Black LS-6 Chevelle No Reserve

[Mr70]

Good looking car that Ends soon.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Chevel...em=182170965420 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Chevelle-SS-LS6-/182170965420?forcerrptr=true&hash=item2a6a3c55ac:g :YG8AAOSwmtJXYDKt&item=182170965420)

[Zedder]

Isn't $70k cheap for this car?

[Charley Lillard]

I think the shifter on the column will hold it back a bit. Cool car though.

[COPO]

Protect-o-plate seems suspect to me. Don't like the axle code.

[BLACKLS5]

Or the transmission code...

[Mr70]

Your both right.I didn't see that protecto plate photo earlier.
Both the trans & rear are not coded correctly for an LS-6.Those 2 were specific to that engine.
His trans says L-78/LT-1.
His rear says 1971/72 3.31 Chevelle.

I emailed the seller asking him about these 2 issues.
Hopefully he'll reply.

[Fast67VelleN2O]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mr70</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
His rear says 1971/72 3.31 Chevelle.
</div></div>

How do you get that from the rear end code? If it was 1971, 1972, it would be CCF. All rear codes had the C before them starting in the late 1969 model year.

[Mr70]

Just CF was used in 1964-65-66-67-68-69 Chevelle.
CCF was new for 1970,and CCF was a 1970 L-34 coded Chevelle/Elco &amp; used in Monte too.
1971-72 Chevelle went back to CF.

[Fast67VelleN2O]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mr70</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just CF was used in 1964-65-66-67-68-69 Chevelle.
CCF was new for 1970,and CCF was a 1970 L-34 coded Chevelle/Elco &amp; used in Monte too.
1971-72 Chevelle went back to CF.

</div></div>

Sorry, I wrote that wrong, if 1971, 1972, it would have the C following the code, such as CFC or KDC, RUC, etc.

http://chevellestuff.net/1971/images/rearend_71_cfc0629e.jpg

[Mr70]

And that second following C in your example Matt actually stood for the assembly plant code,(Buffalo),where as the 1970 CCF did not,(stood for Chevrolet),and had it's assembly plant code stamped further down.

[SS427]

I have at least two known real LS6 POP's with the two digit code CRU (RU on the POP) and CRV (RV on the POP) so it does happen not that the one in question is real. Just sayin. I believe Dale MacIntosh also has copies of some.

[al8apex]

wow, way cool colors and equipment

many were ordered &quot;cheapo&quot; for street racing duty plus that was still back in the day when your girlfriend sat next to you ...

[Mr70]

VIN # 136370R244680
He says it's a real deal LS-6 &amp; the original born with drivetrain,yet his P-O-P says different &amp; that it's an LS-6 engine with an L-78/LT-1 Trans &amp; an L-34 3.31 rearend.<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/hmmm.gif
After I asked the Q below,I just followed up by asking if he could please show photos of the trans tag &amp; rear axle tube stampings.
Hopefully he'll post those.

<span style="font-style: italic">Q:Is it the original Born with 46 year old engine?..is it the original born with 46 year old TH400?...is it the original born with 46 year old 3.31 posi?..Thanks. Jun-20-16
A:The engine block is a 512 block with cast date of March 4 1970. Car build date was third week of May 1970 at Arlington plant. Heads and manifolds check out with respect to dates and part numbers. Trans code is 70 CW 299 assembled 2/2/70. Rear end code shows build date of 9/2/69 and matches 331 ratio. Numbers on protecto plate all match the VIN, Engine and Transmission codes. Based on all the research I have done, the drive train is original born with the car. Car is two owner car last 20 years. Previous owner (a friend) also verified numbers.</span>

[Big Block Bill]

Rick,

I agree with your statements. I understand the &quot;L-78/LT-1 Trans (CW) &amp; an L-34 3.31 rearend (CFO), but I don't get the 399 (70CW399) for a build date no matter what car it came out of due to the fact there is only 365 days in a year. Just trying to get educated here. So this being 13637R244680 I would assume it has a build date of around the 1 st. week of June 1970?

Bill

[Mr70]

Bill
He says the cars build date was started 3rd week of May 1970.
Assembly date for the Transmission,starts @ Jan. 1st 1969.
So counting the 365 days for the entire 1969 year,you then add 34 more days running into 1970 to get to the 399th assembly day,equaling February 3rd of 1970.

Car just sold for $78,800.00
He never replied back to me with photos I asked for.
Odd situaton,either the car is right,and the protecto plate is wrong,or the protecto plate is right,and the car is wrong,or they're both wrong..

[BLACKLS5]

It sounds like he answered your questions without really answering your questions....if you get what I'm saying. I can't imagine the sale going through but I could be wrong.

[Mr70]

I do,and I agree.

[earntaz]

Sure hope someone out there hasn't got a hook in their lip ...

[Mr70]

Just got this sellers explanation and pictures.

<span style="font-style: italic">&quot;The engine block is a 512 block with cast date of March 4 1970.Car build date was third week of May 1970 at Arlington plant.Heads and manifolds check out with respect to dates and part numbers.Trans code is 1970 CW 299 assembled 2/2/70.Rear end code shows build date of 9/2/69 and matches 331 ratio.Numbers on protecto plate all match the VIN,Engine and Transmission codes.Based on all the research I have done,the drivetrain is original born with the car.Car is two owner car last 20 years.Previous owner (a friend) also verified numbers.The only explaination I have for the CW trans code is that the car was built during the transition from the L78 to the LS6 and the CW trans was put in the car.Car build date was third week of May,VIN 136370R244680.&quot;</span>

The L-78/LS-6 transition timeline was actually Nov/Dec 69.
And still doesn't explain the CF coded L-34 396/350HP specific rearend dated way too early for this car either.

[mockingbird812]

Wow the stamp pad photo is fuzzy - never seen that before <<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/dunno.gif. What I can make out does not indicate broach marks. Lot of alarms here! <<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/no.gif Thanks for posting. Hope someone captures this in their VIN database as a questionable LS6.

[ssl78]

The font looks way to big to be a original stamp