Check out the all original 1968 Z/28. It is a Norwood car showing a trim plate with a build date of 10A with X77 code. And the original engine is block casting "010". Am I missing something here or should the block be a "386" for OCT 68 car and I thought X codes did not appear until the middle of December 1968.:confused:

Skyman51,

Remember that the 69 model Camaro was in produced through November 1969
if I'm correct. The 10A and X77 on the cowl tag was October 1969 not 1968. The VIN and the 010 block were correct for the production run. If you dont have Jerry's MacNeish's book "The defintive 1969 Camaro fact book " it's worth the money. He's has a revised book coming out by the end of the month. It's full of great information.

Mike aka M&M

Thanks Mike,you are absolutely right. I was thinking 68 not 69. In that case it is a very interesting car for the price, however the seller lists the build date as 1st week of October 1968. Anyone else wish to comment because it does look like a very nice and correct car.

Rob

Your correct about the October 68 mentioned in the ad.

Looks like a nice car . The only thing I see is that It's missing the rear bumper guards, deep groove alt pulley. You can't see the rear springs to see if there correct. Looks like they had welded some front towing application on the front frame horns at some point.

Someone help me but shouldn't a car with this late production date come standard with the console and guages?

Mike M&M

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1969-1970-1971-WATER-PUMP-3853692-CAMARO-Z28-CHEVELLE_W0QQitemZ190198071217QQcmdZViewItem?hash= item190198071217

The trunk lid is not from a D80 car. Looks like the TT rivets have been tampered with. There is no filler in them. The reason the bumper guards are not here is it possibly never had them. I see some right things, some questionable things. The console question answered here:

"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.

__________________
Kurt S.
CRG - www.camaros.org"

It was available w/o the console if only the tach was ordered. U16 became mandatory in May 1969.

Gary, I checked out your car and it looks great. What brand of headers are those?

M&M

I installed Thorley tri-ys. They fit great and make the 302 run good. I was also able to use the backdrive linkage with a little modification.

IIRC,the 69 model year was in production even in early 70? No?

"Looks like the TT rivets have been tampered with. There is no filler in them."

Not to hijack this thread, but only to learn something, and that is, did all rivets receive filler? mine are original and do not have any. thanks!

My 08A car has filler in one rivet. They were supposed to all have filler, but there is the human error factor. Some of the filler was applied very sloppily.

I see nothing to alert me to a fake or tampered tag on that car.

Lynn

IIRC,the 69 model year was in production even in early 70? No?
Ended November 1969. http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#HowMany

Lynn, I do not think it is a fake tag. Is that a litle smudge of blue on the tag? Maybe Kurt S or one of the others will comment on the lack of filler in the rivets. Since the trunk lid is not right (lack of emblem holes) and the rear bumper is not right, maybe we have a crash repaired Z/28. Grille has been replaced also.

Ended November 1969. http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#HowMany

Lynn, I do not think it is a fake tag. Maybe Kurt S or one of the others will comment on the lack of filler in the rivets. Since the trunk lid is not right (lack of emblem holes) and the rear bumper is not right, maybe we have a crash repaired Z/28.



My car is a 10C build,and also had no filler in the rivets. It too is a real tag,and only a couple of weeks behind this one.Rivets have never been tampered with.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b339/belairbobs/X33blue.jpg


and yet another that I looked at,but did not buy....same time frame... It too was a real Z,and a real tag. Maybe they ran out of putty? :):)

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b339/belairbobs/X3333.jpg

If there is no evidence of tampering with the TT, then it is a nice car, missing a few things, needing some work. We will see where the price goes, but $32K is too low.

Thanks Mike,you are absolutely right. I was thinking 68 not 69. In that case it is a very interesting car for the price, however the seller lists the build date as 1st week of October 1968. Anyone else wish to comment because it does look like a very nice and correct car.

Rob
Looks like the seller made a mistake in the trim tag description: "10A = Build date (October 1968, First Week)"
All other dates are 1969

Guys I am a bit confused because now I have seen evidence to the contrary unless we are mixing years. According to CRG, prior to build date of 12B there are no trim tags with X codes built in Norwood. My original car has a build date of 11D of 1968 and the trim tag has no X codes.

Guys I am a bit confused because now I have seen evidence to the contrary unless we are mixing years. According to CRG, prior to build date of 12B there are no trim tags with X codes built in Norwood. My original car has a build date of 11D of 1968 and the trim tag has no X codes.

Yes, you are mixing years.:yes:

The tags I posted,as well as the Ebay car are late 69 builds, not 68.

Yes, you are mixing years.:yes:

The tags I posted,as well as the Ebay car are late 69 builds, not 68.

Bob

Thanks that clears that up.

Skyman, the seller made a mistake in his listing. It is a October 1969 car, not October of 1968 and should have the X code. There is nothing wrong with the tag.

The seller actually says both Oct. 68 and 69 in two different places.

If anyone is seriously interested, I live in the Houston area.

i think it looks like a perfectly nice car, of course it would have to be viewed in person, i know there are scammers on ebay ,, but we must give honest people the benefit of the doubt. believe it or not there are nice original cars out there. they dont all need to be picked apart as soon as they go up for sale. just look at the title " ANOTHER EBAY GEM" it could very well be a gem. probably a real nice gem. nicer then alot of cars. its not a good way to pass the time.

Guys, I agree.Now that the confusion is cleared up I agree it looks like a really nice car that the seller may be letting go to cheaply.:thumbsup:

Ended November 1969. http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#HowMany

Lynn, I do not think it is a fake tag. Is that a litle smudge of blue on the tag? Maybe Kurt S or one of the others will comment on the lack of filler in the rivets. Since the trunk lid is not right (lack of emblem holes) and the rear bumper is not right, maybe we have a crash repaired Z/28. Grille has been replaced also.

Hi Gary:

The little bit of blue is probably just from the repaint. Car has definitely been painted as there is over spray on frame, spring perches, and even the crank pulley. Deck lid may have been replaced. Of course, you are correct about the rear bumper, or at least the guards, and the grill having been replaced.

All in all, although there are some things to nit pick, the car looks pretty darn good. Engine stamp looks good. I had a V1003DZ block I sold a few years ago, and it looked just like that. Car isn't being represented as "survivor" original paint car, and isn't being represented as a full blown body off restoration. The description looks pretty accurate. I am not vouching for the authenticity of the stampings etc. as that would have to be done in person. However, I don't see anything in the auction to scare away someone looking for a pretty complete matching numbers Z. Defiinitely worth checking this one out in person.

I agree other than the lack of TT sealer, which has been verified a couple members here, it looks fine.

I was thinking that the blue on the TT is original uncovered paint.