Cowl Plenum Air Breather

I have a 66 Chevelle SS 396 with the 375 HP option.

I have installed a Cowl Plenum Air cleaner on the car.

The part was not factory installed but could have been

bought from GM in 66. Would this be a point deduction

since it was not factory installed.

Thank you!!

I have a 66 Chevelle SS 396 with the 375 HP option.

I have installed a Cowl Plenum Air cleaner on the car.

The part was not factory installed but could have been

bought from GM in 66. Would this be a point deduction

since it was not factory installed.

Thank you!!

red66malibu:

I'm no judge but the way the judging manual reads if it was not installed at the factory there will be a deduction. There

are exceptions like if safety is involved.(eg. turn signals) If this is not correct please someone advise. Thanks Larry

red66malibu,

Welcome to the AACA Discussion Forum. I am a judge, so let me give you a correct answer to your question...

If it was available as a factory authorized option for that car there will not be a deduction. If it was not available for that particular make and model of car, then it would be subject to a deduction as non-authentic.

I have a 66 Chevelle SS 396 with the 375 HP option.

I have installed a Cowl Plenum Air cleaner on the car.

The part was not factory installed but could have been

bought from GM in 66. Would this be a point deduction

since it was not factory installed.

Thank you!!

Just be sure to bring your documentation with you to the show. There is another '66 Chevelle that has reached Grand National Sr. in AACA with the cowl induction. Shouldn't be a problem

Just be sure to bring your documentation with you to the show. There is another '66 Chevelle that has reached Grand National Sr. in AACA with the cowl induction. Shouldn't be a problem

real61ss:

Just curious; what possible documentation could he bring when the item in question was not a (RPO) "Regular Production Option".

Sounds to me there is no gray area here. Thanks-Larry

real61ss:

Just curious; what possible documentation could he bring when the item in question was not a (RPO) "Regular Production Option".

Sounds to me there is no gray area here. Thanks-Larry

The item may be shown in the assembly manual, if not it should have a GM part number or a Chevrolet Tech Bulletin may have been generated to announce it's availablity. There has to be some type of documentation from Chevrolet if the part was available.

The item may be shown in the assembly manual, if not it should have a GM part number or a Chevrolet Tech Bulletin may have been generated to announce it's availablity. There has to be some type of documentation from Chevrolet if the part was available.

real61ss: Thanks for the response. But the way I see it is: "Part being available" is different from "Part being installed at the Factory when car was built"

Thanks-Larry

real61ss: Thanks for the response. But the way I see it is: "Part being available" is different from "Part being installed at the Factory when car was built"

Thanks-Larry

Larry,

Please don't think I'm being augurmentative but the rule book has been changed this year, it no longer reads "as received by the dealer from the factory". The new rule book reads....The objective of AACA judging is to evaluate an antique vehicle, which has been restored to the same state as the dealer could have prepared the vehicle for delivery to the customer. This includes any feature, option or accessory shown in the original factory catalog, parts book, sales literature, or company directives for the model year of the vehicle.

The way I read the above, the factory no longer had to build the car, so long as the car or part was available through the dealer it is acceptable as long as it can be documented as being available.

................The way I read the above, the factory no longer had to build the car, so long as the car or part was available through the dealer it is acceptable as long as it can be documented as being available.

Which probably now more easily covers the 2X4 barrels carburators that were in the trunk of the new Camaros, was it, as they came off the delivery truck?

Aftermarket parts, even if installed by the dealer, are still a no no.

Larry,

Please don't think I'm being augurmentative but the rule book has been changed this year, it no longer reads "as received by the dealer from the factory". The new rule book reads....The objective of AACA judging is to evaluate an antique vehicle, which has been restored to the same state as the dealer could have prepared the vehicle for delivery to the customer. This includes any feature, option or accessory shown in the original factory catalog, parts book, sales literature, or company directives for the model year of the vehicle.

The way I read the above, the factory no longer had to build the car, so long as the car or part was available through the dealer it is acceptable as long as it can be documented as being available.

real61ss: You are not being augumentative; we are just trying to express our "interpetation" of the rules. If in fact you

are correct this opens up a lot of gray area's with the rules. I hope it is not true as this would take a lot out of the meaning

of "original" cars. I hope someone could clear this up. People will start showing up with exhaust "headers" which in fact

had a GM part number for certain cars like the Corvette. My meaning of original still stays the same-It has to be built that

way from the factory to qualify. JMHO Larry

Which probably now more easily covers the 2X4 barrels carburators that were in the trunk of the new Camaros, was it, as they came off the delivery truck?

