Team Camaro Tech banner

Protecto Plate questions ...

3K views 26 replies 11 participants last post by  zdld17 
#1 ·
Hello Everyone,

I've been trying to see if my car is a true SS. The previous owner wasn't sure, it seems to have all the criteria it can have. It has no X codes as it is a very early Los Angeles production model (Oct 68).

Luckily I have the original Protecto Plate. Has anyone ever heard of a JQ engine code for a 69 Camaro SS 396? I am really mystified by this. According to my sources a JQ Engine code is for a 2 barrel 396 from a full sized chevy car??

Here is what my PP looks like (some numbers and letters I am keeping out for personal reasons, but all the important numbers are there) keep in mind the car was built in Oct 68, but wasn't sold until Oct 69 according to the card with the PP attached (date not stamped on PP).

124379L****** (low prod #) R
T0919JQ BL1003G 0
P9M31 1133
Charles P*******
20*** E*** St
Torrance, CA

Trim Tag:

ST 69 12437 LOS125075 BDY
TR 711 72 B PNT
10B K559

Thanks for any help. BTW ... it is JQ on the engine code, I'm not misreading it ... definately stamped JQ. The other weird thing is the transmission code, my sources said it is December 31. This seems strange as well if the car was built in October.

Thanks again ...

~JT
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Welcome JT:

No X codes on LA cars period. Only the Norwood models. You might take a look at link below. Alot of tag info there also. Is it possibly JG engine code. It would be best to post pictures and let the real experts here help. Good luck.


http://www.camaros.org/index.shtml
 
#4 ·
Your sources on the transmission date are wrong, M indicates August on a transmission stamp. Transmissions are stamped A-T skipping F,G,I,J,L, N,O and Q along the way. Your transmission was assembled on August 31, 1968.

Typo's were fairly common on POP's, how much of the car is original? Is the engine still there? How many fuel lines on the car. Is the transmission an M20, M21, or M22? Possible engine codes would be JB, JF, JH and JJ

No JQ engine code in Camaros, and the engine can't be coded JG as thats the code for an L35 with a TH400 transmission.
 
#5 ·
I have an earlier LA car than you (10A) also with a POP. If you post the rest of the VIN... we can see if it matches up.

The build numbers look ok for a 10B car.
 
#6 ·
Thanks Mark, for clearing up the Tranny question, my source was obviously wrong. Aug 31 makes alot more sense.


Here is what I know of the car:

It has Original 12 bolt 3.07 rear BL coded.
It has Original Muncie 4spd Stamped with VIN.
I have all the original SMOG / Exhaust manifolds / intake and distributor.
Heads are dated Aug 1968
3/8 Fuel line & smaller return (1/4 possibly?)
Power Disc Brakes & Power Steering

Previous owner said car had the original SS hood but it was removed for clearance on edelbrock RPM intake. (don't ask me why)
Have traced the cars history back to all 3 previous owners. It moved up the West Coast From California to Oregon then Washington ... now in Virginia. Previous owner has the old block that was removed from the car, this is the block that was in the car when he purchased it. He was originally told that it was a #'s matching car, later he was told the block was not matching ... Possibly by someone who saw that it was a JQ block and did not look at the POP to x-check. He is unsure. Still don't know why he changed the block. I am trying to get the #'s to the old block (possibly the block itself) as he may still have it. Should know by next week when he returns.
So what's the scenario if the old block indeed does match the POP? Other than the fact that I got a heck of a deal on the car.


Here are some photos, you can reference my main post to verify numbers and the full VIN can be seen on the POP. (56k'ers beware, pics are big to show details) Thanks again guys, I really appreciate everyones effort. If these are fake, someones got some real talent. :D

POP1

POP 2

POP 3

Trim Tag

Pic of car right after purchase
 
#8 ·
Originally posted by JT Graber:
Hello Everyone,

I've been trying to see if my car is a true SS. The previous owner wasn't sure, it seems to have all the criteria it can have. It has no X codes as it is a very early Los Angeles production model (Oct 68).

Luckily I have the original Protecto Plate. Has anyone ever heard of a JQ engine code for a 69 Camaro SS 396? I am really mystified by this. According to my sources a JQ Engine code is for a 2 barrel 396 from a full sized chevy car??

...

Thanks again ...

~JT
Congrats on the car - looks really great - I like the Hugger cars specially with vinyltops.


Why would the car sit for a year before it was sold?

And Mark why would you say its either an L35 (JF) or L34 (JU) when it appears on the POP (quite clearly) to be a JQ code ?
 
#9 ·
Maybe they were out of the L34 or L35 engines so they just grabbed the JQ engine to keep the assembly line rolling. Strange. That is odd that the car sat for a full year before selling. Maybe potential buyers saw the 2bbl carb and walked away.
 
#11 ·
Thanks for the compliment on the car csn. I truly love the Hugger cars too. :cool: As I mentioned in my earlier post ... the guy I bought it from may still have the block it came with when he bought it, I will hopefully know next week when he returns from a business trip. I am going to see if I can have it shipped here to Virginia, and then ... who knows? If it does have a JQ stamp, that would indeed be cool ... as technically it would be a numbers mathing car (albeit an oddity). The question of why it sat for a year is a good one, perhaps people didn't like the color? Perhaps it was some sort of demo or dealer car? But I do know that it was sold 6 days before I was born! and thats pretty cool. The possibilities are endless. :confused: It definatley wasn't shipped with a 2 bbl carb though, as I have the original 4 bbl intake in storage along with all the other original parts that I received when I bought it, like the shifter, exhaust manifolds, distributor, smog eqip. etc ...

