1969 COPO Nova

[kalbert]

It may have been Nickey Chevrolet in Chicago. They converted Novas and Camaros and some were ordered via the COPO method: http://www.novaresource.org/history.htm

Yea Nickey sounds right, or at least rings a bell with what I had heard somewhere. Or am I thinking of the Harrell prepped Gibb cars? COPO kind of makes it all a real grab bag BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH shoot. Seems that any combination of anything in the warehouse could be ordered if you went through the right channels. Can you imagine the same level of competition going on today?!?!?

Over on 67-72Chevytrucks.com there's a guy who worked at GM in the truck group with a good story about how he arranged to have a hundred 87 C10s built with an MY6 4spd just because he wanted one and they had a pallet of them in the warehouse.

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=3300095

[niteowl7710]

I thought so, lol. That would make the first release of Revell's kit incorrect.

Well the engine isn't the problem. Yenko did indeed post-factory install the engine represented as discussed earlier. What made it wrong was the incorrect seats, wheels, and SS-Trim. All of which you can fix by swapping out those parts for the bench seat, non-SS trim and steel wheels & poverty caps from the phantom Nova kit. Put the Yenko "spare" parts BACK into the "COPO" Nova and you magically have a SS396 Nova since there's no external difference in the engines (at least that would be significant in scale).

The real intrigue of the past decade of modeling is whether Revell had ALWAYS intended the Yenko be wrong, and ALWAYS had a fake COPO Nova planned, or whether the latter was the result of ensuing backlash about the Yenko parts being incorrect - not to mention the problems with the gas tank being backwards. From everyone I've ever spoken to who actually worked for Revell or AMT/Ertl, or Aoshima - not magical, mythical hobby insiders in their own minds - these companies know what their going to do for years in advance, and have firm kit plans going 18-24 months into the future. So was the phantom COPO Nova the best solution to fixing the Yenko parts problem, that also help amortize the overall Nova tooling costs while just flying over the radar of people who aren't into cars and don't know/care about a factory 427 Nova, and provided the necessary wheels and hubcaps for the ZL-1 Camaro? Or did they always intend to do things the way they happened? If it wasn't a "happy accident" then there's an entire cultural issue in Elk Grove Village...

[The70judgeman]

It may have been Nickey Chevrolet in Chicago. They converted Novas and Camaros and some were ordered via the COPO method: http://www.novaresource.org/history.htm

Don't forget Baldwin Motion also probably used the COPO program and did transplants in Camaro's and Corvette's. Not sure, but I'd say not in Nova's though.

[berr13]

niteowl--now that's an interesting theory! Virtually the grassy knoll of models...

[1972coronet]

Don't forget Baldwin Motion also probably used the COPO program and did transplants in Camaro's and Corvette's. Not sure, but I'd say not in Nova's though.

Motion Performance --under the direction of Joel Rosen-- built their cars on an as-ordered basis , particularly their "Phase III" builds .

Not sure if Motion built any X-bodies ; I'll have to defer to Martyn Schorr's book when it arrives in the mail .

[dimaxion]

The first Yenko I saw , I crawled underneath . It had more than 1 leaf spring per side . Traction bars were added . This was done to prevent disaster as the torque ripped many a rear ends loose from the chassis if / when the car would "hook Up" . Part of the reason GM would not build these uncontrolable .......... (fill in the blank) . The same with the Camaros . I watched a Brand New '66 Nova driver side step the clutch at a Drag Strip off the line in Competition . It bolted the car's rear end up in the air and the resulting "unplaned event' closed the Air Port for quite awhile . BTW , the Competiton was done for the weekend immediatly & instantly . Friday night was an awful short weekend of Racing . The fans and contestants all got "Rainchecks" . IIRC , the Strip banned Camaros & Novas w/o real suspension under these GM Qualit Gems from this date . To simply state , with stock monoleaf still in place . This was a '66 327 Nova SS . Just picked up late in the afternoon then driven directly to the Strip . Baldwin Motion , Yenko ad Niccky Chevrolet knew better than the Generally More how to make a car , period IMHO . Not a rolling hazard IMHO , as GM's SOP to make in the day . BTW , when the maker did make the Novas with more than the IMHO ; "Failed Monoleaf Experment" , the centering bolts were too soft . This made these "improved" Vehicles easy to spot going down the road . The whole lot of them dog-tracked . Thanx ..

