CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2014, 10:08:05 PM

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.
105626 Posts in 12335 Topics by 4753 Members
Latest Member: stpatrick
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  REAR END DATE
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [All] Print
Author Topic: REAR END DATE  (Read 7651 times)
4myz
Member
***
Posts: 31


View Profile
« on: November 30, 2005, 03:17:05 PM »

HOW CLOSE IN DAYS DID THE REAR END CODE( THE STAMPED DATE CODE) COMPARED TO THE CAR DATE Huh
Logged
shift1313
Member
***
Posts: 49


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2005, 05:08:21 PM »

i think in general they were a few weeks before the date of the body but could be earlier then that, up to several months or more maybe.  I cant find the info on this but i know i read it some where.
Logged
KurtS
CRG Coordinator
*****
Posts: 3250


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2005, 05:50:24 PM »

Depends on the year and the model.....
Normally pretty close.
Logged

Kurt S
CRG
4myz
Member
***
Posts: 31


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2005, 07:28:26 PM »

1969 camaro 01C car build with a b BU 1218G2 rear diff is this close enough?
Logged
KurtS
CRG Coordinator
*****
Posts: 3250


View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2005, 02:30:49 AM »

Close enough for what? To be reasonable, yes.
To be original, no. Not for that build date.
Logged

Kurt S
CRG
waynechipman
Member
***
Posts: 66


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2005, 03:02:47 PM »

Usually within a couple of weeks any further out and I would start getting suspicious
Logged
rich69rs
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 879


LF7/M35/Z22/Z87


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2005, 06:00:58 PM »

Strange things can happen, though.

Besides my 69 RS coupe, the other car I have is a 66 Chevelle which has been in the family since it was first purchased on March 30,1966.  I have all of the original documentation including protect-o-plate and have verified all of the numbers when the car was restored between 1995 and 2000.  I even found a date code on the frame.  Point is that everything is within a couple of weeks of the mid March 1966 build date at the Flint, MI assembly plant, except for the rear axle which is date coded Oct 1965.  Axle date code, etc and POP totally agree.  The rear end was build at the Buffalo Gear and Axle Plant and obviously set around somewhere before it made the trip to final assembly.
Logged

Richard Thomas
1969 RS
waynechipman
Member
***
Posts: 66


View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2005, 04:14:26 PM »

Rare but it does happen sometimes, and even if someone shattered the original and somehow found one that close, It would not hurt your originality at all when you have paperwork that backs up what the car had. When you have a stamped block and different tranny and then a 12 bolt rearend that isn't close on dates, You can start banking that it did not have a twelve bolt to begin with. Even way back people understood the value of havig a 12 bolt in their car. I would rather have a mismatched engine than a mismatched 12 bolt.
Logged
william
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1169


View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2005, 06:35:59 PM »

In my experience much of what people assume about drivetrain date codes relative to the car is incorrect.

Our 06E '67 Z/28 had a July 6 engine, a March 20 rear axle and a June 23 trans. All OE components, POP to back it up. A good thing too since conventional wisdom would have people believing the axle was not original. The car also had its original alternator dated December 1966.

A fluke? Nope. I have the POP from a friends' long-lost 06A L78 car:  April 29 engine, May 6 axle, March 14 trans.
Logged
waynechipman
Member
***
Posts: 66


View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2005, 09:35:30 PM »

67 I do not know about but every original 69 I have seen so far had a very close axle date to build date. And by 69 it is definately rare for a engine to be dated after build date but it can happen. Just very rare
Logged
william
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1169


View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2005, 01:24:27 PM »

For the 1969 model year there were 243,085 Camaros manufactured. Do not form opinions about them because you've looked at 50 cars.
Logged
waynechipman
Member
***
Posts: 66


View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2005, 11:48:29 PM »

To tell the truth I have looked at a lot more than fifty and as POP and Build sheets and cowl tags are all being reproduced and doctored to look old. I put a lot of stock into the parts having dates that are reasonable. Any Camaro witha rearend more than a couple weeks out from build date makes me figure that things got changed. No Company or Person has such abundant storage that they would stockpile parts that are daily being assembled into cars. The smaller the part the more likely it might have an older date from getting pushed to the back of a shelf. Rearends are a pretty big item though. Engines would more likely be shoved to the back than a rearend. I dont know how many supposed Z/28s I have seen sell with the X codes and then you see a three speed hole in the floor. You could show me all the paperwork on earth and that would do nothing to convince me what You have. There are no original SS or Z/28 Cars in existence only way You can discern these Cars is by how much they match the factory image. Just send a letter to GM with Your VIN and see if they will tell You what Your Car is. Sorry to be that way but I have seen so much BS concerning these cars it aint even funny. Give me enough money and I will get You any paperwork on any Camaro.
Logged
william
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1169


View Profile Email
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2005, 11:45:09 AM »

Any Camaro witha rearend more than a couple weeks out from build date makes me figure that things got changed.