R W Burgess: That an old wives tale. According to everything I have researched the above never did happen. The only way

you could get the above was "over the counter". This has been varified with a letter from GM which is in the "Jerry McNeish"

book. Jerry is the probably most known authority for 1st Gen Camaro's. Also varified by CRG (Camaro Research Group).

If someone would show up with the 2 X 4 setup it is a non-factory RPO. --Larry

real61ss: You are not being augumentative; we are just trying to express our "interpetation" of the rules. If in fact you

are correct this opens up a lot of gray area's with the rules. I hope it is not true as this would take a lot out of the meaning

of "original" cars. I hope someone could clear this up. People will start showing up with exhaust "headers" which in fact

had a GM part number for certain cars like the Corvette. My meaning of original still stays the same-It has to be built that

way from the factory to qualify. JMHO Larry

....The objective of AACA judging is to evaluate an antique vehicle, which has been restored to the same state as the dealer could have prepared the vehicle for delivery to the customer. This includes any feature, option or accessory shown in the original factory catalog, parts book, sales literature, or company directives for the model year of the vehicle.

The above is copied and pasted from the 2013 AACA Judges Guidlines. This is a big change from the previous rule book.

It always was "as it could have left the factory" not "as it actually left the factory". Not sure I see how the new interpretation is different.

AACA judging has never required a car to be "as it left the factory".

The 2006 Judging Guideline stated on page 1 under General Policy..."The objective of AACA judging is to evaluate an antique vehicle which has been restored to the same state as when the dealer received it from the factory". The 2013 Judging Guideline states on page 1 under General Policy.... " The objective of AACA judging is to evaluate an antique vehicle, which has been restored to the same state as the dealer could have prepared the vehicle for delivery to the customer." I see those two statements as a major difference, I'm sorry we have hi-jacked the cowl induction thread but this is worth discussing.

The 2006 Judging Guideline stated on page 1 under General Policy..."The objective of AACA judging is to evaluate an antique vehicle which has been restored to the same state as when the dealer received it from the factory". The 2013 Judging Guideline states on page 1 under General Policy.... " The objective of AACA judging is to evaluate an antique vehicle, which has been restored to the same state as the dealer could have prepared the vehicle for delivery to the customer." I see those two statements as a major difference, I'm sorry we have hi-jacked the cowl induction thread but this is worth discussing.

real61ss: Yes I see it now; don't agree with it though. I guess we are getting a lot like the politicians in that: If we don't have enough people to make the

standard then will just lower the standards. Thanks

I don't have my 2006 manual here but I think you will find that it goes on to say that any accessory or option that was available for that model in that model year is acceptable whether the car in question left the factory with those options or not. AACA does not check VINs or compare window stickers to what is actually on the car. If the car could have come from the factory or if the dealer could have equipped the car as presented there is no deduction, assuming all options are factory authorized. I don't see any lowering of standards. A factory authorized option was always accepted whether or not it was originally on the car presented for judging. Non factory authorized options were not accepted. Nothing has changed.

I don't have my 2006 manual here but I think you will find that it goes on to say that any accessory or option that was available for that model in that model year is acceptable whether the car in question left the factory with those options or not. AACA does not check VINs or compare window stickers to what is actually on the car. If the car could have come from the factory or if the dealer could have equipped the car as presented there is no deduction, assuming all options are factory authorized. I don't see any lowering of standards. A factory authorized option was always accepted whether or not it was originally on the car presented for judging. Non factory authorized options were not accepted. Nothing has changed.

Restorer32: OK thanks for response. If that's what it is will have to live with it. Like this forum because of different opinions come about. Enjoy belonging

to the AACA. Thanks again; Larry

I'm new to the AACA Forum and I appreciate the feedback on this forum. The 66 Chevelle will be making its first show later this year at Cleveland, Tennessee.

You've piqued my curiosity. How does this interpretation deal with dealer-built cars like Yenko, Motion, and Nickey Chevrolet. I'm not talking about factory-built COPO cars, but actual engine swaps that were not factory available? What about a Yenko Stinger Vega with a turbocharger (again, never factory installed)? ASC McLaren Mustangs are another example. Are these cars eligible? To be honest, I'm not even sure I see the distinction between these cars and coachbuilt cars from the 1920s and 30s.

If the factory authorized those dealer built cars, they would be perfectly OK in AACA Judging. I know very little about those, but I suspect that factory documentation to show that those were "factory authorized" would be very difficult to obtain.

