CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 16, 2014, 06:31:13 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.
104432 Posts in 12229 Topics by 4716 Members
Latest Member: Hgtech
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  X33 Cowl Tag Doesn't Look Right??
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: X33 Cowl Tag Doesn't Look Right??  (Read 1009 times)
dannystarr
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 655


View Profile
« on: June 19, 2011, 08:39:19 PM »

As always, without getting into WHAT is wrong with this tag..... I just wanna know if it's real. Cause it sure doesn't look correct to me. But heck, what do I know.....Danny
Logged
TooManyReels
Member
***
Posts: 239



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2011, 08:47:52 PM »

I'm no expert, but I seem to agree with you on this one...I don't recall a Trim 727 code for  X33 other than the 711 and 712...Here is a cowl tag number from another post that I searched before I responded..

02D = Built the Fourth week of February.
69-12437 = Coupe.
NOR = Built in Norwood Ohio.
727 = Standard Ivory/Black Bucket Seats.
50-B = Lower Color is Dover White and the Vinyl Top Color is Black.
X11 = non-SS396, non-Z28, with style trim

TMR


Logged

Eddie
63 Chevy II SS 570hp 560tq.
69 Z28 X33 Cross Ram JL8
william
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1168


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2011, 09:18:14 PM »

There was no trim restriction on Z/28s; any interior could be ordered.

The tag is real. However in the previous ebay ad for this car the VIN was listed. VINs were assigned in numerical order which also establishes when a car was built. The VIN for this car is early March '69; the body tag has an 01C date. One of the tags is not original to this car.
Logged
GI JOE
Member
***
Posts: 198



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2011, 12:27:43 AM »

I knew it...  and this explains the asking price and why the owner would not disclose the VIN...

An old cheap trick song comes to mind... Walk away....  ohoh oh..... walk away.....    Grin
Logged

SFC GI JOE - Airborne Paratrooper
68- L-78, M22, BV
69- L-78, M22, BV, Conv
L78 steve
Member
***
Posts: 433



View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2011, 03:34:33 PM »

All the stamp imprints do look a bit sharp and unworn, most tags I see have varying levels of wear on the stampings. The fonts look good otherwise.
Logged

69 Z/28 Dover White X33,ZL2,PS,M20,Std.int.04C
67 SS/RS Mt. Green 1W,2LGSR,3SL,4K,5BY,07C
Charley
Member
***
Posts: 413


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2011, 11:52:12 PM »

I don't think I like the tag.
Logged

dannystarr
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 655


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2011, 01:11:51 AM »

That's what I was saying. It just doesn't look right. There is one number, and I am sure you know which one I mean. It looks wrong. But anyway, always nice to get info and opinions...... Danny
Logged
william
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1168


View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2011, 12:14:28 PM »

It's real.

It just came from another car.
Logged
dannystarr
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 655


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2011, 06:53:30 PM »

Ok, I trust your judgement....Thanx...Danny
Logged
KurtS
CRG Coordinator
*****
Posts: 3202


View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2011, 11:43:33 PM »

NOR230999
Logged

Kurt S
CRG
Pages: [1] 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 0.359 seconds with 17 queries.