We could also theorize that GM stamped thousands upon thousands of pans for an anticipated increase in sales based on the Camaro performance. Remember that Camaro in 67 and 68 outsold the Firebird 2.7 to 1. So Pontiac could have, with the voracity of Wangers and Delorean and the design team of Pontiac, ordered and anticipated the performance versions of the RAI, II to exceed the actual production figures. There were 523 RA1 and II's sold that year out of 107,000 produced? That is less than 2% of total production. Compare that to the GTO RAI and II Compare that to Z28. Based on the flood of what 20 different models from 10-15 different divisions (Chevy, Pontiac AMC, Ford, Mercury, Chrysler, Plymouth, Dodge) with hundreds (yes hundreds) of different powertrain options, you get a very volitile and competitive market. Remember, you could order a Camaro with 8 different 8 cylinder motors in 68-9. This lead to extremes in overproduction and, in my opinion, Pontiac lead the performance and design aspect from 65-69.

Gm likely had a stockpile of the pans (theory) and realized that the RA I and II's did not sell well and decided to "create" a RAIII which, in essence and fact is only a 69 HO with open air induction. This, I believe if I remember what I read was not necessarily a planned "option" for the 69 Firebird. There were no internal engine differences to differentiate a HO form a RAIII as there was for the 67 RA, 68 RAI, 68 RAII and the 69 RAIV. (valvetrain, heads, springs, cam, exhaust) There were external differences to denote a RA car which is a close ratio trans and/or a higher 3.90-4.33 rear and the addition of the pans and open hood scoops. (AFAIK)

This leads to mid year biling and option changes, confusion and overall limbo of what is what. GM never anticipated, in 1968 that they would have a RAIII for Firebird. I have read that in many books (opinions from many sources).

If I remember correctly, there were no engine modifications (stouter valvetrain) to designate this 69 D port RA III as they had done with the 67 RA or RAI. SO, I conclude that GM did not ever anticipate a RAIII release until they realized an overstock of pans due to very poor RAI and II Firebird sales. Again, remember the RA and RAI was a D port design with taller stiffer valvesprings and an 744 cam. The 68 HO, 69 HO and 68 RAII all had a smaller cam (068) and no head mods. The 67 RA had 670 heads, changed to 97 or 997 with the spring pads machined down to accept 1.171 springs and a larger cam (744) over the base 67 Firebird 400 (066 or 067). We can also throw in specific calibrated carb numbers as well for all these, but really not significant.

In conclusion, all this is based on reading only about one specific model over a 3 year production run. Is it true? It is unknown until someone of stature, integrity and first hand knowledge can write a factual believable book based on fact.

Most of the 67-9 Firebird books are complete B.S. Including the "Red Book" by Peter Sessler, "Pontiac Firebird Restoration Guide" by Joe Moore and McCarthys book "Pontiac Performance". There many descrepancies in the first book, the second by Joe Moore is HORRIBLE and the third has many factual errors in the first two printings that have gradually been corrected. I am not downplaying McCarthy, but I believe it was a publishing or other error not within McCarthy's control.