#1
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback on this 69Z
Can i have some feedback on this car - anyone know of it?
Do the dates and stamps and trim tag look good. All info appreciated - buddy of mine is interested in the car. 69 frost green Z
__________________
Eddie M MBTMF 68 COPO Camaro 9737 non-converted YENKO 69 YENKO SC Camaro, Hugger Orange - born with engine! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Feedback on this 69Z
Looks like a nice car, but a bit pricey, IMO. Sits a little saggy in the rear, and it appears to have been a non-cowl hood, non-spoiler car originally or they had been replaced at some point(also my opinion). And you have to wonder what happened to the original rocker covers. Plus there are some other repop parts here and there. Looks solid, but for that price? I guess if it is genuinely a 38K mile car it should draw that kind of cash.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Feedback on this 69Z
i notice the brake valve on the subframe is missing???
based on what we hear - he will adjust price accordingly.
__________________
Eddie M MBTMF 68 COPO Camaro 9737 non-converted YENKO 69 YENKO SC Camaro, Hugger Orange - born with engine! |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Feedback on this 69Z
From CRG
•For 1968, only cars with 12-bolt axles received the valve. The C60 air conditioning option no longer caused use of the valve (though C60 cars could get the valve due to a 12-bolt axle). The one known exception is that NOR Z28's stopped using the valve midway through the 68 model and didn't begin again until mid-model year 1969. •For 69, the valve was generally used on 12-bolt axle applications, except for JL8 equipped cars (which had disc brakes in the rear and didn't need the valve). As noted above, the 69 NOR Z28's did not use it until mid-year, in the late January / early February timeframe. Other exceptions in 69 include: some SS's and LM1's have been observed without the valve, and the valve has been observed on some drum brake 10-bolt axle cars. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Feedback on this 69Z
Is the pop for real?
__________________
Don't believe everything you read on the internet ... Ben Franklin |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Feedback on this 69Z
Pretty car. I does look to me like those are mig plug weld in the picture behind the lft tire, that weren't ground very flat.Seems that the rt qtr to tail pan gap middle down is a bit large. Not that it couldn't be factory, but those welds don't look quite right.
It it a pretty piece. I have one like it....in a lot of pieces. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Feedback on this 69Z
any views on the stamp of the mtr and vin. does the trim tag look real?
__________________
Eddie M MBTMF 68 COPO Camaro 9737 non-converted YENKO 69 YENKO SC Camaro, Hugger Orange - born with engine! |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Feedback on this 69Z
Eddie
The picture of the pad is to poor, and has to much paint on it to make a call. The trim tag looks OK but may have been off the car at some time. The asking price is too high for the quality of the resto I see in the photos. Agree the spoiler and hood most likley added. Still a nice car. Mike |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Feedback on this 69Z
All in all a much better quality than the run of the mill e-bay cars. Agreed a better pic of the stamping is needed. Probably worth the money if you like it and want it badly enough.
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Feedback on this 69Z
rear shock is loose |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|