David Mau

Thanks, Bruce. I'm looking forward to reading your report. Dave

In original test articles from when the cars were new the Monte Carlo SS454s were referred to as "true GT cars", and I would think that it would be hard to truely "grand tour" for very long with a 4.11-geared car. I've seen it written somewhere that steeper gear ratios were optional, but am not sure if that was actually the case or not. And yes, Motor Trend did test a '70 SS454 to the tune of 0-60mph in 7 seconds flat and a 14.9 quarter mile time in the November or December '69 issue where they compared the all-new Monte Carlo against the Grand Prix and Thunderbird. I believe that car had the 3.31 gears and they referred to the all-new Monte Carlo as being "an unqualified success". Dave

Tom is correct. 15"x8" rally wheels with 4 1/2" backspacing were created in order to better fit 8" wide rims on the midsize "A-body" cars, as the 15"x8" Corvette rally wheels have less backspacing and there tend to be clearance issues unless the car is raised up and/or smaller tires used with them. I read an article about a year ago in a car magazine that basically said they wouldn't ever put anything larger than 18" diameter wheels on older cars. Their suspension systems weren't designed to handle the additional size and weight that larger diameter wheels bring along with them, as well as the fact that you then have to run such a super-low profile tire that the shock absorbing characteristics of the tires are pretty much eliminated - meaning that the rest of your suspension pieces will have to endure the additional stress and wear. Handling-wise, an in-depth article in Super Chevy magazine several years ago where they tested various wheel and tire sizes on a '70 Monte Carlo proved that bigger is not always better - at least up to a certain point. Their best slalom times were achieved with 17" diameter wheels and reasonably-sized tires. Steve (Monteman71), a member of the FGMCC, has stated that his current '71 402/4-speed car with 17"s rides better than his previous car which had 18" wheels (and slightly lower profile tires) on it. Personally, if you want to go for a "plus-size" wheel diameter, I'd save your money and your suspension components and wouldn't recommend going with anything bigger than 17". As far as backspacing and tire sizes for a 17" wheel go, I can't say because I'm a 15" diameter w/beefy tire fan - because to me nothing looks tougher than some serious rubber in the wheelwells of a classic musclecar. Steve would know about what to use with 17"s, though, and I like the way his car looks with them. He "plus-sized" by 2" and he did it right. Well, that's my take on it - and I hope it is of some help to you. Dave

Thanks for the information, guys. Overall, everything regarding a crossover pipe sounds pretty positive to me, so I'll probably end up going with one. Thanks for including the link to the photo of yours too, Steve. A 2 1/2" system is what I'm thinking of going with as well - and yours looks fantastic! Dave

I am looking to get a new exhaust system installed in the next few weeks on my '70 SS454. I will be sticking with stock exhaust manifolds and exiting at the stock, under-the-rear bumper location with the factory-style chrome exhaust tips. I have heard some good things about "crossover" pipes (either in an X or an H configuration), and was wondering if there are any negative aspects of these systems to consider? Is including an X-pipe in a new exhaust system actually worth the additional cost that it will add to a new system? The sharing of any knowledge and/or first-hand experiences with these type of systems is appreciated. Thanks, Dave

It has been my understanding for more than 20 years that all SS454 cars came with the thicker-than-standard issue (1 1/8") front anti-sway bar, the rear anti-sway bar & boxed control arms, heavy duty shocks & springs and included the Superlift automatic level control system with rear air shocks and shock protector plates regardless of whether the car was equipped with Posi or not. They also included 7" wide wheels shod with 70-series tires, which were among the beefier factory sizes for those items on passenger cars back then. Other than the level control system, the rest of the heavy duty suspension pieces (typically referred to as F-41) were there to improve handling characteristics - not traction. Is this not correct? Could it be that some of the F-41 components were simply not added to certain cars and that is why some of Steve "NOS Z20"'s cars didn't have them? My '70 is equipped similar to John's '71... with the rear anti-sway bar, boxed control arms, etc., but no [optional] posi. Dave

So you're the new SS forum moderator, eh, Nate? Well, here's my official "good welcome", then! I'm sure you'll do a great job. And yes, a hearty "thank you" for all you've done and will continue to do, Leo. You guys are great. Dave

I think that Wallaby's right about the Custom, but I'm not sure about a '72 454-equipped car having those goodies as a requirement, either. I'm guessing that someone will know, though. The 454 was available on any Monte Carlo in '72 as an option. The Custom package was also an option and could be had with any V8 engine that was available in non-Custom Monte Carlos - therefore a '72 454-equipped Custom is often regarded as the closest thing to a Monte Carlo SS that you could get in '72. Dave

