COPO Engine and Trans...

[Supergas990]

The owner of the car on the following link states that his car has a COPO motor and trans combo in it (with VIN stamped on each).

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...;category=6161

Stamped as follows:

T0210MN 19N616345

Does this VIN belong to anyone looking for their original motor and trans?

Blair

[RS69]

Does anyone know anything about this car? Is it real or what?

[lzdick]

There is quite a span of time between the casting date of H-28-8 (August 28, 1968) and the assembly date T0210MN (February 10, 1968). That throws the proverbial "red flag" in the air for me. In addition, the lack of documentation doesn't help to verify/disprove.

The photos show the car as a very nice restoration. A smog system would be a nice touch...but lose that orange-painted engine lift hook!

[hvychev]

Neat looking car! This car looks silar to COPO PETEs spoilerless Orange COPO.

[Supergas990]

My post wasn't intended to raise the possibility that this is a correct COPO car, but instead to draw attention to the possibility that the car <font color="red"> MAY </font> have a correct numbered and coded COPO/Yenko engine and trans in it.

IMO if the engine and trans were correct, someone out there may have the car they belong to.

In the ad, the guy states that the car is an X-33, Z-28 trim.

IMO, no question that the car ISN'T a COPO, but the motor and trans may be. Perhaps someone with a VIN list could take a peek and shed some additional light on the validity of the stampings and the partial VIN.

Blair

[Jeff Murphy]

No X33 COPOs. "A" suffix Muncie = M20. Only one of those documented (mine ). Wrong rearend: BU not BE. MN code engine should have #840 cast iron heads. The VIN number is close to only one L-72 Camaro on Ed C's site -- a Yenko sold at Nankivell. As we all know, Yenko only ordered M21 or M22 4 speed cars.



Also, if the guy can't find anything else to change on the car to make it better, why isn't it a 10 out of 10?

With reference to the casting date on the engine vs. assembly date, I remember reading somewhere that 512 and other performance blocks often had longer gaps between casting and assembly due batch casting but less frequent use in cars??

[Jeff H]

Would the VIN still be up on the pad for a late Feb early Mar COPO? This car is obviously a Z28 but possibly with a real COPO motor. Maybe the casting date is A28 instead of H28, that would make sense with the T0210 engine date. But he lists 3 different VIN's between the car, engine and trans so it's all a little confusing. Nice looking COPO clone though.

[drdave69]

I was just about to pose these same questions about this car. All of the VINs are close enough to think he made a few typing errors. The car definitely should be relisted as a 'clone/tribute'.

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

From the list that I have, the VIN on this car's engine is not a Yenko, but it's still possible that it's from a non-Yenko COPO car.

[TimG]

A five month spread between casting date and assembly date is a pretty big spread. This kind of spread is more acceptable in a 1968 production vehicle due to a strike at the casting foundry. The more high performance the engine, the slower the turn over and the more time that is acceptable between the two dates. A four bolt main big block was a much slower mover than a two bolt main 396 block. Better the spread be between the casting date and assembly date rather than the assembly date and production date of the car. GM did not let completed engines sit around long unless they were sent back for a repair.