CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => Decoding/Numbers => Topic started by: FortLangleyBC on February 14, 2015, 09:50:22 PM
-
Good morning
Does this 69 Z trim tag look real & unmolested?
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you!
-
Where's the attachment(pic)??
-
I seem to be having some technical issues - sorry about that.
Hopefully the photo shows up....
Thanks for your patience.
-
Looks fine to me. It's in our db.
-
Awesome - thanks William!
This car came on EBay today & I have a deposit on it. Will be viewing it Monday...as a newbie, any advice would be nice :)
-
Have McNeish or someone inspect it. Lots of stuff wrong.
-
He doesn't show any pictures of other crucial areas such as engine, trans and rear stampings. Looks like the car has been through the auctions a few times.
https://www.mecum.com/lot-detail.cfm?lot_id=CA0813-161209
http://www.barrett-jackson.com/Archive/Event/Item/1969-CHEVROLET-CAMARO-COUPE-112814
-
Thank you for the quick replies!
I saw the BA & Mecum auctions - the auction info didn't say much but was at lest consistent.
Does anybody know a corvette inspector in the Bay Area?
-
Here's the eBay listing...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Camaro-Z-28-Z-28-Numbers-Matched-Fully-Restored-Highly-Optioned-Z28-/131429900646?forcerrptr=true&hash=item1e99d52166&item=131429900646&pt=US_Cars_Trucks
Paul
-
Thank you for the quick replies!
I saw the BA & Mecum auctions - the auction info didn't say much but was at lest consistent.
Does anybody know a corvette inspector in the Bay Area?
Why would you want a CORVETTE inspector?
-
Oops - an honest mistake. I've been shopping for a mid 60's vette as well.
-
That is quite the option list. I have seen a couple of 69 Z cars with a customer ordered 3:55 rear, to see that this one would have had (has) a 3:31 originally is pretty wild. I wonder if there is a 69 Z with a 3:07, 2:73, or 2:56 rear out there?
Thank you for the quick replies!
I saw the BA & Mecum auctions - the auction info didn't say much but was at lest consistent.
Does anybody know a corvette inspector in the Bay Area?
You could try contacting Steve of "Steve Camaros" (parts house) in San Bruno, and see if he has a local guy he could recommend if Jerry is booked out a ways. With some of the inconsistencies with this car I would definitely get it checked out PRIOR to purchase. This will serve to educate you about this car, and protect you, so you know exactly what you are getting, and may inform the seller of some things they may not be aware of.
Good luck with it.. :)
-
Thank you Bullitt65 - I really appreciate user your comments! I won't close the deal on this Z unless it checks out.
I have a message in for Jerry M - hopefully he is available.
If not I will try Steve for a reference - thanks again.
-
PS - this car was advertised in the UK last year stating matching numbers with a "date matched BS 0325 G1" rear axle...
car-from-uk.com/sale.php?id=110570
-
^ That listing link above includes the following description, which is at odds with the 'clear' title from the eBay listing:
"Vehicle Title: Rebuilt, Rebuildable & Rec"
(Whatever that means? More likely just an error on the website wording, but worth checking)
-
Thanks ZLP955 - definitely worth checking. ???
The Ebay posting states "clear title".
-
That is quite the option list. I have seen a couple of 69 Z cars with a customer ordered 3:55 rear, to see that this one would have had (has) a 3:31 originally is pretty wild. I wonder if there is a 69 Z with a 3:07, 2:73, or 2:56 rear out there?
...
If there were a Z28 with those rears from the factory, they are probably still trying to get going out of the dealership parking lot.. :) (I don't think Chevrolet would have sold a first gen Z28 with any of those gears... a 3.55 is on the borderline I think)...
-
Funny,
Hey I have driven a Z with the 3:55 rear, and I thought it was very doggish out of the hole, I can't imagine revving the motor that much more to move even taller gears out of the hole. Another thought about those ratios is, wouldn't that throw off the power band as in relation to mile an hour? Seems like you could be in first gear up to 65, no problem, and it would kind of bog if you ever were in 4th gear under 80.
-
VIN: 124379N630618
Paul
-
I did not think that GM sticker in the door cam on 4-69 cars.
-
The VIN door sticker, didn't appear until late August from everything I have seen and researched. This was done to meet a federal mandate that cars had to have it by 9/1/69. I have yet to find a car prior to 08D with an Original Sticker. Seems like 08E was when it was rolled out for mass production, because by the time they would hit the lot it would be Septemeber.
*Although I have been told there were some early August cars with them, but they did not stick well and soon fell off. (I still haven't seen a survivor example though) ;)
-
Thanks for all the replies - very helpful for sure.
The gear ratio is very concerning as is the door label - adding it is deceitful.
