Messages

1

General Discussion / SSRS Clone Restomod for $140K

« on: January 21, 2023, 07:10:24 AM »

https://www.vanguardmotorsales.com/inventory/4688/1967-chevrolet-camaro-restomod

The body and paint on this is just amazing.  The suspension and drivetrain is also very impressive.

It's a shame that they didn't learn a little more about first gen Camaros prior to the build, though.  Things like the too-wide nose stripe, odd horn button, and fender emblems tells me that they just didn't take the time to learn the actual car.

Looks like it was originally 6-cylinder, RS with console in Capri Cream with gold standard interior.

I wouldn't have posted, other than the price tag of $140K.  That's a big number.

2

Restoration / Re: 1967 Rearview Mirror -- Original Mirror became wobbly

« on: December 16, 2022, 05:25:54 PM »

Just wanted to thank those who chimed in.  I lived with a wobbly mirror for years.  Took 2 seconds to fix.  This is the equivalent of the old:  my computer is acting funny, any help?  Sure, did you try restarting it?  Oh, no ... yep, it works great after the power cycle.

I'm a pretty hands-on guy mechanically (no so much on engines, carbs, etc.), so it's really embarrassing that I never thought to examine the passenger side of the mirror.

3

General Discussion / Re: 1969 ZL1 - # 55

« on: December 07, 2022, 02:56:26 PM »

$45K in 1983, that might as well have been $450K! that was a lot of money in the day, half the price of the average house, and you could have picked a dozen nice Z-28's for that money back then.

Yep, $45,000 seems pretty accessible by today's standards (not that I have a spare $45K sitting around in my bank account).

$45K in 1983 is around $135K in today's money.  So, it was a lot of money.  I don't know a single person who is in a position to spend $135K on a classic car today (maybe I have the wrong circle of friends and family).  There are a lot of those folks out there, but it's still a fairly exclusive group -- those that can drop $135K on classic car.  So, it would have been similar in 1983 -- not a lot of people with that kind of cash to drop on a classic car.

And, for my money, I'd never buy a car that I couldn't/wouldn't drive (not that I have to make that decision on my own).  Cool car.  Nice museum piece.  Not my kind of thing, though.

4

General Discussion / Re: 1969 ZL1 - # 55

« on: December 05, 2022, 09:21:25 PM »

[...] Under the hood is a warranty replacement ZL1 engine.  The original engine was kept by GM and, amazingly, located many years ago.  It has been kept with the car ever since.

That part of the write up confused me.  I assume that means the original engine blew up almost immediately (car has 7,700 miles on it) and GM kept the blown engine ... and, then, someone found it in some warehouse or something?  I assume the original engine is still blown, not usable, and just is kept to complete the car's legacy?

5

General Discussion / Re: Pictures of 1st Generation Camaros at 2022 MCACN

« on: November 24, 2022, 08:04:28 PM »

Thanks a lot for sharing.  I really appreciate seeing the cars.  I'm definitely not smart enough to appreciate the cars with the racing/endorsement paint.  I would presume that this is original and not just some goofy addition someone made. 

That first photo set of the red 67 Z28 was sort of a head scratcher to me.  I assume it was a real RS Z28 and, if so, one of handful ever created.  Amazing car.  Restored beautifully and then, for reasons known only to God, dropped those wheels and wide rear tires onto it and added white painted headers. 

Also, any ideas on the white brackets under the front bumper?

6

General Discussion / Re: curved neck 4 core radiator question

« on: November 24, 2022, 02:54:11 PM »

If nothing else, this presents a great vocabulary lesson for folks.  Word of the day:  pedantry (pedantic).  As someone who leans pedantic myself (I'm the guy who loves to give people a hard time over wrongly abbreviating 1967 as 67', e.g.), it's a good time for us to reflect on what could be a new word and a brilliant real-world display of what pedantic looks like.

7

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 Camaro Z28 with options

« on: November 15, 2022, 09:12:14 PM »

Thanks for the all the pics.  It was a lot of work to post all that info and I appreciate the opportunity to learn from your sharing.  Good luck with the restoration.

