Those Heavy Chevys

[Greg Myers]

[Lunajammer]

Hard to beat the allure of the Impalas, a personal favorite, which I think fits the "heavy" moniker better than the Chevelle.

[Snake45]

In '71 and/or '72, Chevy actually sold a "Heavy Chevy" Chevelle variant. Would you even be seen in such a thing? Me neither.

I'm thinking of building my Monogram '65 Impala convertible as a drag Junior Stocker. If I do, it'll be called Great White Buffalo after my favorite Ted Nugent song.

[OldTrucker]

I remember building the mile high kit when it was first released! Built it just like  on the box!

 

[1972coronet]

Yep , the Heavy Chevy was indeed an "insurance beater" model of the Chevelle , 1971-1972 . Top engine option was the 402 (called "400" , IIRC --- not related to the small block of the same displacement) . This model was similar to the 1971-1974 Duster Twister . 

Then there was the Heavy Half  which was a C-10 with a 454 .

[Robberbaron]

On 6/25/2018 at 4:03 PM, Greg Myers said:

 

Gotta wonder what happened to the body for the MPC 1970 Impala?  From what I understand, the chassis and drivetrain were repurposed for the 1971-1976 annuals, but I wonder if the tooling for the body and interior are still in Round 2's possession?

As is, it's not really of much interest, since we still have the very nice AMT 1970 kit.  However, it wouldn't take much to backdate the tooling to 1969.  Heck, according to the instructions, MPC kept the interior buckets and console intact from the '69 annual.  Imagine combining the MPC interior tub and backdated '69 body with the chassis/drivetrain of the AMT 1970 kit! (ala the recreated 1970 Super Bee)

Who knows how everything would match up between the 2 kits, but theoretically it should be possible.

I know, probably a pipe dream, even if the MPC remnants do still exist...

 

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Robberbaron

[Greg Myers]

RPO YF3  http://phscollectorcarworld.blogspot.com/2012/09/1972-heavy-chevy-chevelle.html

What John said,

Edited June 27, 2018 by Greg Myers

[Mark]

16 hours ago, 1972coronet said:

Yep , the Heavy Chevy was indeed an "insurance beater" model of the Chevelle , 1971-1972 . Top engine option was the 402 (called "400" , IIRC --- not related to the small block of the same displacement) . This model was similar to the 1971-1974 Duster Twister . 

Then there was the Heavy Half  which was a C-10 with a 454 .

Chevy had a 400 small-block, and the 400 (402) big-block which was also used in "SS 396" Chevelles and Camaros for the last couple of model years.

Years ago, one of my brothers parted out two '71 Caprice station wagons, mainly for the engines and transmissions.  One was a big-block, the other a small-block.  Both had "400" emblems on the front fenders.

[espo]

The 400 cu.in small block with a 2 bbl. carb. in the full size Impala/Caprice was a great torque engine and very respectable gas mileage. It was also offered in several of the pick up models with a 4 bbl. and again was ideal for towing applications because of the high torque out put. The 396 big block became a 402 displacement since the over bore somehow lowered the emissions. Chevrolet also offered the Rally Nova using the same formula as the Heavy Chevy. No big blocks that I was aware of, only a small block with a 2 bbl. carb. You could still get just about any transmission you wanted in either car. While the Taxi Cab inspired interior and trim was part of how Chevrolet kept the price down you could order Carpet and some other amenities instead of the spartan standard interior. This is sure a long way from those kits we were talking about.   

[Can-Con]

Something to remember is that back in the late '60s and '70s "heavy" had another meaning besides a description of excess weight. 

The word was also used as slang for something or someone serious or to be taken seriously. 

With that in mind, it can also mean a Chevelle to be taken seriously. 

[Can-Con]

2 minutes ago, espo said:

The 400 cu.in small block with a 2 bbl. carb. in the full size Impala/Caprice was a great torque engine and very respectable gas mileage. It was also offered in several of the pick up models with a 4 bbl. and again was ideal for towing applications because of the high torque out put. The 396 big block became a 402 displacement since the over bore somehow lowered the emissions. Chevrolet also offered the Rally Nova using the same formula as the Heavy Chevy. No big blocks that I was aware of, only a small block with a 2 bbl. carb. You could still get just about any transmission you wanted in either car. While the Taxi Cab inspired interior and trim was part of how Chevrolet kept the price down you could order Carpet and some other amenities instead of the spartan standard interior. This is sure a long way from those kits we were talking about.   

The small block 400 was also pretty common in the '70s fullsize Canadian Pontiacs. The '76 Perisienne 2 dr I used to own had a 400 4bbl small block in it. Pretty quick car too.

I'd love to get a hold of another one to "warm up" a bit to put in my T/A. 

[espo]

8 minutes ago, Can-Con said:

The small block 400 was also pretty common in the '70s fullsize Canadian Pontiacs. The '76 Perisienne 2 dr I used to own had a 400 4bbl small block in it. Pretty quick car too.

I'd love to get a hold of another one to "warm up" a bit to put in my T/A. 

