Anyone know this COPO?
 

Check out this 1969 COPO Camaro on CarsOnline.com: https://www.cars-on-line.com/gen3-ca...posting/102901

Looks like a great car, all the original drivetrain goodies with POP. Did they build COPO's at Van Nuts Plant and this early?

There is a known Burnished Brown L72 car built at Van Nuys, and sold through Clippinger in Covina. IIRC, it was produced right at the end of VN production, after the plant restarted.
Not aware of any other known VN COPOs, especially one as early as this car, whose VIN is 124379L511422.
Wording of the sales ad is interesting:

First I have heard of a COPO prior to the first two ZL1's and a 9561 prior to the first 50 yenko's.
IT would take A LOT MORE THAN what has been shown to convince me that car is a COPO.

IIRC There was a COPO sold at Jack Head which was a Los built car.

Outed as a clone a few years ago. Earliest known real MN engines were built January 3, 1969.

https://www.yenko.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1304739

'

Such a great color combo and too bad it's clone also sorry for the original car lost to build it.
Here's links below to a CRG thread w/ more info also a 2016 Mecum sale @ $62.5 thou.
:beers:
~ Pete

CRG thread - Subject VIN 124379L511422
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=14502.0

Mecum Portland 2016 - Lot S166
https://www.mecum.com/lots/PJ0616-24...vrolet-camaro/


.

Wouldn't that serial number be too early for a ZL2 hood at Van Nuys anyway? ZL2 was mandatory (standard) on all COPO Camaros.

Yep. Earliest known cars built with ZL2; Dec 27 at Van Nuys, Dec 30 at Norwood.

The relay on the red clone is incorrectly positioned.

Was ZL2 a required option, or included in 9560/9561?

Included, does not appear on factory docs.

Nice looking car, should be sold for what it really is.

AS anyone ever tried to contact the seller and discuss these faults and that it is a "known" clone in this community?

I just now bothered to browse over the description.

With everything being said it sure does appear that they believe it is what they are advertising with a lot of statements to back up their story.

It could just be a case of the seller honestly not knowing any different. I like to give benefit of the doubt before accusing.

It's a neat clone, hopefully someone doesn't get taken for the real thing.

The references in this thread keep referring to the car as a clone. "Clones" do not (or should not) have a POP showing the MN engine suffix, with a corresponding stamp on the motor, etc. I'm not suggesting the car is a real COPO, but I would not refer to this car as a "clone" either.

Perhaps this is what happens when someone goes too far with a clone? Before you know it, the car develops a realistic story, and people start thinking hey maybe it's real? Funny that the POP shows Mark Dunrite being the original owner.

Not a clone, how about A FAKE ? JMO

It is unfortunate that a p-o-p doesn't have the significance it once did. The counterfeiters took care of that.

From the Broachbusters.com site.

Splitting hairs. Clone, fake, it's all the same to me. Don't much care, you guys can work that out, lol. We know it's not a real one, that's what is implied and all that matters. :dunno:

I was never one to put a huge amount of faith in paperwork. It's neat to see, real or not, but I never banked on it. I tend to stick to cars that can be easily proven with vin and data plates as those are much easier to spot if tampered with, along with known clues, or cars that can have current paperwork acquired like Pontiacs and Fords.

Is that the red one that was at SCR I?

Bottom line is that is NOT A COPO and Mecum or anyone else who tries to sell a car like this that is a Clone a Tribute the real name is A FAKE and anyone who buys it should have the seller arrested for forgery.

At a Barrett-Jackson event you regularly hear "Bid with confidence."

All cars purported to be numbers-matching, survivors or restorations. are vetted by experts. If they don't agree, the signage is changed or the consignor takes the car home. No other auction company does this.

Beyond that, they all have disclaimers. Cars are as described by the consignor, no guarantees.

If an Auction posts on their site a description about a car and announces it at an auction they should be responsible enough to disclaim any info they provide and is by the owner only as well as have the integrity not to allow cars that they suspect are a fraud to be auctioned off.
:no:

Each state has it's own laws when it comes to fraud. They are not all the same. When bidding on a car at an auction, the buyer signs a Buyers Agreement which has a disclaimer in it holding the auction company harmless from any fraudulent actions (description) by the seller. The state that has the auction in it sets the laws.

In essence it's Caveat Emptor . . . let the buyer beware.

The only "fraud" crime that is federal is switching VIN numbers.

Well, maybe. ZL1s #9 and #27 both sold at auction and were disclosed as re-bodies.

This re-bodied COPO sold at B-J AZ 2020.

Some states have laws that allow a rebody and as long as those laws are followed, it is perfectly legal to do so under Federal law. Whole bunch of forms have to be filled out along with a number of vehicle inspections.

In the case you show, was it the intent of the restorer to defraud a buyer (illegal) or was it his intent to preserve a rare vehicle (legal).