So you are stating that the 2 owner 67 Z/28 with POP and 100% OE drivetrain, purchased in 1987 long before repro anything is bogus because you say so.

So you are stating that the 2 owner 69 L78 with POP and OE drivetrain, purchased in 1981 long before repro anything is bogus because you say so.

As for SS cars, the 3-speed floor shift was standard equipment.

You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion. When you have some facts feel free to share them.
Logged
waynechipman
Member
***
Posts: 66


View Profile Email
« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2005, 01:12:31 PM »

I said Z/28 with 3 speed hole in floor, no Z/28s came with a 3 speed unless You know something I don't about Z/28s. And Yes back in 81 and 87 people were cloning these just wasn't as well known. And like I said no one can convince me of the originality of any Paperwork. If You give me enough money I can get You any paperwork on any Camaro. When GM will say in writing what any Camaro is then I will believe that. Untill that day the only measure of any Camaro is how much it matches the factory image and all should be sold as such. Give me any V8 non air Camaro with column shift or 4 speed hole in floor and I can Make you a Z/28. Any shifter position and including air cars and I can make You any SS model You want with as much paperwork as You would like. My point is why would your paperwork be any more convincing than anyone elses paperwork, technology, has advanced far enough that anything made in the 60's can be reproduced. Shoot by 1974 when anyone should have realized that all American Cars had turned to pieces of plastic garbage, people were starting to clone these. I should know as 69 Camaros were still to expensive for the average kid by the late 70's And by 1979 the 74 and up Camaros were a dime a dozen
Logged
william
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1169


View Profile Email
« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2005, 01:17:45 PM »

Ok now I understand.

Every Camaro with paperwork is a fake 'cuz Wayne sez so.
Logged
waynechipman
Member
***
Posts: 66


View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2005, 02:22:45 PM »

Haha that is pretty funny, We can agree to disagree. I was merely trying to point out how prevalent the copying has become. I have no paperwork on my car except a tiny corner of the build sheet. But I know for a fact it is a true car simply missing the original engine. I have traced owners back a bit and none had reason to lie. But that does no good for proof. But my date coded 12 Bolt posi says it all when shortly after banging second I am momentarily debating wether to keep counter steering or back off the throtle to keep her out of the ditch. Of course counter steering wins out every time. I wish I would spot more on the road. but I only take mine out once in awhile, I cannot drive it without constantly burping the gas. My Wife will not ride with me in it. It is such a blast. Funny thing though what matters most to me on these cars is the original shell being untouched. 
Logged
KurtS
CRG Coordinator
*****
Posts: 3250


View Profile Email
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2005, 12:59:41 AM »

I'm not following your reasoning Wayne.
Real paperwork is the best documentation. Just gotta be able to ID the real stuff.
Logged

Kurt S
CRG
basecoupe#79
Member
***
Posts: 38


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2005, 10:29:03 AM »

Well now that I know that the PoP, the bill of sale, the build sheet that I removed from the tank were all probably painstakingly reproduced by the original owner (so she says) in Long Beach is fake!!  Thanks Wayne for cluing me in on the paperwork scam.  Any body out there want to buy my cloned base coupe?  I'll be straight up front with you, the paper work probably isnt original.  Here's what my PoP says: Engine was built in Tonowanda, Jan 17 1969, DD engine. Rear axle is PA dated Jan 17 1969 at Chevy gear and axle. Vehicle was built in Feb 1969, Tranny built in Jan 9 1969, N40,J50,U63, 552 , and C60. Cry

Logged
waynechipman
Member
***
Posts: 66


View Profile Email
« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2005, 10:49:59 AM »

Your engine dates and other dates all match up to say they are original components. I never said all paperwork was fake. But I can have duplicated any and all paperwork for these cars. So who is to say any paperwork you found is original. And You are right who would waste time to duplicate paperwork on a base Camaro, does not make sense as the original running gear on a base coupe only changes value very slightly, duplicating the paperwork on a base coupe would cost more than the increase in value it would bring. And as far as identifying rhe fake papers, I guess if you are a scientist with all the equipment you need to spot a good forgery then it wouldn't be to hard. Paperwork is not the answer to the originality of these. Date coded parts are.  Like I said before get G.M. to verify what you have by your VIN if you have any luck doing that please let me know as it would increase the value of mine tremendously.


 
Logged
rich69rs
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 879


LF7/M35/Z22/Z87


View Profile Email
« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2006, 12:38:08 PM »

My '69 RS, 01C build, base coupe, has a non-posi 2.73:1 rear end, code BP, built 10/18/68 at the Detroit Gear and Axle Plant.  My car went through final assembly somewhere around the 19th or 20th of January 1969 at the Norwood assembly plant.
Logged

Richard Thomas
1969 RS
rich69rs
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 879


LF7/M35/Z22/Z87


View Profile Email
« Reply #20 on: September 04, 2014, 04:44:15 PM »

Strange things can happen, though.

