Team Camaro Tech banner

21 - 40 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,619 Posts
Well Smitty. As you already know, the engine pad is a restamp so that's of no help at all. The pictures you posted of the transmission shows it was assembled on August 15th, 1967 (and used on a 1968 model year car, hense the "P8" in the code), so it's not original to the car either. Look for a partial VIN and that might tell us what it originally came out of.

The rear axle stamp shows it's a 3.31 posi dated October 28th, 1967 or 1968 (you would have to check the date on the pumpkin to narrow it down). It's possible it's the original axle, but highly improbable as even if it's a 1968 code, it's a bit too early for a car built the 2nd week of February, 1969. Again, check the date code on the pumpkin and see what it shows. (Location in the picture attached)

The only thing that even remotely shows the car "might" be a z28 is the tachometer. The 6k tach was used on the Z28 and the L78 engines (as well as the L78/L89), but without any other proof, you're stuck in the Twilight Zone.

Ed
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
A fue more numbers I found on the block, plus cleaned up the engine plate tag more and sent u another picture of the rear end numbers. Was always told the rear leaf springs and fact that this car has front disc and rear drum was important? Well that would be a bummer if someone took a 302 out and put a 327 in this car. I was told the 302 had dome heads but not sure on that would that be worth checking?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,619 Posts
Those leaf springs aren't "factory" original. They're aftermarket generic replacements. Disc brakes were available on any model so again, no help at all. It's not worth pulling the engine apart since the pad is a restamp unless you're curious as to if the car actually started life as a 307. Pull the valve covers and post pictures of the casting numbers and date codes on the heads. However, I'm guessing that your car started life as an L14 (307/200) and the transmission and rear axle (as well as the gauges and tach) were added by a prior owner.

Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Well guess I was behind on messages so no Z28 a Frankenstein car so what should I do with this car then. Total bummer had my hopes set high, im crushed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,619 Posts
The date code should be where I've circled in the attached picture from you. Scrape that off and take another picture of the date code.

As for being a Frankenstein, that's okay. Now you can build the car the way you want and not have to worry about it being worth so much that you would be afraid to drive it!

Ed
 

Attachments

·
Registered
68 RS L30 AA 749
Joined
·
7,843 Posts
Ed
[/QUOTE]
However, I'm guessing that your car started life as an L14 (307/200) and the transmission and rear axle (as well as the gauges and tach) were added by a prior owner.

Ed
275709

What's that casting date, Ed ? Is it January 24, 69 ? You're not certain this 3932373 (307) block is original to this car ??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,619 Posts
You don't think this 3932373 (307) block is original to this car ??
I'm fairly certain the block's original to the car, but I'm also positive the pad is a restamp which is why I believe the car started life as an L14 (307/200). You can also see what appears to be a "double hump" on the head in that picture so they're not original to the car either. However, I'd still like to get the casting numbers and date codes.

Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
Yea my father bought those heads I knew they were not correct to the car, they are off a corvette I believe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,619 Posts
Looks like either I-14-8 (which would be September 14th, 1968) or J-14-8 (which would be October 14th, 1968). Either would align fine with the axle tube stamp of October 28th, 1968. (See attached. Sometimes it actually helps to make the picture smaller)

Ed
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
Have the intake and carb in the cabinet but there again if the tag isn't correct there's no point in going any farther. This car has been in our family sence the late 80s and I know my family would not have re stamped a block So the previous owner who died in the military maybe had a idea to sell the car as z when he got out of service or it was stamped a z and that guy bought it like that. Who knows still a bummer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
So this number on the back of the block threw a wrench in the whole deal, so refresh my memory wasn't a 302 a de stroked 327, was just wondering why the code saying it was a 327 was not helping the cause of a 302 instead of hurting it. Just asking im no professional at this thats why I'm talking to u guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,619 Posts
Yes, the 302 was a de-stroked 327 originally designed for the 305 cubic inch limitation of the Trans-Am series. There's a ton of information online about this so I won't elaborate.

The casting number on the back of the block, which was only used on the 307, along with the fact that the engine was assembled at the Tonawanda, NY engine plant where no 302 engines were built, was the first indication that the car wasn't a Z28. The other parts (specifically the transmission and rear axle) only confirmed what we already knew.

Ed
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,434 Posts
302, 327,350 share the same bore with different stroke. 3" 3.25. and 3.48.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
So just reading the most important thing is a 327 wasn't a 4 bolt main they were a 2 bolt so is that a true to a 327, maybe I need to just pull this motor and double check this bc knowing the history of this car I just can't see anyone re stamping this block. The Trans is understandable I have 3 camaros now and not one has the original Trans in it nor rear end for that matter. At this point I'm just looking for a anomaly but at least I will know for sure.
 
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
Top