Can anybody weigh in on this one? The guy says it is a real car but tag rivets look tampered with to me.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=002&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=120141089414&rd=1&rd=1

I debating on weather to make the drive to see it or not.

Thanks.

I'm certainly no expert, but the VIN is mid-October, the cowl tag is late September.

dont know about the tag but, looks very nice and even if its not a "Z" still a good price!

Bumper guards look funny and that late should have a tac?

As long as the paint is as good as it looks in the pics and there is no rust and the drivetrain runs out strong, this looks like a pretty fair/good deal. Charlie

"special high performance dash grab handle" WTF?!?!?!?!

Yes that car should have a tach if it is a real Z/28. It would then need a center fuel gage or console. Dash carrier could have been changed out. Something is out of whack here. When were the body sequence numbers reset for late 1969? Compare to the one below.

nice car

I HATE the looks of the cheap repro seat covers ...

compare the flat front seats vs the REAL original rears

does anyone make GOOD repro covers?

I think *I* would rather have scuzzy Originals vs those ....

i guess i would put the inside door handles on correctly, or the return springs are broken on both.

Its blurred...but doesnt matter. Its been off. Need to see the tag in a clearer pic to see whats been altered or if its fake in its entirety.

Yes that car should have a tach if it is a real Z/28. It would then need a center fuel gage or console. Dash carrier could have been changed out. Something is out of whack here. When were the body sequence numbers reset for late 1969? Compare to the one below.
My book shows special instrumentation required with Z/28 starting in 1970.
What's your source on it being required in 1969?

The CRG website and the TC website experts. Just one example below. I would think since 1970 was a new model it would mean nothing to 1969.

http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=105379&highlight=z28+tachometer

I answered from work, but thought I might find it in JM's Definitive Z/28 book when I got home but could not. It would be a good addition. He lists the last price increase due to chrome tailpipes. It must have been partially due to the tach/instrumentation etc. also.

These guys with high dollar (quote) Z-28,s ,looking for the long dollar .And don,t even have a tach in it. People look at this and ask why. To save a bunch of answering ,I would of had a tach in it.

HI a tach in a 69 z28 at any time in 1969 is a option

HI a tach in a 69 z28 at any time in 1969 is a option
I would sooner go with what William has to say.:beers:

The CRG website and the TC website experts. Just one example below. I would think since 1970 was a new model it would mean northing to 1969.

http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=105379&highlight=z28+tachometer

I answered from work, but thought I might find it in JM's Definitive Z/28 book when I got home but could not. It would be a good addition. He lists the last price increase due to chrome tailpipes. It must have been partially due to the tach/instrumentation etc. also.
Funny how different people interpret the same thing.
Not one post in that link states all 69 Z/28's had a tach, including Williams.

And your right, the 1970 model has nothing to do with the 69. I didn't mean to infer that it did.

Not one post in that link states all 69 Z/28's had a tach, including Williams.


Not all throughout the entire production, but did become included:

Until about May 1969 factory instrumentation was not a requirement; many Z/28s were built without them.

At that time Chevrolet revised Z/28 ordering requirements and a tachometer became a mandatory option.

After a lengthy discussion with the selling dealer I'm planning on passing. He's admitted to the trans grinding and popping, bubbles on the door, poor door and hood fitment and several paint chips. He's willing to "fix" the trans and bubbles at the BIN price though. It doesn't sound like a bad car but would take some work to make really nice.

BTW- I don't know about any changes to the required equipment made during the year BUT my aunt and uncle bought a new 69 Z without a tach. Uncle cut out the center pod and installed a dixco tach. He also hung a two gauge kit under the dash (along with an 8-track deck) THe car also came without a console. It was fathom green, blk std int, flat hood, white stripes.

I would sooner go with what William has to say.:beers:

Hooper in his book states that a revision occured January 2, 1969 which among other things added the Tach. ( mandatory), and a price increase from $458.15 to $473.95. Certainly the full U-17 guage package was not required- I have seen many without , but I am not sure I have seen a later Z28 without a Tach. Kinda like D80 becoming mandatory in later cars (?)...

.........
BTW- I don't know about any changes to the required equipment made during the year BUT my aunt and uncle bought a new 69 Z without a tach. Uncle cut out the center pod and installed a dixco tach. .

Tach was an option, again, until May of 1969. GM was probably trying to keep buyers from blowing the 302's up and having to replace them.

"special high performance dash grab handle" WTF?!?!?!?!

Also is that a 10 bolt are have I been up to long and cant see stright?
Bob
P.S I allso got a kick out of the special high performance dash grab handle.

...there is a 12 bolt there.

...but like previously mentioned, ...how is it that a 4th week September car has a body sequence of "NOR101...", ...yet the tag that GaryL pic'd is a 3rd week August build with "NOR102...".
...the body sequence numbers were reset in '69?...doesn't seem right...??