If the factory authorized those dealer built cars, they would be perfectly OK in AACA Judging. I know very little about those, but I suspect that factory documentation to show that those were "factory authorized" would be very difficult to obtain.

Boy I hate to start on this again; but----The factory did not "authorize" the dealers to do this; they done this upon themselves.

By changing the wording from the 2006 guide I believe whoever done this has openned up a big can of worms. Here is typical

example: The 1970(Chevelle) LS6 450 HP could not come with A/C from the factory; Chevy advised against is due to the higher redline

of the engine. (A/C Compressor could not keep up). But I have seen Dealers still put it in with all GM parts after the car was

delivered. Now where would this car stand in Judging? It has all ducumented parts from GM and can be proven?? Comments

Please. Larry P.S. AFAIK there is no such ducumention to prove "authorization" that a certain part is for a certain model.

llskis,

As I said earlier, I don't know much about these. I suspect that the factory did not authorize these, but I don't know. That is why I posted what I posted. If there is no factory literature or documents authorizing them (which is what I expect), then they would receive major deductions in AACA Judging. I am not an expert, which is why I did not post, they were not factory authorized so they would be subject to major deductions for incorrect parts.

You have said that you are not a judge. I would suggest that you attend a judging school. Maybe it would help you understand the judging guidelines and the judging process better.

It is generally a good idea to "Never say never", which is why you will normally find judges using their words carefully to explain the process and answer questions. There is no reason to say, "Boy I hate to start on this again; but----The factory did not "authorize" the dealers to do this; they done this upon themselves."

I suspect that you are correct and these cars would receive major deductions, but I am not going to pronounce that as a fact. I will continue to state that it would require documentation of factory authorization. And I still suspect that would be difficult to find, because I am relatively sure it does not exist.

Documentation would generally be literature such as a factory sales literature, factory parts manual, factory service manual, factory service letters, and other similar factory produced documents.

I suspect that you are correct and these cars would receive major deductions, but I am not going to pronounce that as a fact. I will continue to state that it would require documentation of factory authorization. And I still suspect that would be difficult to find, because I am relatively sure it does not exist.

Yenko, Motion, and Nickey cars are well documented and highly sought after. If there was any factory "authorization", it was likely unofficial. They are a significant part of musclecar history from the 1960s and early 1970s, however.

MCHinson:

Thank you ever so much; respect your response. No I'm not a judge for AACA but I am for other organizations. Getting back for the original question from

red66malibu: Hope this fellow does OK but all I am saying is that Cold Plenum Air Cleaner was never a RPO probably (I'm Guessing) due to the fact it

was a High Preformance Part that was not made for the everyday Chevelle. I suspect it had no previsons for Ice and Snow and the normal weather and

that's why Chevy never made it a RPO. Chevelles where sold in Alaska as we know. But certainly a dealer could buy it from GM and do whatever he wanted to do with it or if the customer demanded to be put on. There is no authorization pro or con from GM; all they cared about was selling the part period. Anyway I have

said enough on the subject--Thanks-Larry

You've piqued my curiosity. How does this interpretation deal with dealer-built cars like Yenko, Motion, and Nickey Chevrolet. I'm not talking about factory-built COPO cars, but actual engine swaps that were not factory available? What about a Yenko Stinger Vega with a turbocharger (again, never factory installed)? ASC McLaren Mustangs are another example. Are these cars eligible? To be honest, I'm not even sure I see the distinction between these cars and coachbuilt cars from the 1920s and 30s.

I think those conversions must have been approved by GM, weren't they covered by a warranty? If GM had not approved the car it would have voided the warranty. Anyway, they are not an issue in AACA, class 36B list the qualified cars and 1967 to 1969 Chevelle, Camaro & Nova Yenko 4V/427 cid are approved vehicles for the class. Class 36g includes the 1970 thru 1972 Yenko's

I think those conversions must have been approved by GM, weren't they covered by a warranty? If GM had not approved the car it would have voided the warranty. Anyway, they are not an issue in AACA, class 36B list the qualified cars and 1967 to 1969 Chevelle, Camaro & Nova Yenko 4V/427 cid are approved vehicles for the class. Class 36g includes the 1970 thru 1972 Yenko's

Tommy,

Thanks for the info. I'm not sure about the warranty. Certainly the COPO cars were covered by a factory warranty, since the engines were factory installed. I'm not sure about the dealer-installed crate motors, however. I know some of these dealers offered their own supplemental warranty on the modifications.

