69 Z28 No Sale E-Bay....

[70 copo]

Ok so it is an LA built car, but bidding was still less than stellar for a clean car.

Has anyone here looked this car over? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/burnout.gif

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2483957450&rd=1&sspage name=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT

[firstgenaddict]

Look at the bottom of it. Looks like it was spray can flat black. Also the brake booster was black. + the fact that it was LA built. I think that it did good to get to where it was.

[70 copo]

Yes you may be right on the price. Now that I think of it, No documents, no detail on the underside.... I do like the Chambered pipes however. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

Phil

[supercomp 8.90]

i think the 27000.00 area was about right for this car in the cond. that it is in. an la car with no documents kinda scars me, http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/flag.gif jmo.

[70 copo]

Given that the existance of LA built Z/28's is well established, color of the car is one of the best, it still looks like a very good deal for an informed buyer.

Particulary, given all of the recent speculation on 69 Z/28 prices that has gone on here lately. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif

Phil

[Astock]

Why do you think this car is a real? The block is a year off and the rear end (3.31) at 6 months off .

[70 copo]

Why do you say the block is a year off?? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

[Astock]

I'm just guessing from the vin.#...it should have a 386 casted block w/ V0811DZ.The heads are wrong too, along with a whole lot more I'm sure.

[JBB]

Well about the numbers, you have to remember these cars were run and in most cases beat to %$#@, consequently trying to find #'s for a correct restoration can put you in the nut house. it's a OK car, but a non X code car would have to have one of the three: window sticker, dealer shipper copy, POP, but would also have to have a title search verifying owners and mileage before i can even consider a possible purchase. All the above would have to be verified.............Joel-Ill Camaro Club

[firstgenaddict]

Phil,
I see you are from Chilicothe do you happen to know Frank Sheffield? Old (sorry Frank no disrespect) Ohio drag racer and muscle car racer.

[Astock]

I would be surprised if more than 30% of real 1969 Z's have their original motors from the factory.I'm saying there is nothing from looking at this auction that would lead me to believe the car it self is a real Z-28.

[70 copo]

You are correct if your guess is based upon the current assumption that LOS cars and Norwood cars had identical VIN's by date, which in this case would make the car a very early 69 car (August 68) and of course then most everything could be wrong -even the cowl hood. There is only one problem with this theory on VIN dating it is also currently believed that only 25% of total camaro production originated from Los Angeles, so using the Norwood template- concurrent VIN to date ratio could be skewed by up to 75% error using this assumption.

Assuming the car is August 69 build - then the engine is correctly cast. Has anyone/organization conclusively made heads or tails of Los Angeles month to Vin/production yet? I agree with JBB on at least a title search prior to purchace unless you happen to be a wizard with numbers, Broach marks, and identifying a restamped parts. The Re-stamps that I have looked at over the years are pretty obvious. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif

[70 copo]

I do not know Frank personally but lots of the old timers tell tales about him. Local Legend here. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[Astock]

The vins are not identical.

[Mark_C]

LA and Norwood VINs are not identical by date they are sequential by assembly plant. That is, there is (or could be) a 9L512345 and a 9N512345, of course one could be a 6 cylinder convertible and the other could be an L89 coupe. Also LA stopped building cars in April of 69 due to a GM strike at the Van Nuys plant. They came back on line in June to finish roughly 1000 cars that were actually on the line when the strike hit. There are no build dates later than 05A from LA in 1969.

This car is an early build, with a bunch of incorrect parts, at least the engine, rear axle and cowl induction hood which wasn't available until the first week of January of 69 (Yes the first ZL1 built during the last week of December 1968 has a cowl hood, but that isn't exactly a production car). Does this mean it is or isn't a Z28, I don't know but someone would have to prove it to me if they wanted my money.

[70 copo]

Mark,

The cuncurrent Vin Theory was first put forward by John Grinnnel in a book from 2003 titled "Standard Catalog of Camaro". Build sequence info is accepted from multiple sources and makes complete sence.

