CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2015, 06:40:41 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Forum registration problems: Make sure you enter your email correctly and you check your spam box first. *Then* email KurtS2@gmail for help.
112141 Posts in 12883 Topics by 4931 Members
Latest Member: Euclid
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 83
46  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Help me find out if my 1969 Z 28 is real on: March 07, 2015, 12:32:36 PM
We have plans to examine the car, restoration photos and documents on Monday. This won't be a JM style appraisal; they requested help and I am happy to provide it. I will discuss my thoughts and opinions privately with the owners; they are free to share them here if they wish.
47  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / swapped tag on: February 26, 2015, 03:27:38 PM

VIN 124379N535740 is early November '68, X33D80 tag from another much later car. Saw the car at B-J 2014. Sold for $71,500.
48  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Early 69 Z28, Is it real? on: February 22, 2015, 03:28:06 PM
Hey Kurt,

Thanks for the feedback, this is disappointing for sure. I am new to this subject so forgive me for asking but are you 100% certain? Could the picture be deceiving? The PO has two independent appraisals that state this car is real... They could be full of it, just trying to cover my bases here. Also what is memorex, is that a method of restamping? I did a search but only came up with threads like "Is it real or memorex"

So now assuming you are correct how can I even tell what this motor is? It drives like a real 302 but I would hate to push it to 7K RPM and blow it because it's not a DZ... Is there any way to tell without disassembling it? My hope is that the VIN and Assembly stamp are fake and that this is a real DZ motor that was just restamped to fit this car.

Based on the condition of the car and the options I still think I got a great deal I just want to be sure what it is that I actually have.


The CRG encourages intellectual debate on matters. Nothing wrong with having an opinion that differs from others as long as there are valid reasons for it. I'm not convinced yours is a re-stamp based on what I have seen.

There are valid reasons for believing the DZ stamp on your engine is not original, mainly that it does not happen to match another V1230DZ stamp. It has been long believed that all engines of a particular code built on the same day were stamped with the same stamper. Yours challenges that tenet.

Accomplishing a re-stamp would have required an virgin 618 block dated perfectly to your car. The individual would have had to know the different fonts involved and have access to them. It's a stretch to believe all that happened.

Virtually all re-stamps are performed on decked blocks. On occasion the original stamping is faintly visible. So when you get around to it, remove the alternator, wipe the pad with a cloth and some degreaser. Do not use anything abrasive. Take some more photos without the glare of the flash. If the block was in fact decked it's a re-stamp. If the factory broach marks are there, it is most likely real and we will have to re-visit our thinking on the matter.

49  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 Z28 Trim Tag - is it real? on: February 14, 2015, 06:53:47 PM
Looks fine to me. It's in our db.
50  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 Z28 VIN Stamp or Re-stamp? on: February 13, 2015, 07:56:07 PM
I have a photo of a genuine October 2, 1968 block stamp. This one is a very obvious re-stamp.

51  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Tires? on: February 12, 2015, 09:49:55 PM
By the time PL4 was phased into production about 168,000 units had been built; that's 70% of the 243,085 total '69 production. Not even Chevrolet considered units produced after June '69 as anything other than a '69 Camaro. The '70s were not ready so they continued building '69s at Norwood. There was no '70-1/2' Camaro.

The PL5 F70 x 14 raised white letter tire [std on SS] was never phased out. The Goodyear WTGT was one version; Firestone and Uniroyal also supplied PL5 tires used in production.
52  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Tires? on: February 12, 2015, 07:30:28 PM
Option PL4 fiberglass belted F70 x 14 raised white letter tires became available to order as of the April 1969 revision. Figuring a 4 week order lead time, about 70% of production had already been built. At this time the only '69 Camaro with factory docs showing PL4 has a Firestone spare. Some may have been built with Goodyear Polyglas RWL tires but no documented examples are known.

There were two versions of the Goodyear WTGT; with and without the size in raised white letter.
53  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Survivor / OE correct engine pics - Copo Camaro on: February 10, 2015, 06:52:02 PM
Here's a link to an engine bay photo of a COPO Camaro a few weeks after delivery.

54  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Survivor / OE correct engine pics - Copo Camaro on: February 10, 2015, 01:27:53 PM
It's old school these days but there were several COPO Camaros reviewed in period magazines. Super Stock & Drag Illustrated [I think] had an Olympic Gold Yenko Camaro; #3 and #5 ZL1s were also tested. Also a Yenko Chevelle in there. May take some searching and you will have to pay up for those issues but they are well worth it.

The #3 ZL1 feature is of particular interest as it has undercarriage photos showing it was built with the production N10 dual resonator/single muffler exhaust system. There was an interim system w/o resonators but it was Z/28 only. Most COPOs are incorrectly restored without resonators.
55  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: GM Big Block Aluminum Water Pump on: February 09, 2015, 01:34:23 PM
Well not entirely true. When Bill Porterfield acquired ZL1 #1 many years ago he was provided photos of the car being prepped at Dick Harrell's shop. One of the engine photos shows an aluminum water pump. At least #1 and possibly the #2 ZL1 had pilot engines [V prefix] built at Flint. His contacts at Chevy engineering stated the aluminum pump later failed durability testing and was not released for production. The remainder of ZL1 Camaro production had iron pumps painted black as stated.
56  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: New article - Water pumps on: January 03, 2015, 06:26:13 PM
Great job Bryon!
57  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Willow Run plant about to see the wrecking ball...? on: January 02, 2015, 06:55:03 PM
I bought an '81 Citation new and had Ziebart undercoating put on it. All that did was delay the inevitable; by the time I unloaded it in '87 even the hood had rust holes. Went from bad to worse as I then bought a used '85 Pontiac 6000 STE, the worst POS I ever owned. In two years I replaced the steering rack twice, fuel pump, oil pump, coil, ignition module, rear calipers. I never did fix the power antenna or power locks. Even the radio blew out. Had the A/C recharged several times. I'd like to think they have improved the quality but my BIL's 2003 Impala isn't much better.

GM chased away a lot of customers with the junk they built in those days.
58  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Vin info on: December 28, 2014, 02:27:37 PM
Not in the db.
59  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Engine Pad Check on: December 22, 2014, 10:20:32 PM
Paint or not, real deal.
60  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Bracket on Driver's Side Trunk Floor on: December 14, 2014, 11:23:01 AM
It was likely the factory hanger for the standard single exhaust system; all '69 Camaros had it. Shown in the AIM in section 8 page A4.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 83
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.09 seconds with 18 queries.