1969 Camaro double COPO (ebay)

[Bob Jenkins]

<A HREF="http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=593281964&r=0&t=0
" TARGET=_blank>http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=593281964&r=0&t=0
</A>

[bowtie3168]

NEAT!

[bowtie3168]

I have seen a few bogus stamps. The corvette world started falling victim to counterfeiters a few years ago. I am not saying that the rear is bogus, but, it is something to think about.

Andrew

[Casey Marks]

OK guys - - I am WAY outta my league on this, but most stamp sequences that I have seen (Mopars and Olds) are done with a stamp fixture. When you do that, you get even spacing, and ALSO it is straight all the way across. I'm by no means a Chevy expert, but that doesn't look like it was stamped all at once. It almost looks like each letter was stamped individually ??? Am I off ??

Marlin - when you say the Nova's aren't that neat, is it because they too are not straight, or is it because they are typically a very *light* stamp, and harder to read ???

http://www.tir.com/~shattuck/be.jpg

[Edited by Casey Marks (07-16-2001 at 02:54 PM).]

[copo69]

Looks too neat and too crisp compared to my BE. Mine has grind marks where it looks to be stamped before and then restamped with the BE twice. It appears this was done at factory and I always wondered if another rear was converted to a BE. All internals are BE, date codes match, and this was discovered in 1984, before counterfeiting became common.

[COPO]

If you carefully read the description it says the drivetrain was missing and the correct numbered, but non-original pieces were later acquired. The stampings on the rear look pretty crisp to me compared to a few others I have seen, but I sure haven't seen them all to say one way or the other. Could be a neat car with some $$'s and time and it's documented too.

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

I can only compare it the '70 COPO Novas that I have seen, and it is much neater, crisper, and deeper than the Novas. The Novas have a three letter code, CBW, and the 'C' is much farther away from the 'B' & 'W', might be an afterthought, single letter stamp. My 'G' for Detroit plant is not in line with the date code, and the 1 or 2 for the shift number is much farther away. Finally, the 'E' for Eaton posi traction is much lower than the one in the EBAY pic.

I am no expert either, but that BE stamping pic would make me start looking closer at the center section casting date, ect....

Will try to post COPO Nova pic tomorrow.
Marlin

[Chevy454]

Casey:

Don't look at it as "out of your league" (which I don't believe you are), look at it as something you just haven't learned yet. It's good to hear how the "others" were building cars from time to time, as some of the techniques possbily cross over. By the way, that Camaro looks like a perfect candidate for the now defunct NSCA Factory Stock class, where they were allowed to run drag radials! Actually, I kind of "dig" the mini-tubs! I wonder just how big of meats you could get under there? http://www.yenko.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/wink.gif

As for the stamping, I have ZERO idea of what it's supposed to look like, but it looks to me like the letters are in line for the most part, but they are all "cocked" a little differently. OK guys, is this what it is supposed to look like?

[Edited by Chevy454 (07-16-2001 at 04:47 PM).]

[Chevy454]

Marlin:

You are correct about the width and depth of the letters. The stampings I have saw are no where near that easy to read, no matter how clean the tubes are! They have not been that deep, either, as the ones I have saw looked like with a little rubbing (or light grinding) they would vanish.

It's still a really neat car, though, no matter what! So, anyone here thinking about pulling the trigger? http://www.yenko.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/smile.gif

[William]

The pop shows rear axle code as BV0519G. Interesting.

[Chevy454]

If my memory serves me correct, "BV" is 4.10 posi for both Nova and Camaro? I was having trouble reading anything on that protect-o-plate. What else does it show?

[COPO PETE]

Man, you guys got a better screen than me! Is it a X11 or a X44? Almost reads X11 on my screen!
Peter

[Dan 68 Chevy II]

Marlin,
Your right about the original stamps on the axle tubes,my 68 Nova SS 396 has the original 12 bolt with BV for 410 gears,their not stamped as crisp,spaced further apart and E is not on the same line.BV 0715 G2 E E28 8 casting date 3894860NF Dan

[Charley Lillard]

BE would be 410 in a Camaro

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

Are the COPO Camaro 'BE' rears stamped that neatly? I know the '70 COPO Novas certainly aren't.
M

[Jeff H]

Can anybody read the engine code on the P-O-P? I didn't think the rear code looked like BE, but it's not a very clear picture.

