1967 Z/28 - Page 4

**427king** · #31 11-03-2006, 09:26 AM

I dont think anyone would touch that subject or give thier guarantee.I cant really blame them. Im sure any appraiser will have plenty of clauses in his inspection clearing him of any errors or misjudgements.Alot of what is stated would be based on "experience" and similar cars and criteria,not on written guarantees. Alot of people use to assume that since a corvette got a top flight, that the ncrs was verifying the engines as being original. They may not deduct any points for a stamp pad on the judging form , but they would never guarantee they were right either,which is being realistic

Zedder · #32 11-03-2006, 03:39 PM

Jon, thanks for giving your opinion and sharing some of the info that you and Jerry have collected over the years. I too can understand the questions, I just hate to see people infer that the engine is a restamp without having the experience with '67 Z's to make that judgement or having seen the car in person. Everyone has to remember that these were very low production car and odd things are seen with them all of the time. Maybe they ran short of engines in 06E or something to cause a delay for a few days??? Here is a better pic of the pad that my inspector took prior to my purchase. For what it's worth, he is an NCRS master judge and used one of Jeff's broach busters for viewing the pad. He then took this high res pic with a macro setting. This pad is beautiful!!!

**Jeff H** · #33 11-03-2006, 04:32 PM

Great information on the 06E week Jon. I've heard of the problems with the 06A week with the 69 Camaros and how many cars have later dated engines. But I had not heard about the 67 06E week. It almost sounds like they left the trim tag stamp 06E on into the 1st week of July.

**YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY** · #34 11-03-2006, 04:55 PM

This doesn't surprise me, don't we see the same situation with other years of cars built in June? Aren't the rears of June of '69 Yenko Camaro's built after the scheduled build week on the TT? The deuces have this situation as well, and have the vin/body #'s in reverse in some weeks. So, once you've gathered enough data on a particular car's build range you will recognize patterns - even strange ones! Nice work Jon

Pacecarjeff · #35 11-03-2006, 05:25 PM

The second pad picture is actually much better then the other one. Even the pad surface looks better.
Yes, it is very hard to tell without seeing it in person.

I WILL NOT call it a restamp, it is just very strange.
If you guys say that an engine later then the build date is typical for that time period,
then I will have to defer to the experts.
Sorry, I just have never heard of such a thing.

It is very very unusual, but I am always willing to listen and learn.

Like I said before, that Z is gorgeous.
If I had room for another, I would seriously be considering it. And that price seems like a deal.

Good luck with the sale.

**YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY** · #36 11-03-2006, 05:51 PM

80% of Deuces built in 06B have their rears dated later than the scheduled build date on their trim tag

It happens!

Pacecarjeff · #37 11-03-2006, 08:45 PM

If you say it happened, I will believe it.
Just can't imagine GM building a car, then letting it sit around waiting for the rest of the parts to show up the following week.

Just doesn't make sense.
There must have been a lot of 1/2 built bodies sitting around waiting in June 67.

What about the rest of the engine componets - how are they dated? Alt, Carb, dist.

Rick H · #38 11-03-2006, 09:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I just hate to see people infer that the engine is a restamp without having the experience with '67 Z's to make that judgement or having seen the car in person.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never used the word "restamp". I am just questioning how a car built in one week can have a motor built the following week. Plus just because it's a Z/28 in my mind doesn't matter. It was ordered just like all the other Camaros and rolled down the same assembly line.

Plus you can speculate all you want but the truth of the matter is that unless there is substantial paperwork to support the later motor the car will always be suspect. It's just a fact.

Other then that the car is extremely nice.

Rick H.

**Jeff H** · #39 11-03-2006, 09:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you say it happened, I will believe it.
Just can't imagine GM building a car, then letting it sit around waiting for the rest of the parts to show up the following week.

Just doesn't make sense.
There must have been a lot of 1/2 built bodies sitting around waiting in June 67.

What about the rest of the engine componets - how are they dated? Alt, Carb, dist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeff, you're reading it wrong. The trim tags were stamped wrong so it looks like they were being built the last week of June when they really weren't started until the first week in July. Somebody probably forgot to change the stamps for the trim tag. Look at the 69 Camaros with 06A (almost all of June was stamped 06A but most cars were built later in the month) and the 69 Camaros with 04L on the trim tag. CRG should have better examples of these situations, but I don't think it's an issue of the car being built and then sitting and waiting for components.

Zedder · #40 11-03-2006, 09:11 PM

"Plus you can speculate all you want but the truth of the matter is that unless there is substantial paperwork to support the later motor the car will always be suspect. It's just a fact."

Actually, it's not suspect to anyone that I know that "knows" '67 Z-28's, but I can understand those without significant knowledge regarding these cars having questions.