[Aaronw]

So was the phantom COPO Nova the best solution to fixing the Yenko parts problem, that also help amortize the overall Nova tooling costs while just flying over the radar of people who aren't into cars and don't know/care about a factory 427 Nova, and provided the necessary wheels and hubcaps for the ZL-1 Camaro? Or did they always intend to do things the way they happened? If it wasn't a "happy accident" then there's an entire cultural issue in Elk Grove Village...

I don't know whether to put on my tin foil hat, or congratulate you for exposing Revell's nefarious plans to encourage kit bashing.

If you look at older kits from all the kit makers there used to be a lot more encouragement to customize your model, kit bashing and even modifying parts. I know it annoys some that you have to buy multiple kits to build certain options, but I kind of hope this "mistake" was planned. It would show Revell is thinking about their kits beyond the base level impulse consumer and encouraging more advanced parts box model making.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Aaronw

[niteowl7710]

I don't know whether to put on my tin foil hat, or congratulate you for exposing Revell's nefarious plans to encourage kit bashing.

If you look at older kits from all the kit makers there used to be a lot more encouragement to customize your model, kit bashing and even modifying parts. I know it annoys some that you have to buy multiple kits to build certain options, but I kind of hope this "mistake" was planned. It would show Revell is thinking about their kits beyond the base level impulse consumer and encouraging more advanced parts box model making.

I would agree, BUT, why not just make the Yenko kit correctly in the first place? Doing that would have still allowed a "COPO" 427 nee SS396 kit, as well as the SS 350/Drag Car kit. Kit bashing to me is (more traditionally) to put something from a kit it doesn't belong into another kit it's not designed for...ZR-1 motor, drive train, and suspension into a '56 Nomad.

What this situation amounted to was taking a Group of Parts from Kit A and putting them into Kit B. Actually because the COPO Nova has ALL the parts from the Yenko kit other than the wheels, all you really need to do is swap the hoods and decal sheets. That's not kitbashing, that's laziness on Revell's part. Plus you have to consider the COPO Nova didn't get released until THREE years after the original Yenko kit. By then most people who wanted a Yenko replica bad enough either built what they had, or scratchbuilt and kitbashed the mistakes away.

[Aaronw]

I would agree, BUT, why not just make the Yenko kit correctly in the first place? Doing that would have still allowed a "COPO" 427 nee SS396 kit, as well as the SS 350/Drag Car kit. Kit bashing to me is (more traditionally) to put something from a kit it doesn't belong into another kit it's not designed for...ZR-1 motor, drive train, and suspension into a '56 Nomad.

What this situation amounted to was taking a Group of Parts from Kit A and putting them into Kit B. Actually because the COPO Nova has ALL the parts from the Yenko kit other than the wheels, all you really need to do is swap the hoods and decal sheets. That's not kitbashing, that's laziness on Revell's part. Plus you have to consider the COPO Nova didn't get released until THREE years after the original Yenko kit. By then most people who wanted a Yenko replica bad enough either built what they had, or scratchbuilt and kitbashed the mistakes away.

I can see that complaint and it does sound like it was an error. I'm just thinking it would be neat to see some of the model companies start thinking bigger, give suggestions in the instructions like, take the parts from kit A and Kit C, to make this or that version not offered as a kit. The old Johan Rambler kit included things like cutting the roof off the back of the station wagon to build a phantom pickup (El Ramblero?), and many of the AMT 3 in 1 kits offered some fairly complex custom options. The '55 Nomad includes a piece and instructions to also offer a custom pickup if you cut away the roof. I just don't see these kind of more adventurous ideas suggested in modern kits. Cutting away a roof is a lot more ambitious than just swapping a motor and wheels around, but it would be a start to get past just assembling a kit straight from the box.

Maybe it was just laziness, hopefully part of a bigger plan just poorly executed the first time around. It does seem to be a recurring issue though with the '57 Ford (supercharger) and '62 Corvette (hardtop).