FYI - the title is clear but is in WA State? As well, the Model and Style are missing from it?
The last title change was from the 2011 LV BJ auction to the current private owner. If you read the BJ posting, Z28 is not in the tittle, only Camaro Coupe - the car is referred to in the text as a "Z28 project"....
Based on all of this - I will likely pass on this one.
Thanks again for all of the assistance.
-
Not trying to sway you at all, but I think most titles are only going to say 1969 Chevrolet Camaro 2 door hardtop. I don't think most will actually list a car as a Z/28, or SS, or RS for that matter. The original trim tag is what really is going to tell you how the car was ordered. I have had Washington state, Indiana, California, titles, and have seen others that don't really break it down more than camaro 2 door hardtop or coupe.
-
Thanks Bullitt -
Interestingly I found another Z advertised with the 3.31 rear axle:
http://gtccm.com/road-tests-gtccm/1969-camaro-z28/
As well, I have sent all of the info including the attached engine stamp photo (not very good) to Jerry McNeish for his input.
Thank again :)
-
It is not very likely that the 3.31 rear axle IN THE FIRST CAR YOU LISTED is original. Possible, but not likely.
-
And the add for that second car, I don't see the docs that verify it as a 3.31 rear axle. Might have missed it though.
Found this interesting in that ad.
"Compare that to today’s new Z28 capable of doing the same quarter mile in less than 4 seconds and in excess of 120 mph."
Those new Zs sure are quick! :D
-
Bullitt65 wrote:
" ........
*Although I have been told there were some early August cars with them, but they did not stick well and soon fell off. (I still haven't seen a survivor example though) Wink"
I can show you an 'original example' from a September car, Austin! :)
-
.....
"Compare that to today’s new Z28 capable of doing the same quarter mile in less than 4 seconds and in excess of 120 mph."
Those new Zs sure are quick! :D
like Byron, I'd LOVE to see that one.. :)
-
Sorry Gary,
I still haven't seen a original early August example.
I have seen an 08E and onward original examples... ;D
-
Sorry Gary,
I still haven't seen a original early August example.
I have seen an 08E and onward original examples... ;D
I've never seen a live unicorn either.. :)
-
This car is about 1 hour from me.. I was maybe going to take a ride and go see it if I can ever get a day off. IF I do, I will take some pic's and collect data. I am no expert, however I am good at finding things that can help determine if there is any funny business going on. And I know how to take a decent picture... Danny
-
FYI - I have sent several better photos to Jerry M & will post his comments on this car.
Based on my newbie research the rear axle casting date is for a later car. (Photo attached)
As well - here is a better photo of the engine stamp - any comments?
-
If you look closely at the bottom of the pad you can see circular uniform cutter marks from a horizontal milling machine like a Storm Vulcan Blockmaster etc. Stamp appears to have some inconsistent fonts when comparing it to known originals I have, it also looks like it has been sandblasted judging from the pad patina. I don't think personally it is a original. IMO.
Here is a Real Pad from a LA Z28, remember that engines were all built at Flint, engine id stamps should be the same. vin stamps were added at the assembly plant.
Also another real 2 days later, not a Great picture though, Sorry.
-
Thanks - the 0's & the Z are different as well....
-
Per Jerry M - real trim tag - everything else re-stamps.
-
here is another 0409DZ
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-lCXe3ewk2HI/VDFWbd-elgI/AAAAAAAAJ00/Iv0DexQsWNg/w797-h498-no/69_Z28_DZ_engine_10.04.06%2B012Cropped.jpg)
-
Sorry Gary,
I still haven't seen a original early August example.
I have seen an 08E and onward original examples... ;D
I've never seen a live unicorn either.. :)
There is at least one 08A car with the sticker. It is less than 100 cars after my 08A. The car is the white low mile Z featured in Jerry's book. Used to be owned by John Berry. Don't have the book handy (we just moved). It is featured on several pages, but there is a very clear shot of the decal.
I do not believe mine ever received the sticker. It certainly was not there in 1975, and there was absolutely no trace of any glue residue. Even if it was applied and later fell off, I would expect SOME residue.
-
The car is the white low mile Z featured in Jerry's book. Used to be owned by John Berry. Don't have the book handy (we just moved). It is featured on several pages, but there is a very clear shot of the decal.
VIN on that white car is 9N671208.
-
The picture in Jerrys book does show a VIN sticker on a 08A car.
*However, this sticker does match any known originals. So it is either a very early version that was made and discontinued soon after, or it is a reproduction sticker. I believe it to be the latter after having seen many original examples.
I think in an earlier conversation you may have said they replaced an original sticker. If so, I would hope they saved the original or took a picture of it. And maybe John Berry or Jerry could shed some light on this.