Camaro rearend decoding

[Blownrsz]

I have what I believe is a 1968 camaro 4:10 rearend casted on October 5 1968. The build date and axle code is QA 0125G. This would have been installed in a early 1969 camaro? Only info I can find is BV for 4:10 in 1969.8 http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics/usergals/2016/11/full-20239-51639-img_5131.jpg
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics/usergals/2016/11/full-20239-51640-img_5130.jpg

[bbbentley]

http://www.camaros.org/drivetrain.shtml#AxleCodes
Something does not jive though. That code was not offered in 69 in a Camaro according to the chart.

[Blownrsz]

That's the link I was getting my info from. Only thing I can come up with is because it's an early 69 build they used the 68 code on the 4:10 gear?? It would have for sure been installed in a 69. It does not have the 4:10 in it now but has a 67 3:31 posi unit in it. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics/usergals/2016/11/full-20239-51642-img_5118.jpg

[Blownrsz]

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics/usergals/2016/11/full-20239-51643-img_5144.jpgreae

[Lynn]

Probably cast Oct 66. 6, 8, 9 can all look the same sometimes... can be pretty rough and difficutlt to distinguish.

66 casting makes the most sense. Assembled January 25. So if it went into a 69, it wasn't an early 69 by any means.

Even Oct 66 seems odd. They are NORMALLY cast and then assembled closer together than Oct. - Jan.

Most 68 4.10 rears are coded BV, just like a 69.

I would be sandblasting that casting date to see if it has been messed with.

[Blownrsz]

It's for sure a 68 casting. I always heard parts can be up to 3 months out. It's been sitting in a garage for over 20 years. It has the original drums still on it. Maybe a dealer installed the 3:31?? Im thinking it's one that slipped through because it was early 69

[WILMASBOYL78]

The QA code matches up for a 67 4.10 posi according to Colvin's book...page 314.

-wilma

[Lynn]

It isn't so much the casting that is the problem for an early 69. It is the assy stamp. They did not use QA for 69. Even if one is thinking early in the model year, using a left over 68, it would still be a BV stamp. Certainly not left over in ;ate Jan. of 69, approx. six months into production.

[Blownrsz]

Ok thanks! So it's probably a 68 rearend then your thinking? The casting looks like an 8 but maybe it is a 6?? I'm looking to sell it but don't want to mis represent it.

[Blownrsz]

Sorry 67 rearend

[ssl78]

Does it have multi leaf or mono leaf perches. I do not see the mount for the 67 traction bar

[cook_dw]

Can you post a pic of the axle tubes going into the center section? BTW Im not a fan of the stamping but I could be wrong at this point..

[Kurt S]

Looks like a 67 axle. Should have monoleaf perches.
Is there evidence a radius rod bracket was attached? http://www.camaros.org/radiusrod.shtml

[Fast67VelleN2O]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ssl78</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does it have multi leaf or mono leaf perches. I do not see the mount for the 67 traction bar </div></div>

It's an October of 1966 rear end. 1967 did not have the traction bar at that point yet.

[rafbody]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fast67VelleN2O</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ssl78</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does it have multi leaf or mono leaf perches. I do not see the mount for the 67 traction bar </div></div>

It's an October of 1966 rear end. 1967 did not have the traction bar at that point yet. </div></div>

If the stamped assembly date is correct it is a January 1967 assembled rear end and should have had the bracket for the rod.

[Fast67VelleN2O]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rafbody</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

If the stamped assembly date is correct it is a January 1967 assembled rear end and should have had the bracket for the rod. </div></div>

Were the perches and brackets added to the housing during assembly when the assembly was stamped? I would assume that wasn't the case.

[Blownrsz]

It does not have the bracket for the traction bar. I'll get pics of the the spring mounts.

[Kurt S]

By that date, a 4.10 axle should have a bracket.

[Blownrsz]

Here are the axle tubes and the spring mounts http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics/usergals/2016/11/full-20239-51752-img_5152.jpg
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/pics/usergals/2016/11/full-20239-51753-img_5153.jpg

[Blownrsz]

After a lot closer inspection it looks like the traction bar bracket had been removed.

[luzl78]

Probably a rear from a z car!

[ZAPPER68]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WILMASBOYL78</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The QA code matches up for a 67 4.10 posi according to Colvin's book...page 314.

-wilma </div></div>

Likewise from MacNeish's &quot;Definitive 67-68 Z28 Fact Book&quot;, page 65.

[Blownrsz]

It could be but a shame they cut the traction bar bracket off

[69L72RS]

What is the casting number for the center section casting, 980, 860, or 860N?
If I remember correctly, the &quot;N&quot; was added to the casting number sometime in mid 67, as a revision. Would have to find my ECN book to confirm the date.
Also, I have only seen two 67 Camaro 12-bolt rears that were built with a 980 center section casting. I would have to believe these were assembled either by accident or necessity.