It's not that simple.  The standard non A/C heater box is configured completly 
different that it's A/C counter part.  Not to mention the non A/C box is 
considerably smaller and has different mounting locations than the A/C box

Tom Rightler
MCC Newsletter Editor
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Eddie Bumgarner 
  To: The Chevelle Mailing List 
  Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:06 AM
  Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] A/C deleted


  Put the standard heater box in you'll be glad you did. Eddie Bumgarner 66ss 
conv/68 camaro.

  Josh Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
    Hey guys I have a question for everyones opinion on the 71. Some hamheaded 
previous owner ripped out (litteraly) the factory a/c components on the car to 
make room for the tall chrome valve covers they replaced the stock ones with. 
Anyway I still have the blower motor attached but thats it, it only survived 
because its under the fender what I would like to know is your opinions on 
either a.) buy the fiberglass cover panel that will still enable a heater or 
b.) cover it all up with sheetmetal panels and damn the heater, the headers 
will keep you warm? Thanks for the input.




    Josh Campbell
    66 SS 396 (Black on the rotisseree, 1st car never part with it)
    66 SS 396 (Red got it on a trade I only wanted the steering wheel)
    87 Monte Carlo SS (The modern Chevelle especially when you add the right 
stuff)
    71 Malibu (Something new to blow my money on)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it 
now.




  Eddie Bumgarner 66ss conv.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008 
7:32 PM

Reply via email to