1968 Camaro - Possible Yenko

[AnthonyS]

That’s what I was thinking / hoping!!

[KNAPPY]

Did you guys notice the time difference in Daves MV motor assembly date and the production date on the NCRS he has? About 2 months. About the same as the rearend.

[PeteLeathersac]

'

Big congrats whoever stepped up, better yet if a Member here!
'68 9737 cars are Super special also w/ so few having surfaced, cool there's still more out there somewhere.

~ Pete

.

[Copo_Cartel]

Either way a cool restoration piece

[COPO]

Originally Posted by 92bluez28

Definitely a questionable rear-end date there. Seems to be a decent amount of time with that 2 months. Just my .02.

I think 2 months dating on the rear end is quite acceptable and not that unusual and I've seen way greater gap on some cars with factory documentation showing rear is original to the car.

Congrats to Seller and Buyer and hopefully it is restored before too long. Great to see another rare car located.

[Mr70]

My 1970 396 L-78 Chevelle has it's original factory installed 4.10 rear still.The car was assembled October 24th,1969,it's CKK 4.10 rear is dated June 1969.Because no other 396 '70 Chevelle came with a 4.10 rearend afterwards,(Different one used for the 454 LS-6),and the L-78 engine was soon discontinued,it's believed they used up old 1969 Chevelle 4.10 stock,stamped KK.
As I came in contact with more 1970 L-78 Chevelles' optioned with a 4.10 over the decades,I realized they too are all dated between June-July 1969.

[enio45]

I thought it would be important to share this with the site - especially considering the recent discussions around the COPO 9737. As most know i own the 68 Rally Green COPO 9737 - that is until it went to the American Muscle Car Museum - along with my 69 Hugger Orange Yenko and my 1600 mile 69Z.

Below is the protecto-plate for the rally green car - according to the trim tag - 07E production date, all in the same range (BDY and VIN) as Tom Billigan's Corvette Bronze car and the new one just discovered by Dan. As you can see on the protecto plate - the MV coded engine stamp, and 0606 engine stamp date, Rear end coded 05/16 BU and check this out, the transmission dated Feb 23. Obviously the documentation on my car as well as my others went with the car - i made a copy of everything when the cars went to a new home.

Hope this sheds some light on the dates and debates - and i find it amazing on the trans date.....so far out of range, but it is what it is.

I discussed with Dan about acquiring the car, but we were too far apart.....good luck to the new owner!

[iluv69s]

Not sure what the problem is with two months prior date on a rear.

I’ve seen atleast 5-6 months spread on rears and engines on original cars. I’ve also seen cars with rears dated after the cowl tag date.

I think the odds are less of it being non-original, and coincidentally dated two months prior to the car, than being the original rear !

Congrats to seller and new owner !

[bcmiller]

Absolutely NOTHING wrong with the axle date compared to the build date of the car this thread was started for.

As for the date on the transmission for the POP shown above, did that car have an M22? It could explain the separation.

[enio45]

Transmission was replaced when i acquired the car - however the Yenko Ad advertising the cars called it out as a close ratio 4 sp.......I installed an M21 when i restored the car, but i cannot say 100% what was original to the car. Other converted cars mostly had M21's that i can tell from review of their paperwork.

Curious, why do you think this may have had an impact on the date of the trans vs the build date?