Messages

There are a couple of numbers that seem unusual that I would appreciate some input on.  First, the cylinder head shows a cast date of A 12 8, which decodes into January 12, 1968.  If that is correct, the head is 14 months prior to engine assembly stamp of T031IJH, or March 11, 1969.  From my limited research that head is way too early relative to the engine assembly date.  Second, as Doc said in his original post, the rear axle code could be better.  The visible numbers are BV 032__G.  I would assume that the number after the 2 is missing or not visible and that the date is March 20 – 29.  Any thoughts on the code or date?

A couple other questions.  First, Cook_dw mentioned that the cowl hood may not be original, which seems likely correct because there were only about 10,026 RPO ZL2.  Of those, there were 3,675 Z11's and about 450 Z10's, so that leaves only about 6,000 ZL2's available otherwise.  Is there any way to determine whether the cowl hood was original to the car?  Should it have a date code that corresponds to the body build date code?  Second, since D80 did not always appear on the cowl tag.  Is there a way to determine whether the spoilers are original to the car?  I asked the auction company if any documentation was available and they said "No original documentation available."

I appreciate the input on stamps and Holley.  I asked about the hood and the response was "The hood is original."  I asked about the rally wheels and the response was "According to the owner they are the original wheels, but have been reconditioned."  I am doubtful about both.

The date codes seem appropriate for a March 1969 body build date assuming they are not altered.  I am not competent at judging date stamps.  Any opinions would be appreciated.  Would a November 1968 Holley date be appropriate for a March 1969 body build date?

Thanks, not sure how I missed that one.  Is there anything in the database on this car?  There is a lot to like about this one for me.

Could you provide more information on the auction, which one and when?

I was runner up.  I hope the winner in South Dakota keeps it original and doesn't flip it.

I appreciate the information and opinions, which are helpful.

I have been looking for a 1969 SS 396 for several years to use for a daily driver, as I don't drive my car lot and nothing new thrills me as much.  My preference is for originality.  I would be interested in opinions on the one listed here https://www.bigiron.com/Lots/1969ChevroletCamaroSS.  The VIN is 124379N693767 which seems to align with the trim tag 09E assuming both are original.  The engine code is 0723JB, which would be about 2 months before the 5th week of Sept body build date code and correct for a 4-speed.  It still appears to have the original smog equipment, although the master cylinder looks to be changed.  I doubt I will pursue this one, but I keep looking at the ad as it checks most of the boxes for me.  Any information or opinions on this car would be appreciated.

I appreciate the responses.  I usually try to start with the simplest solution, so measuring the current lash sounds like the way to go.  Thanks.

I have a 1969 Z28 that I believe has its original motor based on engine code and partial VIN stampings.  I read the excellent CRG report 302ci Engine OEM Valvetrain Adjustment and wanted to adjust my valves.  Then it dawned on me that I really don't know whether it has the original cam and solid lifters.  Is there a way to determine if it has solid lifters short of pulling the intake?  Is there a way to determine whether it has the factory "30-30" solid-lifter cam (PN 3849346) short of seeing the part number?

I appreciate the responses and information.

Here are a few more picture of the pad after cleaning with lacquer thinner.

Exactly what I wanted to know.  I appreciate the responses.  Given what I know about the history of this car and the documentation that I have, I am fairly certain that it has the born with drivetrain.  I may pull the alternator and clean the pad to get better pictures.  Thanks.

Here is another attempt at reducing the KB of the pictures to stay below the limit.

That didn't work.  Here's another try.