Not sure where to start - 69 Z/28 on BAT
 

There are so many issues with this car that I am not even sure where to start. Tag has wrong rivets, Chinese fenders and decklid, color looks like the generic resale red rather than correct Garnet Red, and for some bizarre reason seller had the DZ block decked, and then had it restamped - crudely, I might add. And now it appears that he is claiming that this is the original block to the car, even though the stamp is two months ahead of the date on the tag. Oh, and don't forget the requisite "Caution Fan" sticker. Enjoy!

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/19...amaro-z-28-72/

https://bringatrailer.com/wp-content...?fit=940%2C627


https://bringatrailer.com/wp-content...size=620%2C413

Everything you mentioned pales in comparison to the woodgrain clock.

OMG.......I am speechless.

Paul

Two 69 Z/28s in a row with incorrect rear stripes and a ton of other issues.

This green one sold for $77,500 yesterday.
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/19...amaro-z-28-67/

Jerry's report says engine is a restamp and not original to the car. Trans is a restamp and not original to the car. Rear has had the stamping removed, but dated for a 1968 Camaro.

I guess the buyers on BAT just don't care.

Red one had spoilers added, and almost certainly was not a ducted hood car originally. Buimperettes instead of bumper guards. Tag looks legit, but has definitely been off the car. My car is 08A and the tag has never been off. No need to under normal circumstances.

Like Chuck said, that clock cover is just hysterical.

There is a very good chance the engine in the red one is original to the car. There is a pic of the deck stamp BEFORE they decked it. 6-24 is certainly feasible in an August car (even 08D). It compares well to other June stamps.

Shouldn't the red car have D80 on the tag?

Regarding the engine assembly stamp being 2 months before the trim tag date, I realize that it may be feasible that the engine got pulled off the line for some reason and was delayed being installed in the car - I'm not calling myself an expert, so perhaps that date range is not all that uncommon. But the fact that the trim tag has been off the car AND the block in it now is a restamp, it looks suspicious to me. Seller is going to have to provide a picture of a legitimate VIN stamp to prove the veracity of his claim.

That's why it baffles me that they would deck the engine when rebuilding it, unless something happened that forced them to do it. And even then, can't they stop short of the pad to preserve the numbers? At this point, how do we know that the picture of the stamp that was supposedly before it was decked is even the same block? No way to prove that at this point - you would simply have to take his word on it. He needs to provide a picture of the VIN stamp down by the oil filter, assuming it is there.

There are a lot of relatively uneducated folks with deep pockets bidding on cars on BAT. I guess quite a few of them just want a "Z/28" to be seen in it and aren't all that concerned about making sure it is legitimate or correct. It's their money after all. The overall build quality of this car is lacking in certain areas - most notably the fit of the front fenders and the trunk lid.

There seems to be some confusion on this, and from what I have read, even though the spoilers became mandatory with RPO Z/28 in April, some later built cars still did not get the D80 on the tag. I'm not an expert though.

Today the guy is saying he never said it was the original block and might look for the vin number. I didnt think it read like original block but when he kept saying the stamp was gone from the block, made a person wonder if he was implying it was. The whole car probably needs a good looking over with the transmission wrong, I doubt that is the right block and tag off

I do find it amazing the people that want to believe what the sellers state on there and will argue with people that the seller is right!!

Go back and look at the seller's comment at 3:37 on Jan 28th. That sure looks like he is claiming it's the born-with engine to me! And if not, why bother restamping it? That along with the trim tag being off the car makes it seem a little shady. If I was bidding on the car I would ask for a picture of the trunk lid torsion bars to see if it was a factory spoiler car.

jeffd517 (The Seller) This author's likes: 1

3970610
Just to To confirm this is the original DZ block that came out of this X33 Z/28 Camaro! The engine had to be decked and we wanted to ensure a tight and reliable motor. This engine was built by professional engine builder MEP in Muncie, Indiana. I assure you that if the stamping could’ve been saved it would’ve been and I’ve provided the original numbers and stamp in photos.

yes I agree sounds like hes claiming it is the motor that was for this car. Now trying to correct that statement. A lot of conflicting info!!

Sorry but I am not buying this at all. I also think its a huge stretch to have a Late June engine in a Late August car.

I'm not even convinced that the car started life as an X33 car, since the tag has been off the car. That's why I would be looking for the larger diameter trunk torsion bar. If it has the smaller rods, then the car was never built with a rear spoiler. By August the spoiler was part of the RPO, so if not equipped it would throw the provenance of this car even more into question. Caveat Emptor.

Tag has definately been off the car. I think the tag is real. There are alot of issues with this car including the stories associated with it. Its does not look to be a quality 69 Z28.

Tag is real, but who knows if it was on this car originally. I guess the build date seems to fall in line with the VIN sequence, so it has that going for it. For the life of me in this day and age I can't understand why someone would grind the numbers off of a DZ block and then try to restamp it with generic gang numbers.