The only issue I remember others of having when they built a 400 small block had to do with the "Steam Holes" between the block and the heads. Because of the larger bore of the 400 the cooling passages that are present in the 350 going into the heads are blocked since they need the sealing area around the bores in the block and the cooling passages into the heads are not present.

[1972coronet]

6 hours ago, Mark said:

Chevy had a 400 small-block, and the 400 (402) big-block which was also used in "SS 396" Chevelles and Camaros for the last couple of model years.

Years ago, one of my brothers parted out two '71 Caprice station wagons, mainly for the engines and transmissions.  One was a big-block, the other a small-block.  Both had "400" emblems on the front fenders.

Makes me wonder if the 396 was actually 402 cubes since its inception in 1965 ; and with the corporate edict of "400 cubes or less in intermediate cars" being dropped after 1969 , and concurrently the 396 "suddenly" was  402 ...

Never-the-less --- the 'other' 400 (SBC) seems to have been a B-Body and C/K Pickup only engine vs. the "400" ( 402 'Mark IV' ) in the Heavy Chevy . 

 Too bad that the LT-1 wasn't "offered" after 1970 for the Nova , at least in detuned form as to not steal sales from the Camaro Z-28 .

[Mark]

52 minutes ago, 1972coronet said:

Makes me wonder if the 396 was actually 402 cubes since its inception in 1965 ; and with the corporate edict of "400 cubes or less in intermediate cars" being dropped after 1969 , and concurrently the 396 "suddenly" was  402 ...

Never-the-less --- the 'other' 400 (SBC) seems to have been a B-Body and C/K Pickup only engine vs. the "400" ( 402 'Mark IV' ) in the Heavy Chevy . 

 Too bad that the LT-1 wasn't "offered" after 1970 for the Nova , at least in detuned form as to not steal sales from the Camaro Z-28 .

Nope, I believe the bore/stroke were changed making the 396 a 402.

Not the first time the "wrong" number has been used.  I believe one of the 351 Ford engines (Cleveland?) is actually a 352, but Ford didn't want it confused with the earlier 352.  I've heard the late-Seventies Pontiac 301 is closer to 302, but 302 was more closely associated with Ford at the time, so 301 it became...

[OldTrucker]

Just an .030 bore brought the 396 to 402 but to not shake up the gearheads they continued to call it a 396 in lighter cars, 402 in the trucks and Turbo Jet 400 in the full size cars!

[1972coronet]

3 hours ago, OldTrucker said:

Just an .030 bore brought the 396 to 402 but to not shake up the gearheads they continued to call it a 396 in lighter cars, 402 in the trucks and Turbo Jet 400 in the full size cars!

That's about right . I remember reading some 30+ years ago that the 396 got an overbore as to use the 454's pistons or some such thing . Perhaps that's why the base NOVA SS-396 was 350hp ; no more 325hp 396 after 1969 .

[1972coronet]

4 hours ago, Mark said:

Nope, I believe the bore/stroke were changed making the 396 a 402.

Not the first time the "wrong" number has been used.  I believe one of the 351 Ford engines (Cleveland?) is actually a 352, but Ford didn't want it confused with the earlier 352.  I've heard the late-Seventies Pontiac 301 is closer to 302, but 302 was more closely associated with Ford at the time, so 301 it became...

The 352 was the first F-E ( IIRC ) . The biggest 'mystery' about the Cleveland is its "335" designation ( and the F-E's replacement : "385" ) . Perhaps that was its original designated displacement ?

The 5.0 litre was a 221 or 225 or something ; that was in the late 70's / early 80's (e.g. , when the Mustang GT was reintroduced for '81 or '82)  . Then there was the 300 I-6 ("4.9" litre ) which was also actually a "5.0" litre . 

[disabled modeler]

id love to see them re-issue the 69s...71s...72s for us.   I have the old 69 but sadly i need to find parts for it before i can restore her.  I once owned a 69 Impala SS HT...would love to be able to add another family owned one to the collection.

[Mark]

9 hours ago, 1972coronet said:

The 352 was the first F-E ( IIRC ) . The biggest 'mystery' about the Cleveland is its "335" designation ( and the F-E's replacement : "385" ) . Perhaps that was its original designated displacement ?

The 5.0 litre was a 221 or 225 or something ; that was in the late 70's / early 80's (e.g. , when the Mustang GT was reintroduced for '81 or '82)  . Then there was the 300 I-6 ("4.9" litre ) which was also actually a "5.0" litre . 

Ford had a 255 (or close to that) V8 in the early Eighties.  I'm pretty sure that was a 4.6, because at the time I had an AMC 258 six which was also a 4.6.  Ford's 221 small-block was the very first one, in '62.  I don't think it lasted through '63, it was replaced by the 260.  Ford never went that small with that engine again.

[OldTrucker]

On 6/27/2018 at 3:53 PM, espo said:

The only issue I remember others of having when they built a 400 small block had to do with the "Steam Holes" between the block and the heads. Because of the larger bore of the 400 the cooling passages that are present in the 350 going into the heads are blocked since they need the sealing area around the bores in the block and the cooling passages into the heads are not present.

and the 400 small blocks had overheating issues which led to a lot of cracked heads!

I remember sorting through about 30 to find a rebuildable pair!