less. The SS396 was still an intermediate, technically, and it definitely had a big engine, but its best quarter mile ET was 15.5 seconds, going through the lights at 90.42 mph. This made it 0.4 seconds slower than the AMC Javelin SST 390 Car Life had tested in the previous issue. The Javelin was a half-second quicker to 60 mph too — the Chevelle could only manage 0 to 60 in 8.1 seconds.
L34 Turbo-Jet 396/350 engine / Pastandpresentmotorcars via Hagerty Marketplace
Chevrolet didn’t publish net ratings for its hot engines in 1969 or 1970, but the AMA specifications reveal no significant changes in valve timing, carburetion, or compression ratio. However, the GM A-body cars had gotten steadily heavier. The 1965 Z16 had had a curb weight of 3,650 lb; the Car Life test car weighed 3,990 lb. Granted, the 1970 car had air conditioning, power windows, and Turbo Hydra-Matic, but even with comparable equipment, it was still around 200 lb heavier than the ’65. While the editors didn’t explore this question, I also suspect the revised ZL2 Cowl Induction system was no longer worth much except as a conversation piece.
Car Life laid some of the blame for the car’s lackluster performance on the transmission, which didn’t seem well-matched to the engine. Usually, this was a strong point of Turbo Hydra-Matic, but the test car shifted harshly in casual driving and lethargically on the track. “Possibly the transmission behind the SS396 isn’t convinced it’s supposed to be part of a Supercar,” they complained. Another factor was that Chevrolet had cut way back on axle ratio options for 1970: The sole cataloged axle ratio for the Turbo Jet engines on the A-body was now 3.31, which would not do for serious drag strip work. On the other hand, the lighter, more powerful Z16 had also used a 3.31 axle, and did just fine with it.
Incidentally, the significantly hotter 375 hp L78 engine was still available on the SS936 in the early part of the 1970 model year. It was expensive (an additional $250 with cast iron heads, a painful $647.75 with the L89 aluminum heads) and doesn’t seem to have been promoted or advertised. A dealer letter dated October 30, 1969 said the L78 and L78/L89 options were “in the process of being cancelled and further order orders for these options should not be submitted,” although a few cars were built as late as December.
The SS package now included the F41 suspension, with a rear anti-roll bar / Pastandpresentmotorcars via Hagerty Marketplace
The earlier Car Life test of a 1969 Caprice with the F-41 suspension package had been very favorable, especially given its size, but the Chevelle didn’t fare nearly so well, despite being a whopping 425 lb lighter:
The handling has the aspect of falling into a time warp. Here you come, into the corner at speed. Crank the wheel, and the front end goes straight, carried away by the weight in front. Just like a 1964 Chevelle. … Nor is the F-41 as good on the Chevelle as it was on the Chevrolet Caprice. That was a larger, heavier car. with better balance, so it had less initial understeer to overcome. But it’s worth having. In town, where the switch from straight to corner isn’t so abrupt, there is no feeling of plow. And the ride was comfortable, which wasn’t the case with the last SS396. where the handling package was limited to stiffer springs. A limited-slip differential would have been nice, too, for applying power coming out of turns.
Although it was lighter than the Caprice, the SS396 was more nose-heavy: With only the driver aboard, it had 58 percent of its static weight on the front wheels. Also, despite the wider wheels, this was a lot of car for F70-14 tires. The Caprice had had G70-15 tires on 15-inch rims.
Semi-fastback styling makes the Chevelle look narrower than it is from the rear — it’s 76 inches wide, excluding mirrors / Pastandpresentmotorcars via Hagerty Marketplace
With front discs now standard on the SS package, braking, previously a sore point, was much improved. The Chevelle manage a decent deceleration rate and an 80 to 0 stopping distance of 259 feet, “about 50 better than average,” although the brakes still faded quite a bit as they got hot.
Even with the F-41 suspension, the SS396 understeered heavily, but it had decent brakes / Pastandpresentmotorcars via Hagerty Marketplace
The Car Life editors were pleased about the Chevelle’s ergonomics, although not the sparse instrumentation:
The dashboard is the only place Chevrolet hasn’t concentrated on image. The standard SS396 doesn’t have any gauges except fuel. Makes sense, in that the engine sounds wound up when it is, and warning lights are more apt to be noticed. It’s just some thing we were surprised to see.