8

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 Camaro Z28 with options

« on: November 14, 2022, 08:57:12 PM »

The endura bumper was option code VE3 and 12,650 cars were equipped with that option (more if it was pulled by another option package/number).  So, it could have been stock on a 1969 Camaro.  Whether it was on yours is a different question.  I'd be interested to know what "bought the car in a box" means and, if it's literal, how you could be so sure of the Z28 lineage without any documents.  Note, that's not a charge against you and I'm not lodging doubts at you ... I am interested in learning more about your car, it's provenance, and your investigation.

9

General Discussion / Re: 69 z-28 special stripe

« on: November 07, 2022, 07:15:37 PM »

I'd expect the answer to land in the middle, as Ed said.  Similar, perhaps, how someone "ordered" a new 68 Camaro 427 from Baldwin, et al.  They indeed order that car, but it didn't ship from GM with the 427.  The stripes may have been similar ... might have been something that dealership offered, promoted on new cars it sold.

10

General Discussion / Re: "field" find

« on: October 27, 2022, 03:03:24 PM »

Correct.  I should have used softer language -- it's rarely a good idea to speak in such absolutes -- or, at the very least, state assumptions up front (rather than how I only later expressed those assumptions).  Cook's response was more measured than mine.  So, not the greatest communication on my part.

With only 602 made against 220,906 Camaros in 67 for a whopping 0.27%, it's almost always going to be correct to say, "Not a Z." 

11

General Discussion / Re: "field" find

« on: October 22, 2022, 01:19:01 AM »

My assumption, and it may be a poor one, is that a car in that spot, in that disrepair is wearing its original paint.  Hence my earlier statement about it not being a Z.

12

General Discussion / Re: USPS Muscle Cars

« on: October 21, 2022, 05:10:11 PM »

I always find it disappointing when various models, signs, or, in this case, stamps choose to feature such rare examples of the car.  For example, in 1967 there were 602 Z28 cars, but it seems like about 75% of the memorabilia featuring 67 Camaros is of the Z28.  In 69, there were at least a lot more Z28s made, but still fewer than 10% of the build (so not super representative) ... plus, how many black 69 Z28s were there?  ~100?  So, yippee, there's a stamp for 100 potential owners out there!

Cool stamp and it's nice to see the Camaro in the bunch ... just wish it were a more representative trim and color.

13

General Discussion / Re: Tips on finding original owner and history?

« on: October 20, 2022, 02:39:31 PM »

A 9 foot SS396?  That's like a little Nash Rambler in Camaro form.  I'd love to see it!

I took the passive route on mine.  I have the POP, so I know the original owner's name ... and it's a very unique name:  Leif Narlin, purchased at Schonlaw Chevrolet in Hollywood (LA).  So, I always figured it would be a relatively easy person to track down.  I did some basic searches in the 1990s and never found anything.  I let it go, because I always felt weird about digging into it.  The person I bought it from in 1989 was the 2nd or 3rd owner and the car had only 34,000 miles on it at that point.  So, it wasn't ever driven a ton.

I think those histories are more fun for Zs and other drag strip cars.  For cars like mine, the stories tend to be mundane -- a car that was purchased, not driven much, and eventually sold.  Meh.  So, I've never done the deep dive into the personal history behind my car.

14

General Discussion / Re: 1969 Camaro Z/28

« on: October 17, 2022, 08:09:06 PM »

I don't know much about 69s.  I know on 67s, it's not terribly uncommon to see VIN tags removed from the doors during restoration.  It doesn't necessarily mean shenanigans were afoot.  It might mean so, but it might just mean the restorer wasn't thinking about provenance.  So, I guess the answer to my first question would be a solid, "No." 

15

General Discussion / Re: 1969 Camaro Z/28

« on: October 17, 2022, 07:21:26 PM »

Can you offer some insight into the consequence of the poorly installed VIN tag?  Bad VIN install and therefore the car is fake?  Or, bad VIN install and, otherwise, it's a nice car?