Gary may have been referencing another tag, the Ebay tag is 4 week Sept. The vin appears to be on the down side of that so , it looks out of range to me. More of a Oct car. Shifter lever is wrong for a Z, but not a big deal as well as intake. Prolly has a CP+ on it.

Would like to see some under carriage on this.

There is plenty of confusion here.

There is a difference between included equipment and a mandatory option. For example all 1969 Camaro SS and Z/28 had power disc brakes [J52]. For Camaro SS it was included in the option price and does not appear on documentation as an option. For Z/28 J52 was a required extra-cost option [or JL8] along with a 4-speed transmission. As of April 1, 1969 Z/28 orders had to also specify at extra cost either a tachometer [U16 $52.70] or special instrumentation [U17 $94.80]. U17 required a console [D55 $53.75]. A tachometer was never included in the Z/28 option.

There were plenty of 1969 Z/28s built without a factory tach or gauges. Cars ordered on or after April 1 would have been built during May. A Z/28 built 05C or later has to have a tach or gauges.

If you order a tach without the U17 console gauges, then a center fuel gauge is utilized, right?

It would be my understanding that if you ordered the U17 (which put the fuel gauge in the console), that would automatically put a tach in the right side dash pod.

You could have tach without console gauges, but could you have console gauges without a tach? My logic could be wrong here, but would U17, in essence, include a tach?

Gary may have been referencing another tag, the Ebay tag is 4 week Sept. The vin appears to be on the down side of that so , it looks out of range to me. More of a Oct car. Shifter lever is wrong for a Z, but not a big deal as well as intake. Prolly has a CP+ on it.

Would like to see some under carriage on this.

The picture of the tag in a previous post is not the tag this thread is about. I posted it to show the variation or deviation that the tag from the yellow car is displaying.

There is plenty of confusion here.

There is a difference between included equipment and a mandatory option. For example all 1969 Camaro SS and Z/28 had power disc brakes [J52]. For Camaro SS it was included in the option price and does not appear on documentation as an option. For Z/28 J52 was a required extra-cost option [or JL8] along with a 4-speed transmission. As of April 1, 1969 Z/28 orders had to also specify at extra cost either a tachometer [U16 $52.70] or special instrumentation [U17 $94.80]. U17 required a console [D55 $53.75]. A tachometer was never included in the Z/28 option.

There were plenty of 1969 Z/28s built without a factory tach or gauges. Cars ordered on or after April 1 would have been built during May. A Z/28 built 05C or later has to have a tach or gauges.

Sorry for my misinterpretation. It is a tach or gages w/tach and clock..

Looks like a Z clone to me but it looks like they did a pretty good job.

I like the car... good value here for $30K. Well done under the hood and the underbody looks good also. Paint good enough to drive to local events... and the interior is "acceptable". Who cares if it is a Z... I've seen worse selling for more....

If you order a tach without the U17 console gauges, then a center fuel gauge is utilized, right?

My logic could be wrong here, but would U17, in essence, include a tach?
U16 is the tach only option, which included the center fuel gauge.
U17 is tach and gauges (and required the console).
You could not get only gauges without a tach.

The car was for sale last year.
I'd say either the VIN or the tag has been swapped.....

Hey gang; I used the data available on the CRG website concerning end of month vins, found out that 1.- the trim tag could have been put on at least 3-4 days prior to the vehicle completion, 2.-cars did Not come off the assembly line in exact vin sequence. 3.-the end of monthly production did not always end on a friday,, sometimes it could have been a monday or a tuesday. Thusly, even though it appears this by vin this car is an early october assembly and the 9D tag is wrong, if you look at the ending vins for sept 69, you look at production figures for october 69, and interpolate, its actual production date is close enough for union work, who weren't the best record keepers either (except for overtime hours-where they excelled). Concerning the lack of a factory installed tach, studying Hoopers 69 camaro reference book, he specifically states at the bottom of page 150 where he discusses each change to the Z-28 packages and mandatory options over the production year that " there are many documented cars which do not fall into these guidelines. Anything could have happened on the assembly line" . In Macneish's book on page 10 where the Z-28 package is discussed in detail including manditory options of air spoiler equipment(mandatory april1969), power disc brakes/4 spd trans(mandatory from day 1 till end of production), nothing is stated about a mandatory tach. This yellow car could have fallen through a UAW/GMAD/Norwood crack, just big enough for a z-28 to do.

Hey gang; I used the data available on the CRG website concerning end of month vins, .............
Concerning the lack of a factory installed tach, .........

Sorry, but no.
Yes, we listed a bunch of caveats to the end-of-month data.
But I'm looking at actual car data from thousands of other 69's and one of these tags is not original.

The tach was required by then. 100% of all documented late Z's have a tach. No exceptions.

-