Chevrolet offered an easy fix for this problem in the form of the U14 special instrumentation option, which included a tachometer, a water temperature gauge, and an ammeter (although curiously not an oil pressure gauge). Given how heavily optioned the CL test car was, I’m a bit surprised that it didn’t have this $84.30 package, but such were the mysteries of the press fleet.
Unlike the Car Life test car, this one has the special instrumentation package, with a tachometer and gauges for coolant temperature and amperage / Pastandpresentmotorcars via Hagerty Marketplace
Car Life also registered mixed feelings about the seats:
One tester did wish that the people involved hadn’t been quite so taken with lay-down racing seats. Too much backrest rake, he said. The other testers like plenty of rake.
I’m with the first tester on this one, and I remain puzzled why American automakers were so reluctant for so long to offer seats that adjusted for rake.
Strato-Buckets were standard with the SS package, but the console was $53.75 extra / Pastandpresentmotorcars via Hagerty Marketplace
I am somewhat puzzled by the prices listed on the data panel. Starting from the listed base price of $2,709 (for the Malibu Sport Coupe) and adding the listed equipment plus additional items pictured but not mentioned (vinyl roof, tinted glass, center console), I get a total of around $4,500, over $400 less than the $4,926 as-equipped price listed. (Their price for the Turbo Hydra-Matic is also wrong: I think they inadvertently listed the price of the heavy-duty THM specified with the bigger LS6 engine; the April 1970 price list says the TH400 was $221.80 with the L34 engine.)
1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS396 / Pastandpresentmotorcars via Hagerty Marketplace
Car Life didn’t actually dislike the SS396, but they didn’t think it was much of a Supercar. What was it, then?
With the handling package, brakes, etc., the SS396 makes a fine family car. As long as nobody asks it to step outside, the tattoos will mean more than the glass jaw.
Chevrolet fans may be reading this muttering, “What about the SS454? They should have tested the SS454.” As the text explains, the 454 cu. in. (7,443 cc) engine was not yet available at the time of this test, and Car Life was somewhat exasperated with Chevrolet’s approach to to the whole matter:
Where’s the 454? It’s out there somewhere, as we’ve been told by people who learned from Chevy’s sales brochures that the engine will be offered later in the year. There was such a car on display at the magazine showings, but between that and our new-car issue, Chevrolet asked us to suppress any mention. You promise to keep the host’s secrets or you don’t get in the gate, so we kept quiet. So Chevrolet put the secret into the sales pamphlets.
1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS454 LS6 / Mecum Auctions
Late in the model year, Car Life finally got their hands on a Chevelle SS454 with the solid-lifter LS6 engine and a colossal gross rating of 450 hp. It had a four-speed manual and no air conditioning, which saved some weight. However, its performance was still disappointing, hampered by sub-optimal gearing and totally inadequate tires that couldn’t handle the engine’s torque without going up in smoke. Car Life concluded, “it’s fair to say the Supercar as we know it may have gone as far as it’s going.”
F70-14 tires on 14x7JJ styled sport wheels were part of the SS package / Pastandpresentmotorcars via Hagerty Marketplace
The sales figures bore that out. SS396 production for 1970, including El Camino, was 53,599 cars (including 2,144 with the hotter L78 engine), a big drop from 1969; the SS454 accounted for a further 8,773 units. Cars like this were getting very expensive, and the insurance surcharges on performance cars were brutal, so if you liked the look and weren’t too concerned with the glass jaw, you could save yourself a lot of money sticking with the 350. Chevrolet apparently realized that, and starting in 1971, you could order the SS package with any engine except the six and 307.