Besides my 69 RS coupe, the other car I have is a 66 Chevelle which has been in the family since it was first purchased on March 30,1966.  I have all of the original documentation including protect-o-plate and have verified all of the numbers when the car was restored between 1995 and 2000.  I even found a date code on the frame.  Point is that everything is within a couple of weeks of the mid March 1966 build date at the Flint, MI assembly plant, except for the rear axle which is date coded Oct 1965.  Axle date code, etc and POP totally agree.  The rear end was build at the Buffalo Gear and Axle Plant and obviously set around somewhere before it made the trip to final assembly.

The issue of rear axle date code, what is correct, what isn't, what can be, what can't, etc. has come up multiple since this string back in 2005.  I never got back to posting picutres which show what I had menntioned in the quote above (previous post in this thread).

The 1st picture is the axle code from my 69 RS.  The car has a 10-Bollt, 2.73:1 open, mono-leaf rear end.  Although I don't have any of the original documentation on my car, hard to believe that this isn't the original axle.  The code is BP 10 18 G1; i.e. October 18, 1968.  My RS is an 01C Norwood built car.  2nd and 3rd pictures show the ring gear in my rear end.  15 and 41 are the number of pinion and ring gear teeth; i.e. 41/15 = 2.733.  The date code is the last two numbers; i.e. 9 68 (Sept. 1968).

As an addendum to the information that William provided in post #9 of this thread, and yes I know what I'm about to state is in reference to my '66 Chevelle and not the '69 RS, but it is still a Chevy product from the last half of the 1960's.

The 4th picture is the axle code from my '66 Chevelle.  Picture is a little old and fuzzy, taken back in 1995 just after I had removed the rear end back when I was restoring the car.  The axle code is CB 1027 B which is a 10 Bolt, 3.36:1 open rear end; October 27, 1965 date code.  Although I don't have any original documentation on the Camaro, the Chevelle has been in my family simce my grandparents purchased it on March 30, 1966 from El Bauer Chevrolet in Decatur, IL  I have all the original paperwork for the Chevelle including the POP which confirms the rear end code.  The Chevelle was built at the Flint, MI plant in mid March 1966 (based on other date codes on the car including one on the frame).  For whatever reason, the 3:36 rear end in the Chevelle was in stock at the Flint plant from early November 1965 until it went into my Chevelle in March 1966; some 4-1/2 months.

Based on the axle code on my Camaro, that rear end was in stock at  Norwood from mid-October 1968 until mid January 1969; approximately 3 months.

Based on my own two observations as well as what William stated above, it looks like axle codes can have more of a time differential between axle code and car assembly date than what would normally be considered acceptable.

Just throwing this out for what it's worth.

Richard
« Last Edit: September 04, 2014, 05:06:24 PM by rich69rs » Logged

Richard Thomas
1969 RS
bcmiller
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 371


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2014, 06:11:15 PM »

Still depends a lot on the year and the model.  Less common vehicles for that year or even time of year have been known to have larger spreads.  But you can't say that for all cars.
Logged

1968 Camaro SS - now 468 BBC, M21, 12 bolt.
Bryon
firstgenaddict
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1248



View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2014, 09:23:30 AM »

Oct 68 built 1969 Z28.
Cowl Tag 10D
VIN falls first week of November
Axle Oct 31  BV 4.10
Trans Oct 18th  M20
Engine V1007DZ
Logged

James
Collectin' Camaro's since "Only Rednecks drove them"
 
Check out the Black 69 RS/Z28 45k mile Survivor and the Lemans Blue 69 Z 10D frame off...
https://picasaweb.google.com/112392262205377424364/1969_Z28_Restoration
Mike S
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1126



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: September 06, 2014, 06:22:37 PM »

Still depends a lot on the year and the model.  Less common vehicles for that year or even time of year have been known to have larger spreads.  But you can't say that for all cars.
 I agree with this statement. I would think the standard gear and rear date stamp (if no optional were ordered) would be close in dates being the inventory was used at a faster rate.
  The two L35 Camaros I have with original rears are one 'BJ' rear (3:07) stamp dated 0404 for a LOS 4B (April 13th per UOIT) dated trim tag and that is the standard gear ratio rear with this model so I can see how the rear date stamp is close to the body born date on the trim tag by almost 2 weeks. The other 67 rear is a 'QK' (3:31) stamp dated 0331 for a NOR 5B dated trim tag and that is the optional performance gear ratio rear. So, I can see how that can sit in inventory longer before getting pulled and in this case it was close to 6 weeks. Also, per John Z., there was no mandatory rule for using items by their date codes unlike in the food industry.

Mike

*fixed quote*
« Last Edit: September 08, 2014, 08:10:37 AM by KurtS » Logged

67 LOS SS/RS L35 Hardtop - Original w/UOIT
67 NOR SS/RS L35 Convertible - Restored
Pages: 1 2 [All] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.086 seconds with 17 queries.