High 69 Z-28 cross ram prices coming to an end??

[Hylton]

My favourite BJ car was the black COPO Camaro formerly owned by Reggie Jackson that had A/C! That was hillarious!

[Salvatore]

Well said Steve!

[Mr70]

Well said Sam.

[70 copo]

[ QUOTE ]
This is kind of confusing since Jim at Heartbeat City claims to be the only one licensed to reproduce the crossram and now this guy has one too. The manifold sure looks good though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the auction from Heartbeat city...will the owner of the real GM license please stand up?? Perhaps more than one?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayIS...;category=34198

Phil

[70 copo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, the buyers at BJ are confused - the guy in the yellow jacket definitely was! Plus, you don't know how those high dollar deals shake out afterwards anyway, so I wouldn't use BJ as a true market indicator anymore than I would EBaY.

I remember the COPO Camaro and Chevelle that went across, barely pulling $75k or so = confusion? color? trans? But then they sold a few months later for much more?

BJ is fun to watch, but I leave it at that!

[/ QUOTE ]


The seller in this auction below reminds all of us of the 110K figure, and then tips the reader off to the reserve amount being "less than Half that" (52.k reserve?) This car may be one of the first for sale with one of the reproduction manifold assembly units installed. Looks like a deal to me especially with the Barriett-Jackson 04 re-run being on the air over on Speed all day

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

Phil

[Mark_C]

Does it still look like a good deal when you look at the engine pad stamping?

[70 copo]

Sure it does. If you recall the cross rams that drove the market the last couple of years were FAKES with no part numbers on them at all, and the cars were assembled units- I was there-I looked at them. Furthermore the seller in this auction states the motor was correct and did not state that it was the original. 110K at B-J 52K now.. Good color still sounds like a good deal... Or perhaps, (drum roll) the market has dropped for these cars??

Phil

[Mark_C]

Oh and to answer the casting date question on the repro crossram manifolds. The guy from Arizona that is selling them has said that they carry correct 69 casting dates. Don't know if you can specify a date or not. don't know about the dating on Heartbeat City's version.

http://www.camaros.net/cgi-bin/forum...c/6/5206.html?

Can't quite read the month but I can see 68 (or 69) in the date on this one (maybe 10/11/68?):



From this auction:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...tem=4513799341

[DWCamaro69]

Mark C and Phil, The engine pad pic and the Garnet Red Z on ebay are mine. Although I have learned alot about '69 Camaros in all the years I have been collecting them, I know little to nothing about restamping, broach marks, etc. If I knew and was trying to hide something I wouldn't have posted that picture in the auction. The engine was in the car when I bought it and the previous owner gave me several pictures of the car being restored and that engine pic was one of them. Maybe it is obvious in the pic that it is a restamp? I gave all the casting numbers/dates and that pic to Kurt S. at CRG when I first bought the car sometime ago and he believed it was probably a restamp as well although I think he said the cast number and date and pad stamp were all in an acceptable time line. I didn't restamp it, and dont believe the previous owner did either so I had no way to know for sure either way. Because of no VIN on block and no documentation I did not represent the engine as being original or it to be matching numbers. As Phil stated I used the term "correct" as it is a correctly built (internals, heads, etc) and dated DZ302. I have tried to be honest and upfront about the car and my reserve is about 50% of the value of a documented, matching numbers Z with a original GM crossram. This is a real Z/28 that is nicely restored, nothing more or less. I have not taken any offense by the post, just wanted to state my case!

[427TJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Mark C and Phil, The engine pad pic and the Garnet Red Z on ebay are mine. Although I have learned alot about '69 Camaros in all the years I have been collecting them, I know little to nothing about restamping, broach marks, etc. If I knew and was trying to hide something I wouldn't have posted that picture in the auction. The engine was in the car when I bought it and the previous owner gave me several pictures of the car being restored and that engine pic was one of them. Maybe it is obvious in the pic that it is a restamp? I gave all the casting numbers/dates and that pic to Kurt S. at CRG when I first bought the car sometime ago and he believed it was probably a restamp as well although I think he said the cast number and date and pad stamp were all in an acceptable time line. I didn't restamp it, and dont believe the previous owner did either so I had no way to know for sure either way. Because of no VIN on block and no documentation I did not represent the engine as being original or it to be matching numbers. As Phil stated I used the term "correct" as it is a correctly built (internals, heads, etc) and dated DZ302. I have tried to be honest and upfront about the car and my reserve is about 50% of the value of a documented, matching numbers Z with a original GM crossram. This is a real Z/28 that is nicely restored, nothing more or less. I have not taken any offense by the post, just wanted to state my case!

[/ QUOTE ]

Dana, I'd buy your car after reading this. The only thing I'd quibble with is why it doesn't have a D80 stamp on the tag if it has "factory spoilers." Maybe I missed something. Nice Z.