Related Reading
Curbside Capsule: A Pair Of 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle Super Sports – An Apple A Day (by Joseph Dennis)
CC Capsule: 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS 454 – Some Kind Of Wonderful (by Joseph Dennis)
Chevelle SS or Malibu SS? – An Overview of Chevrolet’s Intermediate Super Sport (by Vince C)
Vintage Car Life Review: 1965 Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu SS396 Z16 – “First Of The Red-Hot Malibus” (by me)
1965 Chevelle SS396 Z16: 201 Built, And A Common 396 Engine Misunderstanding Finally Resolved (by Paul N)
I was that kid buying Car Life magazine after school, at the local newspaper & candy store in the town I grew up in. Compared to Motor Trend, Hot Rod and Car Craft, I always thought Car Life’s reviews were miles above-the best. Totally thorough, fair and objective. Take a look at the comprehensive specifications they provide to see how deep they went into presenting their review. We certainly don’t get that kind of info in today’s surviving car mags.
I like to think that Aaron carries on that Car Life spirit today and he is a valuable addition to the strong Curbside Classic writer’s lineup. As for the Chevelle SS, those lines of it and the rest of the GM intermediates of this period remain the peak of modern era car design. Still fresh and exciting to look at today, as they were when we first saw them back in the day.
Me also, except the town where my Grandmother lived. We never lived closer than a 4 hour car ride from my grandparents, but visited them regularly (maybe 50-80 visits over the years). My Grandmother actually ran a mom/pop grocery store with pretty much a walk-in clientel (there was little parking nearby) that my Grandfather had started after he left the mines, unfortunately too late for him, he passed away from miner’s asthma. Right on main street in their town, back in early 70’s there was a store that sold magazines, comics and newspapers that they’d send us kids to with money enough to buy something to keep us quiet. My sisters bought comics, and I picked out a car magazine. The proprietor tried to talk me out of my choice, I didn’t look old enough to be interested in cars at age 12. Now I think it is quaint, how many people take interest in reading choice of someone in their store?
I only bought an issue here and there, which I hung onto for years. I don’t think I really cared which car was in the magazine much, I just liked cars in general, and reading about them even 4 years before I got my driver’s license.
I don’t have any experience with the Chevelle other than seeing lots of them in the school parking lot while I was in high school. Senior year I went to a consolidated high school shared by several towns, which was a bit of a drive from most (exception was my sister who eventually bought a home in the town where we went to our Sr. year in high school). We moved around a lot back then, my youngest sister was the only one in our family to start and stop in the same school (and all the moves were timed so we spent our Sr. year in the new school). I think of the cars in the movie Dazed and Confused…coincidentally I live in the same city where that was filmed, but didn’t while in high school, which also coincided with the years portrayed in the movie. I don’t know how they paid for insurance, I still rode the bus, but I got my first car a year later.
I’m left wondering how an F41 ’70 Chevelle would’ve handled with a lighter smallblock under the hood, and on the longer 4-door wheelbase.
Don’t know if SBC 400″ was available in the Chevelle, but that engine plus a pair of Corvette heads, cam, 4 bbl. carb./intake, headers, dual exhaust may have made for a better performing package… saved weight… lower insurance cost…
Spec. chart seems to say idle timing at TDC, so a power tune prolly would have livened the test car up… also, back in the day, we performance minded buyers skipped PS, PB, A/C, PW, PL, etc… also no radio because for price of factory AM radio we could install AM/FM/tape and 4 nice speakers…
Hot Rod Magazine usually got the best performance numbers… and also sometimes did some basic power tuning and tire pressure changes… had better drivers…
This test has RPMs numbers, so apparently a tach was added for testing… or they calculated the MPH for each shift point… why did they shift out of 1st at 5200, but go to 5600 otherwise? Did they manually hold each gear?
The road testing gear included an electric tachometer so they could measure engine speeds in gears. Factory tachometers weren’t very accurate in any case. The listed shift points were generally chosen based on measured acceleration curves. Whether the automatic transmission shifts were manual or left to the transmission hydraulics depended on what produced the best times; in this case, given their unhappiness with the transmission’s behavior, I assume they shifted by hand.
The SS396 was not the fastest car in its class out of the box, but it was a well-rounded package that combined style and solid performance—just what most customers wanted. Ultimate brute power and performance wasn’t the priority for most buyers of an intermediate muscle car. The 350-hp SS396 offered strong performance while remaining practical for everyday driving and even family duties.
