69 L89 Chevelle

[Mr. Chevy]

Anyone seen this??? Interesting car..

Rich

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyaCFS1j1Ig&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR15X9pzQpIVXy-HIsQKdt6tofdNvkAmJpGFeWlwi_3_mfHEPtaCLVw9NoY

[Postsedan]

Rich,

We just may see it in person at the NOCC :)

Dan

[Mr. Chevy]

That would be nice...

Rich

[Postsedan]

That would be nice...

Rich

#97 :)

Dan

[cheveslakr]

Wow! That was a treat, what an iconic '69!!
I noticed the left 2 screws missing on the shift bezel. I'd bet a dollar that hump was trimmed along with the mount plate. Those early Hurst shifters didn't clear the factory hump cut-out.

[Rainer]

Great work Dan!

[L78M22Rag]

Epic!!

[JoeC]

great Chevelle and great find

looks like a Baldwin Motion key fob on the table on top of the owners manual with a key on it

[PeteLeathersac]

'

Simply amazing, looking forward to more!:headbang:
:beers:
~ Pete

.

[markinnaples]

Amazing what's still out there, and BB is totally one of my favorite original colors.

[GotGrunt]

Wow, what a nice car. Gotta love the tow tabs in the trunk!

[MosportGreen66]

Does anyone know the build date?

[GotGrunt]

Does anyone know the build date?

The trim tag date is 02D

[L78M22Rag]

In the video, Patrick talks about the car’s engine being dated the first week of March while the car’s built date was the fourth week of February. He speculates that the car was likely held up at the assembly line due to the rare parts being unavailable. With this car, and it’s condition, I must say that I’m not questioning the legitimacy of the motor being the original born with. Has anyone seen any other documented or bullet proof instances of born with motors that are dated after the car’s assembly date? That opens up a whole other can of worms...

I sure look forward to seeing more details about this car like the engine stamp, etc.

[cheveslakr]

Yeah, little confused on Patrick not mentioning any vin stamping on the block. And my understanding was the tag date was established before the body was bucked, not a "projected build date" like mentioned.

[the427king]

I Don't agree with the statement that rare parts not available and the line held up. There are tons of jan and feb 842s[nov dec 68 as well] made, and 3 or so dates in each month, hard to believe with those cast dates and only so few cars made theyd run out of heads...… The heads on the car would have to be march or close dated if they weren't available when the car was built. As far as the build date on pad,who knows......if you combine that with the fact I have 6 sets of feb heads with zero plugs,that tells me probably the plugged head is not feb or march, but earlier

[GotGrunt]

The way I understood it was that the Fisher date for the body was the last week of February (02D) but the VIN sequence of the car falls within an early March build. It may have been possible that the body shell was delayed during assembly @ Fisher. The block was assembled March 7th so that would have to be a very long delay in production.

[Mr70]

If true,you'd think it would have affected more then just one car during that time period.
I've looked at a few 1969 L78 Chevelles with the L-89 head option,and none of them had a lapse like this one,that he's trying to rationalize. :hmmm:

[GotGrunt]

If true,you'd think it would have affected more then just one car during that time period.
I've looked at a few 1969 L78 Chevelles with the L-89 head option,and none of them had a lapse like this one,that he's trying to rationalize. :hmmm:

I agree. He usually shows close-ups of the numbers and stamps in his videos, but not on this one. I just can’t put much faith in his word after the whole “unconverted” Yenko nonsense :D

[DW31S]

No mention of VIN on block, trans. or any codes on rear. Those numbers should be easily readable on a 2200 mile car that lived inside. Never say never, but I’m scratching my head on this one. I will say that this is the first car I’ve heard of where the engine, if in fact original, has a build date after the body.

[Spooky]

at 16:39 you can see a Motion Super Car club key fob!

[SS69chevelle]

the body tag info puts the chevelle build in early mar as mentioned for the engine. the 02D build week bleeds into March 69 likely for the first week or so based on where the info falls in my list. i doubt it was held up in production. the vin is likely in the 3554XX-3555XX range. very neat.

[jeffschevelle]

I don't know anything about this particular car and whether it has its born with engine or not. But ---

The trim tag date is based on when the vehicle order was input into the system at the assembly plant, aka the "broadcast date". Actual construction of the car started after that. More importantly, the week coding was NOT the way many folks think it was (with the first 7 days of any month being week "A" and so forth, which was not the case). If that were true then there would not be so many tags out there that have "E" week designations. As far as I know no one really knows when one "week" ended and the next one started, or how it was handled when the month changed in the middle of the work week, which would happen almost every month anyway.

For example, I have an unrestored Baltimore 67 SS with trim tag date 11E. The broadcast cards that were in the seats have "broadcast date" of December 1, 1966. So even though this car's order was not even entered into the system at the plant until December, it has a November tag date.

Another example is the earliest known legitimate factory 67 L78 Chevelle, which has trim tag date 04C and engine date (verified on the original [real] POP) of T0425EG. But the VIN places it as leaving the plant on the last production day in April (car is 172 units from the last car built in April at that plant, so was a "last day" of April car).

So, as I said I don't know about this car, but with February only having 28 days, it is easily conceivable that an 02D trim tag dated car did not actually get built until early March.

[1967Z28]

The trim tag date is based on when the vehicle order was input into the system at the assembly plant, aka the "broadcast date". Actual construction of the car started after that.

That is an assumption on your part that I believe is incorrect. I have data on a number of Camaros that were actually built the week prior to the build date on the tag. Also, the body numbers were in the same range as cars that were built a week later. Example, a car is built at the end of one month when taking the VIN into account (and NCRS report backs up car was built during last week of the month) but the trim tag and body number are for the first week of the following month. You can't input a vehicle order into the system at the plant a week after the car has already been built.