Mark, the car is stored for the Winter and I can't get under it to check the tranny.
But I do know that the tranny is VIN stamped. It could be a while until I can know for sure. I just need this guy to come back and let me know if I can still get that block!

~JT
 
#12 ·
I think Mark made it clear that it is not uncommon to have errors on the POP. I would even take it a step further and say it is even common. A JQ block installed by the factory would be as common as it having an Impala front clip, it aint gonna happen. Only a couple associated engine configurations are hooked to a Muncie 4 speed, process of elimination. This is one of those cases where it is oh so close, but yet so far and could be the reason the car sat for a year if the seller was intent on BB prices. If the owner locates the block he will be one happy camper as it is an excellent combo and a good looking car! As I have said a number of times documentation is the "sum of the whole", the more you have the better the pedigree. How many scenarios have we all seen? POP, build sheet, window sticker, and no remaining original drivetrain. Complete original drivetrain with no supporting documents. An original axel, trans. and CE block with the dealer invoice and letter from the original owner claiming it to be a L89. I think you get my drift here and dont think I'm preaching from the pulpit of superiority as some of my personal cars fall directly into the scenarios I quoted.
Pat
 
#13 ·
Originally posted by JT Graber:
The question of why it sat for a year is a good one, perhaps people didn't like the color? Perhaps it was some sort of demo or dealer car?
~JT
Dealer car would get my vote......Nice little perk of the profession.....

JT,
Nice car!! Keep on the trail of that original block!!
Doug
 
#15 ·
Oh yea, I have a 68SS with original drivetrain purchased as a dealer/demo used car Nov. 69. The owner was issued a second owner POP when transfer of the 5/50 took place. This version of POP is useless for drivetrain information. Add that one to my list of scenario's
Pat
 
#16 ·
Pat, did they ever put 283's in the 1967 Camaros? Get my point. Never say never. GM was in the business to make money and if the correct engine couldn't be located quickly, they would put in something similar. If the engine code matches the POP then it wouldn't be a POP mistake. But we won't know until he gets a chance to see the original block if it truly is the original block. Let us know what you find out JT. Nice looking car regardless.
 
#17 ·
Jeff, are you asking me or telling me about documented 283 engines used in GM domestic production in 1967? Or any other first gen. year for none camaro related engine substitutes for that matter. Facts please, inquiring minds want to know. I dont still believe the earth is flat by the way.
Pat
 
#18 ·
Pat, I believe that CRG has documented 283's in 67 Camaros. So that would appear to be a fact. There are also 327/275 cars with TH350 transmission documented for 68. And there is a documented 68 Z28 convertible. This car being referred to was built in LA where there were also big cars being built so they had a bunch of 396's available to grab. I can definitely see it being a possibilty. If the JQ block does turn out to have partial VIN on it then it will make for some interesting information.
 
#19 ·
Jeff, I have to admit that I was baiting this thread a little in the hope of getting a conversation started that would transcend the pablum topics that have been posted lately. Heck even Mark has been calm! I kinda miss his sharp and direct responses of the past to those of us, including me, that make unfounded statements by the seat of our pants. My take on the 283 engine placement for 67 is that it took place only in a few instances in overseas production. If we start using data from these production facilities as normative practice for Nor and Los we are going to have our hands full. In 68 some late SB cars did get the turbo trans. that was earmarked for the 69 model year. I know nothing of the 68 Z28 ragtop although I had a conversation recently with a gentleman who owned a 67 IPC who claimed to own the ragtop 68 Z28 and also claimed his IPC was Foyt's trophy car?
 
#20 ·
There weren't any 283's in domestic Camaros, only overseas versions.
The TH350's in 68's is well documented by GM.

In no way or form did a JQ engine get installed in a Camaro. It's not just a block, it's an assembly. Exhaust manifolds aren't the same, JQ had a flexplate where this car needed a flywheel, etc.

[ 02-03-2005, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Kurt S ]
 
#23 ·
Originally posted by Kurt S:
Oops. Fixed that.
I just think it's a POP error.
BTW, my BB is missing the JL8 axle the POP says it should have....
Don't you mean your ZL1 is missing the JL8 axle the POP says it should have? :D It will be interesting to see what this block does have stamped on it if it's still in original condition and not a restamp.
 
#26 ·
In 69 only, all Camaro's with 4 bbl Rochester carbs used two fuel lines, a 3/8" supply and a 5/16" return, and a different fuel sender/pickup in the fuel tank with 2 connections. There were 4 engines that used this configuration, the LM1, L48, L35, and L34. All other V8's from the L14 307/200HP to the 396/375HP L89 used a single 3/8" fuel line. You can use this info, the cars build date and other features on the car to help determine which engine the car had originally.

All 67 and 68 V8 Camaros used a single 3/8" fuel line and 6 cylinders in all three years used a single 5/16" fuel line.

Of course if the fuel lines have been replaced with new ones you can't use this info.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top