For some reason, Car Life struggled to get good performance numbers from the Chevelle. Their test cars—both the SS396 and SS454—were equipped with 3.31 gears, which may have contributed to their underwhelming results. However, other magazines achieved better times with similar setups. Road Test recorded a 15.27-second quarter-mile at 93 mph with an SS396 equipped with a TH400 transmission and 3.31 gears. Motor Trend clocked a 13.8-second ET for an SS454 with a TH400 and 3.31 gears, while Car Life only managed 14.57 seconds with the same gearing and a 4-speed manual.
Interestingly, Motor Trend’s SS454 test car posted quicker ETs than a Torino Cobra with a 429CJ and 3.50 gears, as well as a Road Runner with a 440, a 4-speed, and 4.10 gears. With the right gearing, these big-block Chevelles performed well. Car and Driver recorded a 13.7-second ET at 101 mph with a TH400 and 3.70 gears, while Hot Rod achieved 13.44 seconds at 108 mph with a 4-speed and 4.11 gears.
It’s also interesting that Car Life found their Chevelle didn’t handle well, a conclusion that contradicted the findings of other magazines. Both Road Test and Motor Trend praised the Chevelle’s handling. Car and Driver even track-tested the Chevelle SS454 against a 289 Cobra, a Boss 302 Mustang, and a 340 Duster. Surprisingly, they ranked the Chevelle’s handling second only to the Cobra. To quote Car and Driver:
The Chevelle posted the second-fastest lap times around Lime Rock and the second-fastest cornering speeds, trailing only the Cobra.
A minor note: the production numbers cited seem to be inaccurate, particularly for the SS454. According to my sources, a total of 53,599 Chevelle/El Camino models were sold with the Z25 SS396 option, while 8,773 were equipped with the Z15 SS454 option. Notably, there were actually more SS454 LS6 models produced than LS5 versions—an unusual occurrence—with 4,475 LS6s compared to 4,298 LS5s. Given the SS454’s reputation as one of the era’s top-performing muscle car engines, its production numbers were relatively high compared to other supercar engines like the SCJ Fords or Hemi Chryslers.
Between the LS5 Chevelle, Ford SCJ, and Chrysler 440-4v, it would be hard to go against the overall package of the GM products. Yeah, the Ford and Mopar might have a bit of a performance edge in straight line performance, but daily-driving might be a different story.
That’s how Pontiac managed to keep the GTO at the top of the sales chart throughout most of the sixties. It typically wasn’t the fastest (usually only beating the 390 Ford on the street) but, overall, it was a better balanced car than the others.
Of course, the even more cost-effective route was just to drop down to the small-block versions that had the looks and adequate performance for a whole lot less coin. My favorite of that group would be the underrated 340-4v as a no-cost exchange for the big-block in the Mopar B-body coupes, although a 351C in a Torino would be okay for Ford fans.
I agree that most compacts and even some intermediates were happier cars with small blocks, but my ’70 (or was a ’71?…) Torino with a 351C-4V was a dog on the street. Automatic, 3.25 rear. However, floor it to pass another car at 40 mph? Better hang on and make sure you’re clear of the other car’s bumper…
The only 340 powered intermediates I saw were ’72 and later and by then the 340 was a pale shadow of what it had been in ’71 and earlier and the cars were heavy so they were so-so performers at best. A ’69 Road Runner with the full strength 340 might have been a contender though…..
I agree with both of you that the Chevelle was a well rounded package by the 1970 model year, even though not necessarily the fastest. It was a car that could be “Dads” car that he drove to work and picked up the kids every now and then.
I also agree the SBC would have made for a better balanced car, although Chevrolet didn’t offer any of its high performance small-blocks in the Chevelle for 1970. Regardless of the better balance, according to other magazines that tested the BBC 1970 Chevelle, it was a good handling car for its day. Read the quote above from Car and Driver. There was a big improvement in handling when the F41 package became standard in 1970 as part of the Z15 and Z25 option group. In 1969, only a handful of cars selected the F41 option.