Legos do this on their website. My son like Bionicles (robot-ish creatures) and they offer instructions for entirely new versions that can only be built by combining the various characters.

[Casey]

I would agree, BUT, why not just make the Yenko kit correctly in the first place?

If you're selling model kits, would you rather have three kits available, taking up shelf space, or one, even if that one kit was a 3'n'1? Revell could probably stuff all the possible sprues from their '69 Camaro kits and make a 5'n 1 kit, but would that really be to their advantage? Sure, smart consumers well versed in the different varieties of this kit Revell has made available since 1990 will see right through this marketing strategy, but what about the other 95% of their customers? Mom at Michael's buying a kit, Joe Average at Wal-Mart, or even Joe Blow at his local hobby shop? Are they going to realize Revell has six different version of his same basic kit, and then going to decide they will not purchase one because Revell could've included all the options from the get-go? No.

Yes, the Revell '69 COPO Nova was never accurate, but you I'm sure people bought it for the bench seat and/or steelies and dog dish hupcaps, planning to use them on say, their '69 Yenko Camaro kit, and I'm sure that's what Revell was hoping for. It's no coincidence the COPO Nova was on store shelves at Michael's the same time as TWO of their '69 Camaros, and I'm willing to bet more than one person purchased one COPO Nova and one '69 Camaro kit while shopping there.

Round2 could've done the same thing with their '76 and '75 Gremlin kits, too, but they released separate kits, which differ by the grille, decal sheets, and box art.

The bottom line is they sell more kits this way, whether serious model builders like most of us here on the forum like it or not.

[niteowl7710]

If you're selling model kits, would you rather have three kits available, taking up shelf space, or one, even if that one kit was a 3'n'1? Revell could probably stuff all the possible sprues from their '69 Camaro kits and make a 5'n 1 kit, but would that really be to their advantage? Sure, smart consumers well versed in the different varieties of this kit Revell has made available since 1990 will see right through this marketing strategy, but what about the other 95% of their customers? Mom at Michael's buying a kit, Joe Average at Wal-Mart, or even Joe Blow at his local hobby shop? Are they going to realize Revell has six different version of his same basic kit, and then going to decide they will not purchase one because Revell could've included all the options from the get-go? No.

Yes, the Revell '69 COPO Nova was never accurate, but you I'm sure people bought it for the bench seat and/or steelies and dog dish hupcaps, planning to use them on say, their '69 Yenko Camaro kit, and I'm sure that's what Revell was hoping for. It's no coincidence the COPO Nova was on store shelves at Michael's the same time as TWO of their '69 Camaros, and I'm willing to bet more than one person purchased one COPO Nova and one '69 Camaro kit while shopping there.

Round2 could've done the same thing with their '76 and '75 Gremlin kits, too, but they released separate kits, which differ by the grille, decal sheets, and box art.

The bottom line is they sell more kits this way, whether serious model builders like most of us here on the forum like it or not.

*sigh* You're not listening (or reading). I didn't say there shouldn't have been three versions, I'm saying version ONE should have been correct in the first place if the parts for it are in version THREE. If they had planned to do a "COPO" Nova the whole time, then putting the bench seat and non-SS parts from it (they were going to tool them ANYWAY) into the Yenko Nova kit where they BELONGED wouldn't have cost any more money, since they planned to spend the money anyway.

Putting the proper parts into the proper kit isn't making it a 3'n1. The kit would ONLY be able to be built as a Yenko Nova - like the box says. Then you would have the SS 350 kit which is a 2'n1 since it can be built stock or drag. Then you have the "COPO" Nova which is also a 2'n1 since you can build it as the fake 427 Nova or as a SS396.

Also using Michael's as an example of stock is hysterical, Michael's seems to rotate their kit stock bi-annually at best. My local one has Revell kits on the shelf that aren't even in the catalog anymore. Let alone my LHS which has THREE different kittings of things like the '99 Lightning F-150.

If Revell wants to hang it's hat on being the company for the masses producing a variety of half-hearted releases that are aimed squarely at the weekend warrior modeler who buys one or two kits every quarter, than that's fine. But they should stop pretending to be a Hobbyist Orientated company in that case.

