1969 z28

[Jimlt4383]

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1969-chevrolet-camaro-z-28-161/

[camfreak1]

Any members have info on this car

[Bill Pritchard]

I saw that yesterday on BaT. Just waiting to hear what the 69 Camaro experts have to say about it....

[JRSully]

Does that TT look a little crispy.?

[enio45]

Looks very fresh to me - but others are more expert on the type style and design on the letters/numbers.

[Charley Lillard]

Nice car. No idea how the shift ball got so dull.

[William]

Tag is ok IMHO. Other March tags compare well.

[70LS6454]

I like it.

[Hotrodpaul]

I don't like the trim tag.

[Hotrodpaul]

No engine stamp as it may have been decked when sleeves were installed or it is a replacement block?

Rear end date seems late for this car.

Is the NCRS report available for this VIN? I wouldn't bid unless I had it.

In my opinion, this is a clone until someone proves different.

[SupremeDeluxe]

The BaT descriptions just keep getting worse. I believe they are written by AI.

The photos on this auction are especially terrible, and that's on the seller (not BaT).

[William]

The seller posted the block stamping/casting info; CE block March 1970.

N621573 was final assembled on or about March 27, 1969. The Chevy Gear & Axle plant was a 4-hour drive. A March 20 axle is not out of the norm.

[Bill Pritchard]

The BaT descriptions just keep getting worse. I believe they are written by AI.


I agree.

[napa68]

The BaT descriptions just keep getting worse.

It's not just the descriptions.......

[mt95]

I am a past owner of this car. Owned it from 1980 to around 1996. The Trim tag has never been off of the car. I have documentation from way back proving that fact. The rear end is original to the car also. The owner after me repainted the car in lacquer. Why, I don't know. It was a great survivor.
The engine is a warranty replacement block and one cylinder head. If I remember correctly, the block has a date of January 1970. I supplied information to Alan Colvin who wrote Chevrolet by the numbers. He was able to verify the block numbers for me back them. The owner after me, left the antifreeze in way too long, and it corroded the head gaskets and got into cylinders and froze up the pistons. The current owner bored the block .030 and installed 30 over NOS pistons. It does have at the time that I sold it, all of the original pieces on car. Trans, distributors starter, alternator, etc I have information on the ownership trail back to new also.
Any info needed, I can answer most requests

MT

[mt95]

As a previous owner, I have the NCRS report on this car

[Lynn]

Nice of you to weigh in with some history.

Any chance there is any paperwork on the warranty work? That would be a huge plus to a lot of guys.

[Tracker1]

Thank you for the background info! Was it a factory cowl-induction car?

[mt95]

No warranty paperwork. Just word of mouth from a previous owner who got it from original buyer. The numbers on the block coincide with that time period. Also no POP or invoice when I purchased the car. As to the cowl hood, this car was a flat hood car originally. The experts if I remember them saying was that cowl hoods did not appear until late April or May? It had the non cowl hood accelerator rod when I bought the car. I installed the cowl hood internals early 80's. Also, the repaint statement from buyer is totally wrong. I sold the car in 96, so the repaint had to been after that.

[Tracker1]

The experts if I remember them saying was that cowl hoods did not appear until late April or May? It had the non cowl hood accelerator rod when I bought the car. .

The ZL2 option was made available in late December, 1968.

[Bill Pritchard]

Sold for $90,500.