I think the difference in total SS396 production probably reflects whether the El Camino was included or not, but I’ve amended the production numbers.
Maybe, but I doubt that most of the SS454s were El Caminos. The number you had quoted was actually not far off the Monte Carlo SS454.
I meant the SS396 figure, not the SS454. I updated all of them based on the figures you cited, which I assume are per https://chevellestuff.net/1970/style_prod_no.htm
Ah, my apologies for the misunderstanding. I knew the numbers were off when I read them, but I confirmed with that website (I obviously don’t have them memorized!) It is great resource for Chevelle info.
I honestly should have looked it up there in the first place; I made the mistake of relying on Standard Catalog, with the published Chevrolet factory figures, which are a mess, and which don’t reflect subsequent research trying to pin down some of these production totals in more detail than the original factory figures provided.
I was a big fan of Car Life in the ’60s, the quality of their writing was head and shoulders above most of the competition, too bad they ceased publication in 1971. The SS 396 with the big block was obviously nose heavy which didn’t help its handling; I wonder how a similar Malibu with a 350 sbc would have performed. I remember reading an issue of CL in 1970 that featured a road test of a 1970 Nova SS with the 300 (gross) hp 350 ci engine; the staff at CL really liked its performance. If you could find that article and post it, that would make for an interesting comparison.
” remember reading an issue of CL in 1970 that featured a road test of a 1970 Nova SS with the 300 (gross) hp 350 ci engine; the staff at CL really liked its performance. If you could find that article and post it, that would make for an interesting comparison.”
Can’t help you with your CL test. But perhaps these test numbers for the quite similar ’71 Holden Monaro GTS 350 coupe might assist? Engine was the low compression (8.5:1) 350 cid V8 @ 275 hp. Wheelbase is 111″. Final drive is 3.08 and ER7014 tyres.
15.3 seconds S.S 1/4 mile (Muncie).
15.6 seconds S.S 1/4 mile (TH400).
125 mph top speed.
This doesn’t really surprise me, the hydraulic lifter versions of the 396 were not all that strong in stock form. My ’68 had the 325 horse L35, a TH400 and 2.73 non posi rear. It ran about the same times as the test car when I had it in Spokane. With drum brakes and standard suspension it was no great shakes around corners either. It was a good relaxing car for long distances though. We had it in Spokane as a tow car actually.
The L34 350 horse engine was just the 325 with a bit hotter cam and revised ignition curve, which gave it a bit more top end. The 325 was done by about 4800 rpm, the 350 would pull to maybe 5300. If you wanted performance, the L78 was the choice, but it wasn’t very good at anything else.
Despite some of the stuff you read today, most “musclecars” from this era were not much different. Most Mopars had 3.23 rear gears and automatics, Fords usually had 3.25s, and so on. If you wanted lower gears they were available but not all that common.
By the time I came along these cars were fairly inexpensive 10 or 12 year olds, and by then the SS396 had the advantage of being cheap and easy to warm up compared to the others. A set of headers, decent cam, ignition recurve and suddenly that sleepy 325 horse really 396 came alive. I’m glad I got to enjoy these cars when they were at the bottom of thier price curve!
I agree with you that 3.23, 3.25, 3.31 gears were more common. However, most magazines tests of the day that tested “supercars” typically had them equipped with much lower gears for the best possible times. For example, that comparison test I cited above for the 1970 Chevelle SS454, Torino Cobra and Road Runner, where the gearing was 3.31 vs 3.50 vs 4.10. I have never seen a test of a 1970 Torino with a 429CJ with 3.25 gears set.
I think it’s worth emphasizing that in almost all of these tests, the magazines got what the press fleet could supply, which wasn’t always the combination of features that the editors (or some buyers) would have preferred. For instance, the CL test car was burdened with a bunch of options performance buyers wouldn’t have picked (in particular air conditioning, which also limited axle availability), but with some odd omissions, like the U14 gauge package.
In terms of the SS454, I get the impression that unless you were running slicks, anything much deeper than a 3.31 was going to make traction a real problem. The later Car Life brief test of the LS6 SS454 suggests that even with the 3.31, getting a drag strip start with the stock tires was like trying to iron an ice sculpture — the harder you press, the quicker it melts.