I think those conversions must have been approved by GM, weren't they covered by a warranty? If GM had not approved the car it would have voided the warranty. Anyway, they are not an issue in AACA, class 36B list the qualified cars and 1967 to 1969 Chevelle, Camaro & Nova Yenko 4V/427 cid are approved vehicles for the class. Class 36g includes the 1970 thru 1972 Yenko's

real61ss: Just a footnote on the above. Talked to the Yenko owners in my class(36B) at Moline this weekend and as I understand it is that the 69 Camaro

Yenko's where actually COPO cars ordered from Chevy so the engines where installed at the factory so the GM warrenty was like any other GM car. When

the car arrived at Yenko Dealership he put on the strips an all the emblems, wheels and etc. It was a different story though for the 67 and 68's as he did

R/R the engines and the warrenty was put out by him not GM. Thanks-Larry

real61ss: Just a footnote on the above. Talked to the Yenko owners in my class(36B) at Moline this weekend and as I understand it is that the 69 Camaro

Yenko's where actually COPO cars ordered from Chevy so the engines where installed at the factory so the GM warrenty was like any other GM car. When

the car arrived at Yenko Dealership he put on the strips an all the emblems, wheels and etc. It was a different story though for the 67 and 68's as he did

R/R the engines and the warrenty was put out by him not GM. Thanks-Larry

Good information, thanks. I was in class 36b at Moline too, wish I could have met you. Which car did you have in the class?

Good information, thanks. I was in class 36b at Moline too, wish I could have met you. Which car did you have in the class?

Hello Tom: Yes wish I could have met you also; next time around. I must have been on the far side with the 69 Hugger Orange Z28. Our class

was the biggest there. Some real nice cars in our class. That rain made for a long day; didn't it? Will take a week to clean the underneath of it. Larry

P.S. Found out the hard way that one of my chamber pipe back mufflers was bad(Had rusted out from the inside out) which they cought in judging. We put a S/Steel one today; should

last a lifetime. FYI

Hello Tom: Yes wish I could have met you also; next time around. I must have been on the far side with the 69 Hugger Orange Z28. Our class

was the biggest there. Some real nice cars in our class. That rain made for a long day; didn't it? Will take a week to clean the underneath of it. Larry

P.S. Found out the hard way that one of my chamber pipe back mufflers was bad(Had rusted out from the inside out) which they cought in judging. We put a S/Steel one today; should

last a lifetime. FYI

Larry, Are you a member of the SYC site? A couple of guys posted photos of the cars in 36b. Yours is posted, Go here AACA GN Meet - The Supercar Registry Bulletin Board

Larry, Are you a member of the SYC site? A couple of guys posted photos of the cars in 36b. Yours is posted, Go here AACA GN Meet - The Supercar Registry Bulletin Board

Tom: Thanks for the neat info. No not member of that one but on the CRG Board and various others like NCRS Discussion board. There are pictures of

our cars all over the internet. Have nice discussion going on with the NCRS on the Bloomington Gold in Champaign vs. AACA G/N in Moline. Lots of

pictures there also. Have the S/S Chamber Muffler on now (Got from Allens Exhaust); looks real nice and a lot more quiet. Now we have to start cleaning

the car after that horrible rain. OK; nice talking to you; we will catch you down the line. Larry P.S. Will you contact the AACA to get scoring info from the

meet??

Tom: Thanks for the neat info. No not member of that one but on the CRG Board and various others like NCRS Discussion board. There are pictures of

our cars all over the internet. Have nice discussion going on with the NCRS on the Bloomington Gold in Champaign vs. AACA G/N in Moline. Lots of

pictures there also. Have the S/S Chamber Muffler on now (Got from Allens Exhaust); looks real nice and a lot more quiet. Now we have to start cleaning

the car after that horrible rain. OK; nice talking to you; we will catch you down the line. Larry P.S. Will you contact the AACA to get scoring info from the

meet??

No, I won't bother them, the car got it's Sr. GN so it had to have scored at least 390 points. Yeah, I got tied up in that Bloomington Gold thing, on our way out to Moline I got off the interstate in Champain, Il. about midnight and got the last room at the Holiday Inn, paid twice what it should have cost and I'm thinking "what the hell is going on, why are there no rooms". Then i noticed the parking lot was full of Corvettes!! I knew it was Bloomington Gold weekend but I didn't realize they had moved it to Champain......Duh!!