Edited September 15, 2013 by niteowl7710

[martinfan5]

If Revell wants to hang it's hat on being the company for the masses producing a variety of half-hearted releases that are aimed squarely at the weekend warrior modeler who buys one or two kits every quarter, than that's fine. But they should stop pretending to be a Hobbyist Orientated company in that case.

[Casey]

If Revell wants to hang it's hat on being the company for the masses producing a variety of half-hearted releases that are aimed squarely at the weekend warrior modeler who buys one or two kits every quarter, than that's fine.

I get that you're into quality first, James, and I have no issue with that. I wish more builders were like that and had higher standards. I wish Revell didn't release any kits with glaring errors (LX roof). I wish they would hit their announced release dates on time, every time. I wish their kits would equal Tamiya's kits in terms of parts crispness and fit, but that's just not Revell. I would only be guessing at the reasons beyond what I asked and was told, but I was satisfied with the answers and explanations I received.

[martinfan5]

I get that you're into quality first, James, and I have no issue with that. I wish more builders were like that and had higher standards. I wish Revell didn't release any kits with glaring errors (LX roof). I wish they would hit their announced release dates on time, every time. I wish their kits would equal Tamiya's kits in terms of parts crispness and fit, but that's just not Revell. I would only be guessing at the reasons beyond what I asked and was told, but I was satisfied with the answers and explanations I received.

What I take from that is, and this is just my opinion, that Revell only cares about the bottom line, and could care less about the products they put out, again, just my opinion that I formed from reading what you typed.

[RodneyBad]

What I take from that is, and this is just my opinion, that Revell only cares about the bottom line, and could care less about the products they put out, again, just my opinion that I formed from reading what you typed.

[Tonioseven]

Lol!!!

[niteowl7710]

I get that you're into quality first, James, and I have no issue with that. I wish more builders were like that and had higher standards. I wish Revell didn't release any kits with glaring errors (LX roof). I wish they would hit their announced release dates on time, every time. I wish their kits would equal Tamiya's kits in terms of parts crispness and fit, but that's just not Revell. I would only be guessing at the reasons beyond what I asked and was told, but I was satisfied with the answers and explanations I received.

I don't need Revell to be the U.S. Branch if Tamiya, I just need them to act like they care once in awhile. I have never once on my commentary on Revell argued about their choice in kits, but rather in how they decide to go about things. I could care less about meeting release dates, I like many have enough stash that I've built the equivalent of a Hobby Doomsday Prepper Fort.

I just think you're seeing the double edged sword of the Hobbico ownership. The proverbial unintended consequence of goods intentions if you will. The argument can be made very strongly that without Hobbico there might not be a Revell today. But because of the background of where Hobbico came from - the merging of Tower Hobbies & Great Planes, the bottom line of "SELL MOOOAAAR KITS!!!" to the exclusion of quality control and focusing on the adult market in 2013, as opposed than trying to recreate the kid's market of 1964. I get that they sell more kits overall to 45,000 average modelers who buy a half dozen kits a year, than 5,000 hard-core forum builders. But a rising tide lifts all ships. Revell doesn't need to make an LX with 250 fiddly over-engineered rivet-counter Skill Level 5 parts, just one that isn't plagued with issues that in this day and age shouldn't even be a factor in world-class model making.

Edited September 15, 2013 by niteowl7710

[Stuntman Mike]

Revell is Not focussing on us rivet-counting "professional" scale modelers as we are just 5% of the consumers. It's a business focussed in making money and staying in business. That's what they told us when we visited the Revell headquarter in Germany last year. I'm fine with this situation and I enjoy to have room for improvements when it comes to building something specific. My showcase ends up with including some uniquemodels.

[chevyfever2009]

Oops, sorry... those engines I posted were first and second generation only. Third generation (1968-74) included those engines listed plus a 350, a 396, and a 402. But no 427. At least not from the factory.

What about the 302 chevy and the 307 chevy motors

[Longbox55]

The 302 was only used in the Camaro with RPO Z/28. However, the 307 was used in the 3rd Gen Chevy II/Nova, as it was the replacement for the 283.