1967 Z/28 - Page 3

**Zedder** · #21 11-03-2006, 04:47 AM

Read this for your answers...assume that the body build at Fisher was started late in the Day Friday June 30th and it will all make sense to you...

http://www.camaros.org/assemblyprocess.shtml

Pacecarjeff · #22 11-03-2006, 05:28 AM

Not sure how an engine could be assembled at Flint, after the car was built at Norwood?
Don't really understand that part, but the MO part is how they did it.

The MO is the only part of the stamp pad that I really like...
I would like to see a close up of the VIN that is stamped on the trans?

Very Nice car.

Here is a picture of a untouched pad from a 67 SS350
Sold this car last year, was absolutely the original engine.

Rick H · #23 11-03-2006, 05:45 AM

With a VIN of 247737 and a final VIN in June of apprx 251048 I don't see this car beng built on June 30th. Especially with a production of 912 cars a day at a plant that only produced Camaros.

251048-247737=3311/912=3.63days before June 30th.

Puts it about the middle of the day the 27th of June. Almost a full week before the engine was made?????

So yes, that answers my question.

Rick H.

Rick H · #24 11-03-2006, 05:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a picture of a untouched pad from a 67 SS350
Sold this car last year, was absolutely the original engine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that VIN and engine stamp works. VIN is first week of June with an end of May engine stamp.

Rick H.

Pacecarjeff · #25 11-03-2006, 06:02 AM

I actually like the 7N247 and I like the V07 MO
Not sure about that other stuff - is the pad completly flat?

Beautiful Car

**Zedder** · #26 11-03-2006, 06:20 AM

Hey Joe...rather than wallow in the mud, I'll go with my understanding of '67 Z's and Jerry MacNeish's certification and gladly give you what you paid me for the car last October

This is a very nice, driveable '67 Z guys...someone should pick her up!!!

Pacecarjeff · #27 11-03-2006, 06:43 AM

Legally speaking, that is all a seller is responsible for.
Refunding the original purchase price.
I am sure last october this car was sold for "all the money".

What does Jerry's certification say about the stamp pad?
Does he certify this stamp pad as being the original? I wouldn't think so.

No doubt in my mind at all - this is a genuine 1967 Z/28, with a real MO 302 engine.
It is a gorgeous car, that anyone would be very lucky to own. I would like to myself.

I just can't see this engine starting life in this car.
Especially since the engine post-dates the car.

**1967Z28** · #28 11-03-2006, 08:50 AM

I work with Jerry on the '67 Z28 Registry and also with the CRG group. When you gather enough data, you see that 06E is a oddball build week that ran longer than usual for some reason. We have seen this with other months and in other years. There are very few 07A '67 Norwood cars. There are at least 7 06E-built '67 Z-28s with engine stampings in July. The latest 06E car has an V0706MO engine in it. I understand the initial skepticism but it is unwarranted. This car is a nice, legitimate '67 Z-28.

-Jon

Pacecarjeff · #29 11-03-2006, 09:08 AM

Hey Jon,
Based on your professional experience, are you certifying that this engine stamp as THE original born with stamping?
Or, are you just saying the original engine was stamped this way, and this was possible?

We all know this is a nice legitimate 1967 Z/28 - NO QUESTION.
I am asking you directly: In your professional opinion - from working with the Z/28 registry, and the CRG.
IS THIS THE ORIGINAL ENGINE AND VIN STAMPING?

Would really like to hear this from the CRG.
I really like the car, this is just a real weird one???
We all know that anything was possible, but is this a true example?

**1967Z28** · #30 11-03-2006, 09:22 AM

I'm not a certified appraiser. I guess my opinion should carry no more weight than the next guy but this block pad looks legit to me based on many others that I have seen over the years. That is just my 2 cents worth, which is maybe all it's worth.

-Jon