<VV> 75 years of Chevrolet book

[Frank DuVal]

The rest is wrong as you say,

But

600 is a Spyder!

1964 only.

40627W  would be a Willow Run 64 Spyder 2 door

40667W would be a Willow Run 64 Spyder convertible

Special vin is another way to make it harder to clone a 64 Monza into a 
Spyder. 62 and 63 much easier.

Frank DuVal

I have the 75 Years of Buick


On 12/11/2011 12:05 AM, Ramon Rodriguez III wrote:
> Hiya all,
>
> A friend of mine brought over a book titled "75 years of Chevrolet" the
> other day after finding it buried among his things.  The book is MUCH more
> complete than any of the other history of Chevy books I've seen, it's 535
> pages and only goes up to 1986.
>
> Thus far I've only read up through 1962 but the book has quite a bit of
> Corvair content.  The author mentions that he is not a fan of the Corvair
> himself but so far he hasn't bashed it at all, his comments have been
> pretty positive.  Anyway in the 1962 Chapter when he talks about the Spyder
> he mentions that in 62 and 63 the Spyder was just an option on the Monza,
> but in 1964 it is a separate model (correct).  What caught my attention
> here is he says that the 64 Spyder was technically the "600".  I think I
> ran across this somewhere before, is it correct?  It seems a very odd
> number given the designations of the other models, but I know GM has done
> things like that before.
>
> I'm suspicious of that bit of info because it is followed by two other big
> errors.  First he says that the Spyder engine had "three barrel Carter
> carburetors with turbo-charged induction" when as most of us know it had
> just one single-barrel sidedraft carter..  Next he mentions that the 102hp
> engine was "required when Powerglide was added" which I know is also
> incorrect (Powerglide with base engine option was bumped to 84hp, vs 80hp
> if it was a manual trans car).
>
> He also says that the "Loadside" had "swing open doors" instead of the ramp.
>
> It's always interesting to see new misinformation =)  At least his
> inaccuracies so far have not been derogatory in any way which is surprising
> to me.
>
>