Rose-colored glasses and such. By modern standards, this car just isn’t very good, and even by contemporary standards it was below par for the class. But every schoolboy in the 1970s dreamed of owning a Super Sport Chevelle. And in agreement with come of the other commenters, a Chevelle 350 with a cam and headers probably would have made a better all-around car.
I don’t know if I agree. Even this article, which is more critical of the Chevelle SS396, is only so because of its lack of “super car” performance. The reason these cars were still popular 1970 during this quickly dying segment is because they were good all around cars.
A period Hot Rod magazine explains the overbore to 402 cubes. The small block 400 came out in ’70 and they wanted to standardize the piston rings.
I had two older brothers who were in the military at the time and when they came out they each bought a Chevelle SS396 new as did many servicemen. One bought a ’69 and the other a ’70 and I always thought the ’69 was better styled but watch the auctions today and the ’70 seems more popular.
Hmmm, that’s one I’ve never heard before but it should work. Same bore at 4.125.
I’d always heard it had to do with emissions, but your version makes more sense.
Also, the ’70 Ford 400, 2bbl. BBC 396, and SBC 400 were all rated at 265 grossHP… Chevy prolly wanted to dump the 2 bbl. carb. BBC 396/402 engine…
This Chevelle seemed like a nice car for everyday use with a bit of macho swagger. Much easier to live with than the ’67 Ram Air GTO that was featured earlier. With a top speed of 124 mph. it would be loafing at any reasonable, or even unreasonable, highway speed. The only thing missing was a/c, and it wasn’t available on the really hot engines with steep rear gearing. If the owner was really serious about performance at the drag strip he would have the rear gears changed to suit his tastes, most people just wanted a “powerful” car for every day driving.
The late ’60’s intermediates from all manufacturers were some of the best looking American cars of all time. That is apparent in how they are the focus of most hobbyists today. My Uncle had a ’68 (?) GTO Judge and that car was a looker!
Many of us lost interest in cars after 1970… but Clint Eastwood would remind us that the little noticed ’72 Ford Gran Torino was a good looking car… LOL!
The SS 396 test car had air conditioning.
I wouldn’t put too much stock in the listed top speed. Car Life was more scientific than most in their acceleration tests, but their listed top speeds were typically calculated values based on the assumption that the engine could pull to redline in top gear, and I doubt that they actually went that fast. Motor Trend was typically more honest about this, which at a couple of points they explained was for practical reasons: The drag strips and race tracks they normally used for acceleration runs didn’t have long enough straightaways to run a powerful car to its actual top speed and still have room to slow down. My guess would be that the test car had an actual top speed of between 110 and 115 mph with this engine, gearing, and tires.
It could be interesting to know how the Chevelle would have done if it had received the 302 used in the 1967-69 Camaro and South African Firenza?
https://www.chevyhardcore.com/news/the-heart-of-a-legend-z28-camaros-small-block-dz-302/
Then I wonder if the aftermarket specialists like Yenko, Baldwin-Motion, Nickey who bring Chevelles with a 427 under the hood might have played a role to drop the 400ci limit in the A-body?
In all likelihood, it would have been considerably slower. The 302 was a high-winding engine without a lot of low-end; even in the Camaro, it was somewhat lethargic until it came on the cam. Putting it in the 400-pound-heavier Chevelle would not have shown it off to good advantage, especially with any kind of gearing you would have wanted to drive on the street. It might have handled a bit better with less weight on the nose, but the same would have been true of a 350 Chevelle; the 302 was not much lighter than the 350, with the difference coming down more to manifolds than bare engine weight.
As one who worshiped at the alter of aircooled VWs in the early 70s, these cars didn’t interest me much. And I haven’t driven one even now so I don’t know how they drive. But in those early 70s where in LA at least it seemed like every other car was a VW Beetle, it also seemed like half the time I was looking at SS 396 when stopped at a red light. Maybe sales overall weren’t really all that good, but in that place and time it sure seemed like I saw a whole bunch of them.