PDA

View Full Version : HELP Re:1969 Camaro posted on EBAY #1854442634

ChevyCamaro
08-31-2002, 05:58 AM
Anyone out there know about this car? Is it genuine low 16,000 mile car? Would appreciate any feedback. Thank you. <font color="blue"> </font color>
Steve Shauger
08-31-2002, 01:47 PM
It is difficult to verify the mileage from the pics, but here are couple issues I have with the car as a survivor. Cowl hood was added, wrong alt, chrome support braces. The engine compartment appears to be completely repainted. Exhaust has been replaced and only the spare tire is original. If the hood was replaced and painted what else was repainted. Nice car, but with only 16K miles you might expect it to have more original components.
William
08-31-2002, 03:25 PM
The ad depicts the paint code as 72 B so it is incorrectly repainted.
ChevyCamaro
08-31-2002, 08:36 PM
Thanks for the feedback, Where did you see the paint code in the ad? Or did you find out this info from another source? <font color="blue"> </font color>
Kurt S
09-01-2002, 08:32 AM
We're talking about http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&amp;item=1854442634?
The paint code isn't listed and it has an SS hood, not a cowl hood.
Headers, alt, and braces aren't right, tag paint has been removed, but the underhood looks nice from the pics.
Good looking car, be nice to crawl around it and see what it really looks like and what is right.

Also would be nice if they put the jack in the right place.....
JoeC
09-01-2002, 11:01 AM
The ad claims original paint. The spare tire looks like a stock green rim so the car may have had dog dish caps on it originally.
Steve Shauger
09-01-2002, 02:05 PM
Kurt you are correct regarding the cowl hood (confused with another car. Trunk mat must have been added at some time.
William
09-01-2002, 03:14 PM
My mistake.

There is a alleged low-mile '69 Z/28 on ebay; had an email about it.
ChevyCamaro
09-01-2002, 07:13 PM
Shouldn't the P T B stamps on the fire wall be in plain view as well?? Maybe the engine compartment was repained?
And Why!! <font color="blue"> </font color>
Stefano
09-01-2002, 11:17 PM
Looks like a Nice Camaro from the pictures.
Bob Jenkins
09-02-2002, 04:10 AM
I didn't think that fathom green and other dark colored SS 396 cars got black paint on the tail panel....isn't the vin too late for the short rear spoiler,124379N567844 would make it a Jan '69 car...the hood hinges/springs appear too glossy or wrong color to me....just observations
bkhpah
09-02-2002, 11:45 AM
A few things that I see that would not appear correct.
The washer bottle is in the wrong location, trim tag is bare, carb return spring in the wrong location, hood hinges and springs painted black, bypass hose clamps are wrong type, chrome radiator brace bars, generic battery, incorrect exhaust tips, the rear spoiler looks added to me, trunk mat does not belong in standard interior car, spare tire hold down looks wrong, bumper jack is in wrong location, black rear panel has been added. All easy fixes. The car looks nice to me though...BKH
Kurt S
09-02-2002, 06:19 PM
&gt; black rear panel has been added.

?? Fathom green BB's got the black tailpanel. Only SS396 cars that didn't were pacers and black cars.
JoeC
09-02-2002, 07:44 PM
kurt, is this true also for 67 SS 396 deepwater blue? I have heard both ways - black panel and no black panel on dark colors.
Rat_Pack
09-02-2002, 09:12 PM
Joe, yes, the same holds true on the Deepwater Blue cars in 67. If it was a big block it had the black tailpanel treatment, except pace cars (excluding Canadian pacers) .................RatPack.......................
69rsss350
09-02-2002, 11:19 PM
Can those exhaust pipes originally have stuck out the rear that far?
Doesn't seem correct to me.
bkhpah
09-03-2002, 10:58 PM
The original paint fathom green X66 Yenko Camaro I have seen has a body color rear panel, not black...BKH
Steve Shauger
09-04-2002, 02:56 AM
I have seen a x22, burnished brown with a blacked out tail panel and rockers. Also an original paint car.