Topics

1

1969 - Orphans / 69 327 engine and trans 19N552379 for 124379N552379 or 124679N552379

« on: April 14, 2015, 03:35:44 AM »

69 327 engine and trans 19N552379 for 124379N552379 or 124679N552379
On ebay now, seller has trans as well
from the listing

"This is an original 1969 Camaro 327 Motor Cast # 3932386 stamping on pad is 19N552379
V1I25FL. # on Heads 3927185. Turns over nicely never rebuilt ran nice when pulled over 10 years ago to install a big block. This motor comes complete with flywheel, starter, all pulleys, fuel pump, water pump, P/S Brackets, Alt Brkts, Distributor, Coil and bracket, all original stuff, never taken apart. perfect for a rebuild. The motor is date coded 8 L 6 which is December 6, 1968. This is an early 69 motor. All other pieces are dated accordingly.
The number on the pad is 19N552379 V125FLI The car now has a big block in it."

seller scvette53

auction :

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-Camaro-327-Motor-RS-SS-Z28-3932386-/261846606187?hash=item3cf746216b&vxp=mtr

2

Decoding/Numbers / 12 bolt Rear axle Decode 69 PJ code ?

« on: June 04, 2014, 01:31:23 AM »

Here is a picture of the rear axle stamp, tried to make the stamping as visible as possible with lighting. Looks like  PJ code + 1012 G with E underneath, which is 68 3.73 posi, BUT the casting date on the 3894860 center section is J 7 8 . This would be cast in October 68. Car is a 12A 69 Camaro, could this be correct?

3

Decoding/Numbers / Crayon behind rear seat X? Opinions please

« on: June 02, 2014, 10:47:36 PM »

So here is my crayon X2/3 ? almost nearly covered by the heathen who tried to mask the rust in that area with thick undercoating. Car has been living its life as a big block car, of which everything else checks out. 4 leaf spring, 12 bolt(more on this in the next episode). Hidden vins match. It has A/c , no muncie hole and looks like originally an auto(more in another episode), so it cant be a Z thus not a 3. Power windows, rear defrost, console, spoiler car(one smaller trunk lid torsion bar)

Could the guy on the line have made a mistake when getting used to the X codes? Looks like at the bottom, he tried to under score/straight line it and make the bottom of the 2 ?

The second picture is another I saw somewhere, which is a 2 that looks like it nearly became a 3. Maybe this can be filed under the liquid lunch possibility? Poor penmanship?

I guess I need someone who has seen a lot of these.... any opinions are appreciated, thanks