1967 Z/28 - Page 6

**427king** · #51 11-04-2006, 07:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
they only made 602 of and, as I was told, only approx. 169 are documented as still on the road

[/ QUOTE ]
Based on the usual lack of docs for 67 camaros in general [buildsheets etc] id say 170 documented on the road out of 602 made seems like a rather large percentage,especially given that the vast majority of those cars werent grocery getters. Im curious as to what criteria was used to document the other 169.......If my numbers are accurate they made around 225[roughly] 427 COPO Chevelles,which had the luxury of having 1 2 or 3 buildsheets in each car and cars from canada, and there are only around 20 or so documented last i heard. Furthermore the vins of the yenko chevelles are known, and they havent found 30% of those.

**Jonesy** · #52 11-04-2006, 07:53 AM

Last I heard there was about 195 of 602 found to date.

**Kurt S** · #53 11-04-2006, 08:04 AM

I've had several people ask me to comment. I'll keep it simple since Jon and Bill covered most of it.
Dates all line up fine. Car was built / finished ~7/06/67, if that helps clear it up.
And, IMO, block stamp is fine.

JHS · #54 11-04-2006, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've had several people ask me to comment. I'll keep it simple since Jon and Bill covered most of it.
Dates all line up fine. Car was built / finished ~7/06/67, if that helps clear it up.
And, IMO, block stamp is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the confirmation. I do believe the car to be original and the engine stamping correct along with all the other components. I have held my comments to a minimum as I do not want to end up in the same situation as 427RCODE in a recent thread. Skepticism is fine and there is nothing more I can say or do to change anyone's mind (ZEDDER, your pm box is full). I have every confidence that this car is correct and has the born-with drivetrain, thus my comment about being "stuck" with it if I do not sell it; I put it in quotes to indicate that I will be glad to keep it as it is, in my and other people's opinion, a matching numbers car, it just does not fit in to my collection of BB cars. Nuff said...

Pacecarjeff · #55 11-04-2006, 05:41 PM

If I could offer a suggestion...
Can someone from the CRG write Joe a letter?

No guarantees, just something simple like:
"Dear sir, According to our research... Here is what happened in June of 1967".
If this is truly a verified, and documented anomaly -
then someone needs to put it down in writing. (not a former owner- no offense)

I would imagine, that EVERY single time that this car hits the market,
these same exact questions are going to be asked.
100 years from now when we are all gone,
someone is still going to ask the same questions again, and again.
Unless maybe they find those shipping documents by then.

Just my opinion, but that would certainly help this beautiful car in the future.

With this stuff docummented, this Z can always reach it's full potential.

To be perfectly honest, even if this car HAD a replacement engine, (which it doesn't seem to have).
I think it still is worth the asking price.

JHS · #56 11-04-2006, 05:58 PM

A letter from CRG would be great, how would I proceed? I hired MacNeish to certify the car in an attempt to make up for the lack of documentation. When I asked him about the engine assembly date being after the 06E cowl tag date, he said he expected to see that apparent discrepency and did not give it a second thought, so I did not either. I guess I just wasted my money having him certify the car??? I am not going to manufacture paperwork so all I could do is post pics and tell it like I know it. I mentioned the former owner because I believe what he told me to be true as he is a stand up guy and most of you know him and his reputation. Now, I promise I will bow out...

Zedder · #57 11-04-2006, 06:24 PM

Sorry Joe, I just emptied my PM Box

I think the CRG guys who have spoken up have eliminated any doubts that most would have about this car and given Jerry's "professional" opinion also, I wouldn't lose any sleep about the car's pedigree. Frankly, anyone who is serious about a '67 Z usually contacts one of a handful of guys who follow these cars closely and asks for an opinion. Those in the know would not hesitate to endorse the car based on the dates, engine pad and trim tag - I wouldn't have bought it myself it this wasn't the case. My opinion as to why the car isn't selling quickly is simply that the market for anything about $65K or more is very soft right now compared to this time last year. Look at Quick Bow-Tie's '70 L78 Chevelle that only went for $69K. I was very interested in that car and would have probably paid $75K for it last year, but I bowed out at $65K for fear that a correction was happening and I didn't want to be upside down. Obviously, "the market" had similar concerns given what it sold for. Cars over $65K will sell, but they will take longer to find the "right" buyer - especially as we go into the winter. I'd put the car on ebay with a copy of Jerry's report and get it more exposure. I'd also put it on Team Camaro. Good luck with the sale!

**TDW** · #58 11-04-2006, 06:25 PM

I don't think you wasted any money with MacNeish. I think his certs carry a lot of wieght with a car.

**Stefano** · #59 11-04-2006, 09:48 PM

I didn't take any pics of the pad stamp on the Blue low mile '67 Z which sold at Mecum. Did anyone else?

Zedder · #60 11-04-2006, 10:51 PM

When I was going to buy that 7K mile car in 2002 or 2003, the original motor was not in the car but the owner (an engine builder) claimed to have the original motor in a bag. I requested video and pics of the car which I got, but again without anything on the original motor. I again asked specifically for shots of the engine pad...and the car was sold to someone else. The car was a drag car since new.