1967 Z/28 - Page 5

**William** · #41 11-03-2006, 09:32 PM

The '67 Z/28 I was involved with years ago had a V0706MO engine stamp, 06E body.

Protect-o-plate, 2 owners, absolutely original drivetrain.

Rick H · #42 11-03-2006, 09:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, it's not suspect to anyone that I know that "knows" '67 Z-28's, but I can understand those without significant knowledge regarding these cars having questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you're saying that I and a few others don't have enough knowledge to question these car? Hmmmmmm. Alrighty then.

Rick H.

**YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY** · #43 11-03-2006, 10:17 PM

Or.... If you had more knowledge, you wouldn't be questioning.....

Kim_Howie · #44 11-03-2006, 10:29 PM

I'm going to get the popcornnnn.

Rick H · #45 11-03-2006, 10:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Or.... If you had more knowledge, you wouldn't be questioning.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Back at ya!

Rick H.

Don_Lightfoot · #46 11-03-2006, 10:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to get the popcornnnn.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll take mine with butter if you please.

Good idea for people to save this entire thread for future reference. I know nothing about the Jun/Jul scenarios being explained here and those explanations seem to come across quite valid. However, five years from now, if I was looking at this car, and willing to pay "matching number" dollars for it, the conflicting dates would certainly throw up a red flag. Nothing much you can do except have evidence on file similar to what this thread is bringing out and hopefully potential purchasers will not dispute it.

**YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY** · #47 11-03-2006, 11:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or.... If you had more knowledge, you wouldn't be questioning.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Back at ya!

Rick H.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the one doing the questioning,

**Stefano** · #48 11-04-2006, 12:01 AM

Thanks great info, I know I learned a few things from this thread.

67L78conv · #49 11-04-2006, 02:36 AM

Just one more to chime in. It is always safer to question than to assume to much.

In the case of this car and a few others that I have on record it looks very much like there was a shortage of a particular part, could be the MO engine, that held this car on the line longer than it should have been. Based on the body number sequence to the vin number this car and at least one other I have record of were both held for a number of days counting the weekend. This hold over number is based on several cars on record that are within 20 build numbers away, taking their final vin numbers and subtracting from this cars vin number, divide.... This is not a common thing but well documented on high performance and rare option cars from several years where parts were short and the car had to be held up until they were in. The hold over of 69 Copo's where they sat waiting for a BE rear is a well known example. I've got enough cars in my own registry that I have to see and agree with Jon, not that I was questioning, 6E/7A are odd weeks with a number of peculiar things showing up.

JHS · #50 11-04-2006, 06:47 AM

As I said, I am no expert and representing the car as it was to me. The engine cast date is F297.As for what Jerry states in his certification "This Z28 Camaro coupe and drivetrain have been certified as real and authentic." Will this statement be parsed to mean that the car and drive train have been certified, seperately, as correct but not necessarily "born with" each other? I would hope that no licensed appraiser specializing in these cars would be that ambigious or evasive. I appreciate the discussion and have learned a lot. I am sticking with my belief that the car is real and if no one buys it then I guess I will just be "stuck" with a car that they only made 602 of and, as I was told, only approx. 169 are documented as still on the road; for all of the vultures circling, that is just a number I heard and I did not have sex with that woman...