Great info you provided! Just a few questions: Can it be verified from GM Records? Who currently has this data? Is it from an official source? If not who compiled it?

Sorry - Just a couple more questions: (assuming that there were all 1000 cars on the line when the strike occurred) and lets say that the VIN's and trim Tags were all attached at the time of the strike- and there were 1000 cars left to finish in June (when the strike ended) - then there must be a build date later than 05A-Right?? Assuming all other non Camaro line production was shut down and all remaining Camaros were built one after another right after the strike ended- How long do you think this process would take would this take? 1 Week Perhaps?

Assembly dates and component dates must be all over the range for these final cars then - correct?

Thanks http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

Phil

[Charley Lillard]

Maybe Kurt will chime in. CRG should have a good database.

[70 copo]

Charlie,

He is the Man...

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worship.gif

Phil

[ssl78]

That is definetly a early car I just looked at my Cal car the vin is 504585 with a build date of 10c. I know that even before the X code came on the trim tags the X code was on the back seat divider in Nor built cars. Did the Los cars have the X codes there.

[Stefano]

John,
It appears that X codes were not used at the Van Nuys Plant in any way. I have never seen an X code on an LA car behind the back seat.

[Charley Lillard]

WOW ! Stephano came out of hibernation again.

[70 copo]

Good info! Thanks for looking. If I may ask, what is your LA car optioned with?

Phil http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[ssl78]

HI steve, Have you ever looked I didnt think non X codes car were behind the seat until I looked at one the other day. I think I will pull the back seat out of my Los built car today and look. My Los car is a original Hugger Orange RS SS black standard interior supposedly L78 auto tach gauge. It now has A ZL1 with a doug Nash 5 spd and black deluxe int.

[Mark_C]

Sure it can be documented. The last VIN from LA is 9L531163 assembled in July of 69 with an 05A cowl tag. Norwood passes VIN 531163 in about 2 days into November of 68. (Last October VIN per GM's official list is 530337, but this is the car that actually rolled of the line at 12 midnight on 10/31/68 (Still had another 2 days of 10D cars on the line at that instant) so 9N531163 would carry a 10D cowl tag. Last Norwood VIN is 9N711922 in November of 69

VIN List - select VIN Table on left side of page (http://www.holisticpage.com/camaro/goodies_fs.htm)

69 body numbers are seqential by date (they are actually the dealer order number assigned once the order was accepted by GM). They were not necessarily built in the order they were received in due to the need to schedule parts. There are gaps in them as orders were canceled but body 111000 could have been built in LA, and 111001 could have been built in Norwood.

[70 copo]

Good info! Thanks for taking the time to research it. I noticed the source as the old USCC.

I miss the technical features that they offered.

Phil http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[Kurt S]

Most of the VIN info (re the #'ing at the different plants)is posted on the CRG site.

The end of the month #'s are actually via GM production records, USCC just published them. They are a good reference point, but there are several issues with those #'s, so don't rely on them too much.

The ordering info was published by GM in an explanation on how the ordering system worked. It is different from 67-8.

The car being discussed is a hodge-podge of parts.....

[70 copo]

Kurt,

Thanks. I knew the USCC info was a little loose also. it is too bad that whoever put the car together did not do a better job finding the best parts when the car was re built. Still a nice looking car, I love the Orange with the white stripes. Good car to drive.

Phil http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[Late BrakeU2]

[ QUOTE ]
Kurt,

Thanks. I knew the USCC info was a little loose also. it is too bad that whoever put the car together did not do a better job finding the best parts when the car was re built. Still a nice looking car, I love the Orange with the white stripes. Good car to drive.

Phil http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

First thing I noticed was it had the wrong spoiler,mine is a 10C LOS and still has the original 68 shorty.

[70 copo]

I think it was a non spoiler car-Originally http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif