[1stGenFan]

I would like to introduce myself, some of you remember me, many of you probably not. My name is Ken Boje, I have been involved as a fan and owner of the 1st generation Camaro since a young man in 1976. I have been fortunate to have owned around 20 Camaro's over the years, and currently have one of each year in my collection. I am a previous owner of 2 legitimate 1967 Z28's, and am quite familiar with this model. I am more than familiar with the 1967 Camaro and its options, as this has been my most favorite year.

I sold one of my previous 1967 Z28's in 2007, it was the Fred Gibb racecar, known as "Little Hoss". After the sale, I was in the market to acquire another
1967 Z28, and came across an Ebay ad in April of 2008. I contacted the poster, a fellow named Ron Hawk, who worked at or ran Route 16 Auto, located in or near Chaffee, New York.

I gave Ron an offer for the project, and purchased the car, with the understanding that if the vehicle did not pass my inspection when it arrived, he would give me a full refund. I paid him $15,000, anticipating the car needing a major restoration of sheet metal and the car had no drivetrain. As long as it was legitimate, I was game. The car was delivered in late May of 2008, and I first laid eyes on it on May 28, 2008.

Long story short, when the car arrived, it was immediately apparent this was not a 1967 Z28. I will refer to the body I received as the original body received, from the 2008 Ebay ad, with the VIN tag of 124377N178453. The original VIN stamping on the upper cowl was untampered and not altered, such as with welding or replacement, when I inspected this vehicle.

Here were the main discrepancy's I found when I inspected the car;

1. The body was a factory RS body, with factory punched openings for taillights. It had what appeared to be the original sheet metal front clip, which had the hideaway headlights. The cowl tag does not indicate the 3L RS option the car was advertised as.

This should have been a red flag when I was reviewing the ad, but my excitement of finding another M2 colored 1967 Z28 got the best of me, and I overlooked the missing 3L code.

2. The interior of the car was a black standard interior, with console grommets in the transmission tunnel. The console was missing. No door handle bolts for a custom interior, no sail panel lights, no custom door panels, or rear seat arm rests. No interior headliner chrome. The steering wheel was a standard black wheel. The cowl tag represented the car as a custom interior car, with the 12637 code.


3. There was no evidence of a vinyl top ever on the body. No staples or holes from staples around the front and rear windows, and no trim clip holes around the top quarter corners, found on vinyl top cars. From what I recollect, the car had its original quarter panels. I have replaced full NOS quarter panels, and have found partially replaced, and this car appeared to have its original quarters. The cowl tag represented the car as a vinyl top car.

4. There was no Muncie firewall piercing above the mid portion of the cowl. The speedometer cable was located under the steering column, which is for the standard transmission, or automatic. The cowl tag represented the car with the M20 option, which would have a mid cowl speedometer location.

5. There was no rear passenger seat traction bracket, which should appear on all the production 1967 Z28's. The cowl tag indicated the 4L Z28 option. I found no rear traction bracket, along with no 12 bolt rearend on the body when I inspected it.

6. When I compared the paint under the windshield cowl, it did not look like Royal Plum, but appeared to be Madeira Maroon. I compared an original paint piece of fender reinforcement from Little Hoss, and the difference was apparent. The cowl tag represented the color as M this did not match what I found on the underside of the cowl panel, that appeared original factory paint. The top of the cowl also appeared to have original factory paint, and it appeared to be Madeira Maroon.

7. There were no disc brakes, or power master cylinder, which was mandatory on 1967 Z28's.

The car was represented as an old race car. I have owned several former racecars, and this car appeared to be an old street driven car, parked in the weeds for years. No aftermarket equipment, no traction bars, no evidence of a roll cage, no stickers anywhere, etc. Just a lousy primer over whatever was beneath, with silver paint over that, with patchy dark paint over the top.

When I called the seller he immediately told me to send the car back, and he would send me a full refund. I sent the car back to Chaffee New York. After the car was returned, the owner refused to return my money. I eventually decided to accept another project vehicle from him, as I knew the legal costs to try and get my money back, would be more than I had already spent. I paid for a 3rd transport for that deal.

All told, I basically lost around $12,000. The other car he sent me was less valuable when I sold it, after putting several thousand in it. Then the 3 enclosed transport costs were also not cheap. Then the guy resold this fake Z28 apparently, so who knows how much he made on this scam.

I will try and post some pictures from the ebay Ad from April of 2008. A recent inspection from my friend Jerry MacNeish found additional issues, as now apparently the car I had in 2008, is no longer the body I inspected, as the VIN stamping, VIN tag, and cowl tag from that car is now on the current vehicle with the VIN 124377N178453.

There is no reason for me to be dishonest in the description of my short ownership episode with the car I bought in 2008. I thought it was a legitimate 1967 Z28, and when I discovered it was not, I returned it to the seller, Ron Hawk, of Chaffee, New York.

I should note, I have seen several other 01C and 01D produced cars, and the correlation of the VIN and body numbers have seemed to be within as low as 28 digits, to as high as around 700. This spread on the VIN and body number on this car is 1,239. I suspected the parties involved in this car may have had a fake tag made, and found a similarly dated body to attach it to. The 01D date, also appears to be later than the VIN run. I have in my records, a VIN 93 digits later, than this car, that has a 01C production date.

Thank you Charlie for helping with this matter, and Steve Shauger for allowing me to post the information I have on the car that is referenced in the initial post.