Unusual 68 SS350 - What have I got here?

[dlshady]

Guys,

I've been lurking here for quite a long time but never really had anything to add until now, so I guess that makes me an old new guy or something like that...  I've been in the restoration business full time for close to 25 years and have worked on numerous first gen Camaros, but this one is a bit unusual and I'm hoping some of you can help shed a little light on what I've got here.  Rather than say what I think it is and see if you guys agree, I'm just going to post pictures of the relevant details and numbers and see what you guys think.

My customer grew up in St. Clair Shores, MI and purchased this car when he turned 16 in 1973 from a used car lot in Detroit.  He drove the car through high school and college, then parked it in his grandfather's garage in the late 70's where it has been up until about a year ago when he brought the car down here to Alabama.  He states that he replaced the left front fender due to being sideswiped on the freeway, and that's when the car was repainted.  Other than the amateur repaint, the car appears to be exceptionally original and unmodified.  I did note that the left quarter has been replaced and was seamed below the vinyl top, I assume so the body shop didn't have to replace the top, but the owner states that was not done while he's owned it, so it must have happened very early in the car's life.  The interior is completely original, only missing the floor mounted clock which he recalls removing for reasons unknown.  Under the hood is also very original and I wouldn't be surprised if the valve covers have never been off.

So that's pretty much the back story as I know it.  Guy bought the car in downtown Detroit in 1973 and has done nothing but replace one fender and repaint the car since then.  So if you guys wouldn't mind, please look over the photos and tell me if anything unusual jumps out at you.  I'll be happy to provide any other photos you might want, but some may have to wait until we start the disassembly next month.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to have a look and share your thoughts.

[Gars68Tux]

Interesting. Did you find a partial VIN on the trans ? (Near the bottom of the page)...http://camaros.org/drivetrain.shtml#trans

I suspect it may've been a test fleet car...http://camaros.org/trans.shtml#THM350

http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=14987.msg160523#msg160523

Let's see what Kurt has to say...

[dlshady]

Thanks for the reply.  I had already come to the conclusion that it's one of the test fleet cars but the CRG site was pretty specific about them all being 327 cars, so I wasn't positive.  The "MF" engine code also made me scratch my head. 

I pulled the back seat out hoping to find a build sheet but no luck there.  Any other place I might find it?

ETA:  And I did look for a VIN on the transmission but the pad where it should be is blank.  The pan has a 1969 date code on it which would make sense if it were a test fleet car that had suffered a transmission failure during testing.  Here's the pan date code:



ETA2:  It just dawned on me that the "9" on the transmission pan designated the model year rather than the calendar year so it could well be the original pan.  Engine date is May 15 and the rear axle date is May 27, so a May 23 transmission would be right in line with what I'd expect to see.  Hmmmmmm..... 

[Gars68Tux]

I'm not positive (sure) either, but in the last link I provided, Bryon (BCMiller) made mention of documented L48 cars as well.

There were 2 possible locations for a partial VIN. It's described in the link above. Maybe you'll see it when the engine/trans are removed.

[69Z28-RS]

Welcome to CRG, dlshady...     It's good to see you here, although I didn't know you were on CRG before today..

I thought this posting/thread might be from your dad, but he's been involved in restorations for much longer than 25 yrs, so it must be you! 

Every time I go by your shop, I think about stopping in, but I'm always headed over to Dick's shop and am late..     I'll stop by one day soon and hopefully see this car with my own eyes? 

Gary

[dlshady]

Welcome to CRG, dlshady...     It's good to see you here, although I didn't know you were on CRG before today..

I thought this posting/thread might be from your dad, but he's been involved in restorations for much longer than 25 yrs, so it must be you! 

Every time I go by your shop, I think about stopping in, but I'm always headed over to Dick's shop and am late..     I'll stop by one day soon and hopefully see this car with my own eyes? 

Gary

Yes, it's me.  Dad is pretty much retired these days but still comes in every day to piddle with his neon clocks, which has turned into a business of it's own over the past couple of years.  Stop by one day when you've got time and check this thing out.  It'll be sometime next month before I can get started on it but I'm already hunting parts that I know I'll need, and the list is loooooong... 

Deron

[bcmiller]

I will do some checking and get back to you.

[bcmiller]

Thanks for posting the information. I will log the information and we may have to update some of our posted information.  We have one other car in the database with an MF coded engine. This one is quite a bit earlier and for now it appears to be legitimate.

[dlshady]

Thanks for posting the information. I will log the information and we may have to update some of our posted information.  We have one other car in the database with an MF coded engine. This one is quite a bit earlier and for now it appears to be legitimate.

Thank you for the reply.  I'll update the thread as soon as I'm able to get a clear view of the top side of the bellhousing.  Hopefully there will be a partial VIN there because the pad on the side near the starter is blank.  I plan to document every piece of the car before and during disassembly and will be more than happy to share any other data or photos that might further your research.  Unfortunately the owner isn't terribly interested in the finer details of a proper restoration so I'm not sure how it will all end up, but at least we can document it as it comes apart.

Thanks again for your input!

[bcmiller]

Yes, it would be good to get a pic of the partial VIN on the transmission when you have time.

And when you take the engine out, see if you can verify that it has a 350 crankshaft. Look at the shape of the flange at transmission end of the crank.

Are there any emission stickers on the radiator support?

[dlshady]

Yes, it would be good to get a pic of the partial VIN on the transmission when you have time.

And when you take the engine out, see if you can verify that it has a 350 crankshaft. Look at the shape of the flange at transmission end of the crank.

Are there any emission stickers on the radiator support?

I'll definitely get photos of anything stamped on the transmission and the crank flange.  The engine has the big balancer and the associated power steering pump bracket, as well as all of the other tell-tale signs of a legit SS350, but I did wonder if they might have used a left over 1967 "MF" coded 327, although that would seem rather odd so late in the 1968 production year.  Are you at liberty to share a ballpark serial number and production date of the other "MF" coded car you have on file?

This car does have the emission decal on the radiator support although I'm not sure how legible it is now that I've rinsed the dust off.  I'll check it tomorrow and snap a picture of it.

[bcmiller]

Are you at liberty to share a ballpark serial number and production date of the other "MF" coded car you have on file?

It is a very late car, late July production.

[69Z28-RS]

Bryon,

Can you explain your rationale for determining a late July build date?   The '68 VIN table would indicate a May build (and I understand some of the problems associated with May 68 month estimate build dates), but if this car 447428 was built in late July, there were over 37,000 Camaros which had to be built before the last one (484735), and on average there were only 15000-20000 built per month....??   

I don't have a '68, but I'd like to understand more about this calculation and 'actual LAST build date for '68 models)..

[bcmiller]

Bryon,

Can you explain your rationale for determining a late July build date?   The '68 VIN table would indicate a May build (and I understand some of the problems associated with May 68 month estimate build dates), but if this car 447428 was built in late July, there were over 37,000 Camaros which had to be built before the last one (484735), and on average there were only 15000-20000 built per month....??   

I don't have a '68, but I'd like to understand more about this calculation and 'actual LAST build date for '68 models)..

I was referring to the “other” car not the one posted in this thread. I edited my post above, hopefully that provides a bit more clarity.

[dlshady]

Are you at liberty to share a ballpark serial number and production date of the other "MF" coded car you have on file?

It is a very late car, late July production.

That's very interesting.  Have you ever seen any information that would suggest how long the TH350 test program ran or how many cars it involved?  And along those same lines, roughly where do production dates of the documented 327 test fleet cars fall? 

[bcmiller]

They are late cars. June or July. Your car body started to be assembled the last week of May so there are probably some other late May cars that we do not know about.

[69Z28-RS]

My understanding for the last few years is that Chevrolet (or Norwood assembly?) stamped 05E on Way More Cars than would be built in a week during May 1968.  I don't recall ever hearing the reasoning for that, but the VIN for this 05E car would seem to support that...

Comments?

[bcmiller]

It’s not a big deal Gary. Doesn’t really matter in the big picture, does it?

[69Z28-RS]

I like to understand as much as I can, and maybe I can help dlshady when I stop by there if I can explain it to him.

As far as my car..  it matters not a whit...?

[KurtS]

The TH350 test fleet had engine codes for several engines, including the base V8 (LF7), the L30, and the L48 (SS). The White Book even lists one for the 302, though I've never seen it in any GM documentation.
It was unclear for a long time if they actually produced all these variants. The L30 had been documented early on, but L48 and LF7 had little solid data.
So far we've seen 3 L30's, 2 L48's (now), and 1 LF7 (only the engine was original).
This car is the first with a Ypsi trans, all the others had Clevelands in them.
Site updated. Thanks!

Gary,
05E is a bit long, but not exceptionally.

[dlshady]

Thank you Kurt, I appreciate the information.  Have you ever seen any internal GM documentation that would indicate how large the test fleet might have been?  I would be interested to know if we're talking 15 to 20 cars or a few hundred. 

[KurtS]

No, nothing on the size of the fleet.

[x55cam]

Interesting - just throwing this out there that it may be possible the suffix was stamped wrong??? or  - check the casting
number , easy to view on the top rear of the block behind the drivers side head - a 68' would be 3914678  but
if it's a casting number 3892657 , according to my information, this block was also intended to be used for 350 applications
in 67 as it was designed for. 68 327's  also used  3914660 - (327/300 Corvettes).