Team Camaro Tech banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

69 SS/RS 396 with Rear Disc Brakes

Jump to Latest
41 - 60 of 81 Posts
Discussion starter · #41 ·
I think maybe it is the 9 I've spend a ton of time researching and my mechanic is a Camaro guy featured on Super Chevy couldn't tell. The rivets even looked good and All that being said here is my take.

This car has gone through a concors style restoration at least 20 plus years ago you can tell by the NOS parts the completeness of the engine bay and driveline. There are factory paint marks on undercarriage and tags on springs and lots of little details. I didn't see it all until I got up on rack. So maybe tag was done then. Mechanic thinks it's right based on rivets and other things. Tag doesn't match current color which is black and tag was yellow with vinyl top. I asked the previous owner who said he wasn't part of any repro tag and based on the price I paid I wasn't taken advantage of in the transaction in any manner and wasn't misled.

I believe it is a SS/396 based on all of other things like all the parts matching up an especially the date codes on Carb, exhaust manifolds, rear end and matching up plus the tranny being the original M-21 with correct date code. As with everything without paperwork and more important owner history it's impossible to say one way or the other.

The cool factor for this car is more then enough for me I found out today is has a correct 396/375 which we haven't pulled codes off yet. Matching tranny, 12 bolt with 3.73 and a host of other cool little things like the RS washers and the correct taillight switch on Muncie tailmember. So I'll enjoy the car keep doing some more research and give the car the care and attention it deserves.

I appreciate everyone's help on figuring car out and I've learned more then ever reading CRG and forum.

What I will say is that if a cowl tag needs to be replaced for damage or restoration then it should be logged on a public forum like CRG and for the people actually faking things then they should be taken out to the back of the woodshed and have the crap beat out of them.
 
#42 ·
Brett, you wont find folks willing to expound in public on what makes any certain trim tag a repro... if those details are discussed in a public forum like here, then the folks that 'cheat' and make repro tags learn as well and then they make more fake tags that get harder to tell apart from the real ones.
Quite a few TC members here have developed their own data bases as did CRG and over years and years they have been able to root out the fake tags.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
Discussion starter · #44 ·
I don't assume anything. Like I said before without owner history and more paperwork no way to tell. Funny thing is another guy said Fonts were never symmetrical as different stamps were used at different times. Also the melted rivet on the passenger side is odd to fake. It's not big deal either way. I didn't over pay so I'm happy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#45 ·
Confirming that the tune-up decal is a repro.

<quote>I believe it is a SS/396 based on all of other things like all the parts matching up an especially the date codes on Carb, exhaust manifolds, rear end and matching up plus the tranny being the original M-21 with correct date code.
The cool factor for this car is more then enough for me I found out today is has a correct 396/375 which we haven't pulled codes off yet. Matching tranny, 12 bolt with 3.73 and a host of other cool little things like the RS washers and the correct taillight switch on Muncie tailmember. </quote>
I'd have to see pictures of the engine, trans, and axle stamps to see if any of them are original. They could be....
There was no taillight switch on the trans in 69.

Your attitude is right - enjoy the car!
 
Discussion starter · #46 ·
There is a reverse light mechanism on back area of 4 speed, is that not supposed to be there??

THe engine block ended up being a Chevelle 396/375 4 bolt main E.G. Block. The casting number is 3955272.

THe tranny shifter is 3216274 / 3306126. Is there other shifter marks? THe shift rods have 396 V8 marks on them??
 
#49 · (Edited)
You have a 1969 only block, but the EG suffix wasn't used that year. It was used in 1966, 1967 and 1968 on the Chevelle, but not 1969.

The transmission shouldn't have the backup light switch on it. In 1969 the backup light switch was on the steering column.

3216274 is the Hurst patient number and 3306126 is an aftermarket Hurst Competition Plus.

Ed
 
Discussion starter · #50 ·
Richard Keller said:
The engine code is TO929EG. The vin is faint ( by oil filter ) and hard to make out since it's painted over and didn't want to scratch up unless engine stamp matched a camaro.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Saw that but late engine build date for early 69 build?? Late Sept build would be making for 1969??




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#52 ·
It does indeed look like EG, but like I said, EG wasn't used in 1969, so either it's a restamp (doesn't appear to be), a factory mistake (possible), a SERVICE ENGINE (probably not since there's no CE code), or an over the counter engine (???). Can you clean off the pad NOT using sandpaper or a screwdriver, and get a better picture of the entire pad?

And what's the date code cast into the block (and where's it located)?

Ed
 
#54 ·
3919840 was used in late 1967 through 1969, and on the high HP cars, but that doesn't really tell you much. What are the dates on the heads?

The date code on the block will either be on the lower right (passenger) side of the block near the core plug (early blocks) or on the rear bell housing flange on the right (passenger) side (later blocks).

Ed
 
Discussion starter · #55 ·
It looks to be Letter I 17 And an 8 it's on side of block need core plug.

The heads are I 11 8

I scrapped the vin after all by oil filter so I was wrong on Chevelle the vin says 9N396896 or 396899. Its real faint and it could be 9N3668XX. Tough to read at all. Definitely no restamp.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#57 ·
There are too many things wrong here!

You have an early (September 17th, 1968) 3955272 block, which was only used for the 1969 model year, with an EG code, which was only used from 1966 through 1968 and a VIN stamped 9N396xxx, which is a Chevelle VIN, but a Norwood assembly plant!! Norwood didn't produce Chevelles, so this VIN makes absolutely NO sense. Even if it's a 9N5xxxxx, which WOULD be from a Camaro, which Norwood DID manufacture, NO EG coded engines were used in the Camaro! (And 6 wasn't used.)

You can try taking a flashlight at different angles and see if that helps.

Ed
 
#60 ·
Ok, after chewing on this for a while, here's what I believe has happened.

Back in late 1968 (August or September time frame), someone (possibly with a 1968 Chevelle) went to their local Chevy dealer and ordered a Special High Performance L78 engine for their car (This takes care of the EG suffix code). The "correct" 3935440 block was discontinued in August, 1968 and even though Tonawanda may have still had some in stock, they grabbed a 3955272 block instead and built the engine. (The 3955272 block began production in September, 1968, so this fits with my theory.) Note that this "over the counter" engine would have a suffix code, but NO partial VIN stamp.

Sometime, perhaps many years later, this engine ended up in your car, and someone unknown stamped the partial VIN in the rough area by the oil filter. However, whom ever did this, didn't realize that partial VIN's weren't stamped in this area until after December, 1968, so this is why you have a restamped partial VIN. Not only did they make THAT mistake, they also got the partial VIN for a 1969 Norwood built Camaro wrong. Instead of 19N5xxxxx, they stamped it 19N3xxxxx.

If the partial VIN's supposed to be for a 1969 Chevelle, it would have been stamped 19A3xxxxx (Atlanta, GA), 19B3xxxxx (Baltimore, MD), 19K3xxxxx (Kansas City, MO), 19Z3xxxxxx (Fremont, CA), or 1913xxxxx (Oshawa, Canada), so another mistake.

Good pictures of the partial VIN would help, but this is the only scenario I can come up with, and it seems to make the best sense.

Ed
 
41 - 60 of 81 Posts
About this Discussion
80 Replies
21 Participants
Last post:
Richard Keller
Team Camaro Tech
posts
2.4M
members
90K
Since
1998
A forum community dedicated to 1st generation Chevy Camaros owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, builds, restoration, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, reviews, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Bench Racing Engine Body Shop Performance Brakes, Suspension & Steering