[Rat_Pack]

I messed with the picture in Photoshop and found that the rear code is BE and the engine suffix is MN. If you look at the upper left of the POP you can see that it has the H for a Holley carb. The date code for the engine was blurry but it may possible be TO521MN and the rear code may read as BE0519G. The month of manufacture on the POP shows to be a 5 which is May. Why is the rear end stamped as a February build date? Whomever restamped the axle tube may have read the 5 as a 2 on the POP since it is read backwards. I know I have done this many times before when trying to read a POP. I could not make out the VIN no matter what I tried but my guess is 124379N645657 which would put the car into the month of May for production.

Why doesn't someone email the seller for the info off of the POP? Oh well........RatPack.......

[Rat_Pack]

One other thing, the car is an X11 body code on the trim tag also note it has the 1/4 panel louvers, drip rail moldings, taillight vertical chrome trim, and headlight bezel chrome trim: wheel opening moldings and the rocker moldings have been removed at some time. Another thing to note on the trim tag is the build date is 05E. So the rear is definitely a restamp or out of another car, my bet is a restamp. Neat car anyways....RatPack........

[tom406]

Charlie, isn't BE for a heavy duty positraction 4.10 rear and BV for a standard duty positraction 4.10 rear, even in Camaros? Bob F. up here has a '69 L78 car with a BV rearend in it. It seems to have a correct drivetrain with all the date codes falling into the right timeframes. (I spent an hour or two going over the car for an appraisal a couple of weeks before he bought it). I thought all COPO's were BE. If the pop says "BV", would that make this suspicious, or just another exception to the rule?

Oh, yeah, as for the above BE stamped rear, I'll go on record saying I've NEVER seen a rearend stamped that deep, that evenly spaced, or that easy to read.

[Bob Jenkins]

here is an update from seller on add:

I have had many questions reguarding the Protect-O-Plate info. So here it is: Line 1: 12437N649657 Line 2: T0121MN BE0519G Line 3: P9D28 133

[Jeff H]

I think it's interesting to see how many documented cars have at least 1 component in their drivetrain dated way ahead of the car's build date. The trans in my JL8 car is January and the car is an April build. This COPO has a nice 4 month difference from the engine to the car's build. I could see the rear being out of whack due to it being a special piece like the JL8 rear. Does this give an indication of the L72's being pulled aside in batches to be put into COPO orders?

[Rat_Pack]

Jeff H, I agree on the dating of "special" drivetrain components being out of whack on some cars, but not the rear end in this car. The POP shows a build date on the rear as 0519 which is what should be stamped on the rear end. That rear has been restamped, tom406 says it best......RatPack..........

[COPO PETE]

I too agree with Rat Pack and tom 406..... Just had a good look at my rear end, better check the axle tubes to see if there bent...I think they used a sledge hammer to put the numbers on.....still a cool car! http://www.yenko.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/cool.gif
Peter

[Edited by COPO PETE (07-18-2001 at 03:06 PM).]

[GMH454]

Not sure about trans but there is a substantial lag on the 4 bolt solid lifter short blocks in 1969 due to a) a huge drop in demand in 1969 for them in Corvettes (about 1/2 the solid lifter blocks sold in 1969 than were sold in 1966 but 2 1/2 times the hydraulic lifter) and the union strike which cost a month or more in early 1969.
The union strike would have effects on many components but the blocks delay was primarily effected by demand.

[Chevy454]

Pete:

That car would be the perfect car for you to make your assault on the "SA" cars of the world, and get the word out about these nasty L-72 cars!

ps. I just about got our short block finished...what's the final word on JJ's engine? Any dyno numbers?

[COPO PETE]

Rob....I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill ya. http://www.yenko.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/wink.gif Look for the upcoming story in MCR. They came over for the dyno day! http://www.yenko.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/laugh.gif
Those GM performance heads were slowing him down more than we thought! Good luck with your motor. I'm expecting nothing slower than a 12.8 from you so get wrenching! http://www.yenko.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/laugh.gif
Peter

[Edited by COPO PETE (07-19-2001 at 04:48 AM).]

[Jeff H]

That is obviously not the original rear for that car and I think he said that in the description. It still looks like a restamp, but that could be because they smoothed out the surface and had to restamp it. My point about the dates is that so many people think the drivetrain components should be with a month of the build date and I've seen quite a few hi-po cars where 1 of the 3 components was 3-4 months prior to the others. For every rule, there's an exception.

[Kurt S]

Most of the COPO engines are much closer than that one.
But from the VIN and body #, it confirms to be a COPO.
Interesting that it's a COPO from Grand Rapids, but not from Berger.

Kurt