![]() Dedicated to the Promotion and Preservation of American Muscle Cars, Dealer built Supercars and COPO cars. |
|
Register | Album Gallery | Thread Gallery | FAQ | Community | Calendar | Become a Paid Member | Today's Posts | Search |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Thanks Mike.
Coincidentally, another Van Nuys Chevelle I came across today had big 7's on a Feb car.
__________________
Mark |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Mark
I have the stamping from your old LS6 somewhere here. I know that that engine VIN started 0Lxxxxxx. It didnt start 70Lxxxxxx.
__________________
1969 Camaro RS/SS Azure Turquoise 1969 Camaro Z/28 Azure Turquoise 1984 Camaro z/28 L69 HO 5 speed 1984 Camaro z/28 zz4 conversion 1987 Monte Carlo SS original owner |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Thanks Mike, but I have a pic of it here. You're gettting old buddy...it did start with "70L"
![]()
__________________
Mark |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Can you post that pic of the CON VIN?
If it is a 7,that would've been a workers error and should've been 10L123456 stamped on the pad originally. 1=stands for Chevrolet division. 0=Model year. L=plant Van Nuys. 123456=last 6 of VIN# Is that a Van Nuys assembled Vehicle you're referring to,because a 7 stamped first indicates a GM of Canada assembled vehicle and they didn't build LS6's. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
mr70,
I was under that impression as well but since Mark has been looking we have come up with several Chevelles with the 70L including at least 2 LS-6's. Both stamps are identical. I am convinced that just when I think I have a handle on what is going on someone comes up with new information to prove otherwise.
__________________
Rick Nelson Musclecar Restoration and Design, Inc (retired) www.musclecarrestorationanddesign.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62r-6vgk2_8 specialized in (only real) LS6 Chevelle restorations |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Interesting..are they all Van Nuys built LS-6 Chevelles?
Exactly how many have been found this way so far? Can we see a close up pic of the stampings? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'm pretty certain mine was 10Lxxxxxx. I don't have any pictures of the pad to confirm and the car was sold 4 years ago.
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Rick and I have both been surprised by this finding, but we'd still like to see a few more examples. When I had my Daytona Yellow LS6 I read that it should have the "0L" prefix instead of the "70L" prefix and because of that and some fairly deep broach marks, many thought it was a restamp. I felt confident that the stamp looked legit to me, but couldn't explain the "70L" or the deep broach marks. So I began looking for cars from the same build range and found examples of the broach marks quite often on untouched blocks. Then I found this new LS6 and it had both as well! I went looking again and found this fellow who responded to one of my Team Chevelle questions.... http://community.webshots.com/photo/...14073752wrRNgy
Click on his album and then on his tranny pic to see the VIN stamp. I won't post the LS6 pads because I am negotiating on one of them and the other belongs to another member here, so he can post it if he cares to. I definitely believe that the "70L" is correct and have yet to see the "0L" on a Chevelle...maybe a way for Van Nuys to differentiate Camaros from Chevelles???
__________________
Mark |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Previous to this car and the DY car, I only remember ever seeing the "10Lxxxxxx on engine pads but am not starting to come across more of the "70L".
For now I agree, this car's VIN needs to be kept quiet until you have gotten all your ducks in a row. Could be quite a find. Rick
__________________
Rick Nelson Musclecar Restoration and Design, Inc (retired) www.musclecarrestorationanddesign.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62r-6vgk2_8 specialized in (only real) LS6 Chevelle restorations |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Here's one from an L48 350 out of a 70 Chevelle. VIN sequence begins with "1L0..." That's different than what's been posted so far. And yes, this is a 70 engine as the CRE code was not used in 1971.
*Update - I just realized that this pic is from a 70 Monte Carlo that I took a while back. Maybe that explains the difference in the first three digits' sequence ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
|