'

William's example sold @ BJ AZ 2020 is VIN 124379N657805 which sold new @ Belmont Chev' Toronto so originally ordered by Belmont's Lance Hill who's also a sYc Member.
Looks like the registry here needs updating to include the Rebody situation also there's been a few past threads w/ no mention of it, here's one...
https://yenko.net/forum/showthread.p...09#post1366009
:beers:
~ Pete


.

The rebody goes back to the 2007 restoration. They weren't tracked then as they are now so subsequent owners may not have known.

At the time of the restoration/rebody, as long as the state in which the restoration was done and was made aware of the rebody and had laws that allowed a rebody and the restorer followed all laws - nothing illegal. Not even sure the owner was required to divulge the rebody when selling. That may have been part of the law or it may not have. Again, some states allow rebodies while others do not. And those that do, don't all have the same rules.

rebodies are noted on the confidential side of the registry spreadsheet. If anyone has questions about specific cars they can enquire. There are also notes about suspected rebodies, non-original components, etc. We try to avoid disputes, but are here to assist when members ask about specific cars. As is the case with the car in this thread - great members who have access to huge data bases are more than willing to help.

In states that allow rebodies you are not allowed to just move the VIN from one car to another. That is illegal. You must fill out all the forms and have the car inspected by a state authorized rep - could be from the DMV, could be a local police officer with more forms. I believe the inspection is done twice - once as the car sits with the donor body beside it and once when the rebody is finished. The donor car's VIN is then removed from DMV records and the actual VIN is destroyed. The donor car no longer exists as far as the state DMV is concerned.

Anyone know the states that do and do not allow
a legal rebody’s?

You would have to look at each state's title laws. For instance, Oklahoma issues 8 different kinds of titles for motor vehicles. One of the 8 is for rebody:

1. Original title for any motor vehicle which is not a remanufactured, salvage, unrecovered-theft, rebuilt, rebodied or junked vehicle;
2. Salvage title for any motor vehicle which is a salvage vehicle or is specified as a salvage vehicle or the equivalent thereof on a certificate of title from another state;
3. Rebuilt title for any motor vehicle which is a rebuilt vehicle;
4. Junked title for any motor vehicle which is a junked vehicle or is specified as a junked vehicle or the equivalent thereof on a certificate of title from another state;
5. Classic title for any motor vehicle, except a junked vehicle, which is twenty-five (25) model years or older;
6. Remanufactured title for any vehicle which is a remanufactured vehicle;
7. Unrecovered-theft title for any motor vehicle which has been stolen and not recovered; and
8. Rebodied title for any motor vehicle which is a rebodied vehicle.

https://casetext.com/statute/oklahom...onuse-or-theft

I do not know, if I were to fake a COPO Camaro, I would do as the others look like.
There is another unrestored December Camaro that has the relay in the same place but from Norwood, not mine

If I look at the AIM on ZL2 the dates starts in September and some revisions in October early November.
The relay was moved 11-22-68 and 1-21-69
Not showed as this LOS Camaro
It wouldnt be impossible for ZL2 to go into production in early December.
Im not saying Im right, just some thoughts I have

After 51 years, the earliest documented ZL2 builds remain the same-Dec 27 @ Van Nuys Dec 30 @ Norwood.

The letter to dealers notifying them of the option was dated November 25, 1968.

AIM dates are not relevant. Those dates are just paperwork dates and are not indicative of the plant.
http://www.camaros.org/AIM.shtml#changes

The date 1-21-69 in AIM match my Cars 01B and 01C.
The hole for relay is not in the same place on the firewalls.
Now you will say that anything could happen to 50 year old cars that anyone could drill a hole in the Firewall during those years.
But there are Crayon Arrows that point to those holes so the Arrows must be made before the car got Painted

I'm not sure I understand your point of view.

If your cars have build dates of 01B and 01C then it's absolutely possible they could have been originally equipped with ZL2.

As William stated and is widely accepted, the first cars built with ZL2 at either plant is after Christmas of 68.

Are you concerned your relay is maybe off a pinch from the accepted location?

No, I read that Kurt Sonnen attached from CRG.
It says that the date in AIM does not match when revisions were made at the factory.

Okay gotchya, those dates do make things confusing.

Dave Beem's 01B Yenko (Bill Hunter's) has a hood dated 53.

Regarding his ZL2 Z28 built in LOS... I believe the TT shows 12C but am not sure what the hood date is dated. (If I am not mistaken it was generally recognized as the first DOCUMENTED cowl hood car built)

Just for more interesting data points, my 12D Norwood Z, all of it's sheetmetal dates are 51, yet it's about 400 serial numbers past the first known ZL2 Camaro built which is 569358, I believe the first ZL1 Camaro.

Wouldn't be a stretch to assume it's sheet metal dates would be close to mine, which could make the earliest ZL2 hood date at Norwood a 51.