I agree. And like what has also been said - the SS454 was an option package itself (just like other options) and not a separate model, so just about any combination of options could exist on an SS454 car. Smaller engines, manual transmissions, fender skirts and cruise control were about the only options I can think of that were not available in combination with the SS454 option. From what I've read over the years, it appears that most SS454 cars were usually optioned out pretty good. Mine has quite a few other options on it, too, so that goes along with that generality. That doesn't mean that all SS454 cars were, though. Dave

The last thing I knew, Year One carried the black bucket seat "prima cloth" or "knitcloth" custom-knit nylon seat covers for a '70, but I'm not sure about what all's available for a '71 - but I do know that their selection of patterns/materials/colors is very good for each year. I haven't ordered any seat covers, but everything else that I have ordered from Year One I have been very happy with. They have also treated me with respect, and I received the parts in a timely manner every time. Others who post on this board who have talked about their experiences with C.A.R.S. inc. have had favorable experiences with them, as well. I don't recall reading of any first-hand experiences with The Paddock. Most people who mention their experiences with OPGI here don't care for them much. Either they were treated poorly or the colors weren't right. Shoot, even getting the correct catalog from them was a hassle back when I did that. As far as bucket seat foam (sometimes referred to as "buns"), I believe it should be the same for each year of FGMC - as they used the GM corporate "Strato-Bucket" seat design. These seats were introduced in many GM models beginning with the '66 model year and were used through '72. Hope this helps, Dave

The passenger side valve cover is where I always see them. Dave

That's kind of a tough question, but I'd bet that an air cleaner for a '70 Chevelle SS396 or SS454 would be the same, though, as long as it's not the setup used for a "Cowl Induction"-equipped car. I thought that the '70 402 (aka "Turbo-Jet 400") big block air cleaners were the same as the '70 454 air cleaners, too, with the large, rectangular-shaped snorkel openings. Since there was such a high number of '70 Chevelle SS cars produced it may be easier to find an air cleaner that would be described as "correct" for them - and again, I'd bet that they'd be the same thing as for the Monte Carlo SS454. Just make sure it's the closed air cleaner and not for the "Cowl Induction" setup. I'd bet that El Caminos would have been the same deal, too. I'm not proof-positive on all of this, but from pictures that I've seen and from a logical standpoint it makes sense that what I've described would be the case. Hope that this helps a little, Dave

You're welcome, Nate, but no - I don't know the part numbers for any of the components. Again, I believe that the fiber optic lamp monitoring system was available on various Chevy models for the '68-'70 model years only. I'm going from memory here, but I think that in the "SS Musclecar Redbook" the option code was listed as being RPO U46. It showed it as being available on '68-'69 Camaros, '68-'70 Chevelles, '70 Monte Carlos and '68-'69 Impalas. I'm not sure about Novas. I'd bet the system was available on the Impala in '70 as well, but because there was no Super Sport Impala in '70 ('69 was the last year for an Impala SS), it didn't show up in that book because of its emphasis on the SS cars. Why Rob's and mine are hooked up differently is anybody's guess. Perhaps it just depended on how the fiber optic cables were plugged in by various factory workers at various factories? Wish I could be of more help, Dave

Nate, I believe that the photos Rob Peters has of his car on his CarDomain website may show them pretty good, as his car has them. My car has them, too, but they're kind of washed out in the photo of my car that's in the Member's Montes section. I believe my car is quite a ways down now in the '70 section, on the right, if you want to check it for reference at all. It is the blue one with the black top, Cragar wheels and the "4FIFTY4" license plate. The fiber optic lamp monitoring system was available on many Chevy models from '68-'70, and I believe that the chrome housings used on Monte Carlos were the same as the ones that were used on Camaros and Chevelles. It wasn't a very popular option, and that's why I believe the system wasn't offered after '70. I've seen pictures of Chevelles and Camaros with the option, so that's how I know they're the same. I don't know if Impalas used the same ones or not, but I would suspect they did. The back side inserts, though, would likely be different for Chevelles and Impalas, being as they were a 4-headlight system instead of a 2-headlight system like the Camaro and Monte Carlo. The back side insert of my housings each have a clear cover with two round, slightly embossed "lights" in it, which are the lens ends of the fiber-optic cables, viewable to the driver. The inboard lens is clear and the outboard lens is green. There is plenty of room between them where a third lens end could be placed (for a 4-headlight system). I believe that my parking light/turn indicator cables may have dirt in them as I have never seen those (the green ones) light up, but the headlight cables work fine and they glow white when the headlights are on. Not long after I bought the car in '86, I noticed that the passenger side "light" wasn't glowing like the driver's side was, so I got out and walked around the front end. Sure enough... the headlight was out! Again, I'd check Rob Peters' site and see what kind of pictures he has of them. I could take some close-ups of mine, but you'd have to allow me some time to do that and get them to you. Hope this helps, Dave

I'd try Year One. I've received excellent service from them. Monte Carlo and El Camino parts are included in their Chevelle catalog. www.yearone.com Other parts suppliers that many on the board here seem happy with are Musclecars Only, C.A.R.S. inc., and Classic Muscle from Modern Chevrolet ( www.oldmusclecars.com ). Dave

I believe that the SS454 option group was typically listed on build sheets and window stickers as "Z20 - Monte Carlo SS Equipment", with the "Z20" being the RPO (regular production option) code. Since it's a "Z"-code option, it should be listed after the other options. I've heard that about the steering wheel columns, too, but there sometimes seems to be some confusion. Mine has a black interior so I've never researched it. Maybe someone else might know the answer. It sounds like a great car you've got there, Andy. Dave

That's cool, Leo. I think it would be fantastic if Chevy were to make information/documentation available like Pontiac does with its Pontiac Historical Services. Man, wouldn't it be incredible to come across a '70 SS454 LS6 Monte Carlo that could be fully documented by "Chevrolet Historical Services"? Dave

You're absolutely right, Leo. I believe that the owner of the Dick Harrell-built '70 LS6 SS454 was a member of the club for a year, but didn't renew. Why, I don't know - but if I remember correctly, he had computer problems and I never did see a post from him and I was really hoping that I would. Having members with rare cars like that is really cool. Dave

Man, no kidding! Oh, and Andrew - not everything that is stated in the little Car Craft article is correct. I don't have it in front of me, but from what I remember they really didn't acknowledge that a SS454 existed in '70 and that the production numbers were wrong. There's another message thread about this in this SS454 forum called "Car Craft Muscle Car of the Month" that was started by jrb70454, in case you haven't seen/read through it. Dave

Well, since there was no SS454 model in '72, many people consider a 454-equipped Custom to be the closest thing to it - including myself. I'll bet it's a great car. Dave

If I remember right, I think that a 454 was available in Monte Carlos through '75. For '70 and '71, however, the only way to get one was as part of the "SS454" package. Dave

Well, it's not only your opinion, Dave, but it's one that's shared with others as well - including car magazines that have performed tests. One of the articles I remember seeing (probably at a newsstand a few months ago) generally concluded that it's best to limit aftermarket wheel diameters to 18". Bigger wheels require super-low profile tires which don't provide much protection for wheels against potholes, etc. Another downside is the additional unsprung weight that they add, which puts more stress on the car's suspension components. A couple of years ago Super Chevy magazine had a series of articles where they did some work on one of their writer's cars, which was a '70 Monte Carlo. There was some good information in those articles, and one of them was a test where handling, ride quality, etc. was rated with different size wheel/tire combos. The car had been retrofitted with a lot of new suspension pieces from Hotchkis and then put through its paces. The overall best performance was achieved when the 17" wheel/tire package they put together was on the car, and they were pleasantly surprised that it still rode nearly as good as when it had the 16" package on it. If I remember right, the 18" package didn't do nearly as well in any category. Dave

I just received the latest newsletter on Friday and want to say how appropriate I feel it is that George's car was/is "Monte of the Month", and that the member responses to his passing are included, as well. I also like the fact that the club's "Best Modified" award that is handed out at official meets (that are large enough to have awards) has been renamed the "George Lines Best Modified" award in George's memory because of the passion and craftsmanship he exhibited in building his modified Monte Carlo. It is very fitting, and is a great way for us to honor and remember George. It also seems appropriate to me that the Western Meet write-up is in the same issue - since George had planned on attending it and debuting his car there. As I said in the write-up, the meet was a fun and wonderful experience... but how cool it would've been to have George and his just-finished modified Monte there with us, too! Thanks, Mark, for getting together with his daughter and taking those updated photographs of his car; it looks fantastic! And kudos to Pete, Marchie and Kevin (Monte) for a tastefully put together and reverant issue of the newsletter. Well done, Dave

George was planning on attending the Western Meet in Carson City, NV last weekend and we were all looking forward to meeting him there. There were several times throughout the course of the weekend where we mentioned him, wished that he was there with us and hoped that everything was alright for him. Now we know why he wasn't there. Last summer George was hoping to make a trip up to the northwest and there was a possibility that he would be able to meet up with me at a July show that I like to attend - the "Run to the Rock" down in Castle Rock, WA. Unfortunately, it didn't work out for him to make that trip and so I was really looking forward to meeting him down in Carson City. Thanks for posting the message from his daughter, Pete. We have lost a wonderful FGMCC family member, and I am saddened to hear of George's passing. His good nature, helpfulness and humor was appreciated by all of us, and my thoughts and prayers are with his family. Goodbye, George. We miss you. Dave

Thanks, Pete. Hey, that would have indeed been a great surprise to have you there! So we're up to 7 now, eh Aaron? And that's not counting significant others, right? Dave