1967 Z/28
 

FOR SALE: 1967 Z/28, Butternut Yellow with black vinyl top and interior. Born-with, factory original, numbers matching and correct date coded drivetrain including MO code block, double hump heads, M21 Muncie with VIN and 12 bolt posi w/traction bar. This car is an older restoration (circa 1998) with no documents but previously owned by a sYc member, recently certified by Jerry MacNeish and is car number 170 in the Registery (per Jerry). This is a low option car that runs and drives great. Car also has the correct carburetor, distributor, alternator, starter, exhaust manifolds, alum. intake, fan clutch (incorrect fan blade and a '68 Z/28 water pump), what appears to be the original Harrison radiator, WT master cylinder and early model DF 15" wheels w/repro redlines. I have misplaced the data sheet that I compiled containing all the numbers and dates but will gather the info. for serious prospective buyers. I am posting pics of the pad, which was the subject of an earlier thread posted on this site, along with some older pics but I will post/email recent ones if needed, as soon as I can figure out my https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/dunno.gif digital camera. Everything works except the radio. The undercarriage is clean and all pans/panels are solid. Some detailing of the undercarriage will be required as it appears that whoever did the resto did not do a concourse job in this area. I have completed the punch list compiled by Jerry except installing the correct steering wheel (which I have), the fan blade assembly ($1600+ for one on eBay a while back) and replacing the rear deck lid (currently from a '68 model).
I am not a '67 Z/28 expert nor do I play one on TV; I am representing this car as it has been represented to me by the previous owner and MacNeish and will make his report available to anyone interested. Asking price: $90000.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...Ylrearweb1.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...tn_Z28PAD2.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...n_Z28FRONT.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p..._z28VINTAG.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...28TRACTBAR.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...BYdashweb1.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...Z28ENGINE1.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...Z28COWLTAG.jpg

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

I know I am going to pay for this comment. What a beautiful car. Do you need a 1969 SS RS Camaro with a 540 to keep the Chevelle company?
Mark Sheppard

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Good luck with the sale Joe! To be honest, I am very tempted to buy the car back given what I am seeing for sale for $90K these days - and especially since it has the original motor! Someone can enjoy this car as is for a number of years and still be OK after a freshening if they wanted https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/beers.gif

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am not a '67 Z/28 expert nor do I play one on TV

[/ QUOTE ] https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...mlins/haha.gif ...I think it looks excellent in Butternut too.

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Am I seeing that right. Motor V0703MO (July 3rd) Trim Tag 06E (Fifth week in June). Was the motor built after the body???

Paul

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

The M and the O are at different angles,and at different heights than the V0703 and also to each other ,were the 67 Zs engine suffix hand stamped ??

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

[ QUOTE ]
Am I seeing that right. Motor V0703MO (July 3rd) Trim Tag 06E (Fifth week in June). Was the motor built after the body???

According to MacNeish, this is correct and not uncommon, I had the same question. The pad stamping has been looked at by numerous, knowledgeable people and determined correct. As I said, this pad was the subject of a thread a few months ago when someone interested in the car posted a copy on the site, asking the same questions as 427king did.


Paul

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

There are numerous examples of the engine suffix being uneven with '67 Z's. In fact, I can't say that I have ever seen a real stamping that wasn't a little off. Jerry's book shows a couple of examples...

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know I am going to pay for this comment. What a beautiful car. Do you need a 1969 SS RS Camaro with a 540 to keep the Chevelle company?
Mark Sheppard

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Mark for the offer but I am trying to divest myself of a few vehicles and the Z is beautiful but it does not fit in with my SS BB collection. I already have a '70 RS/SS L78 Camaro under resto.

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Can someone post the prior stamp thread mentioned? Any known reason why the vin tag has a std pop rivet.

Looks like a cool car.


Thanks,

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Numerous examples of mixed rivets exist...the 10,000 mile unrestored '67 L78 that was discussed on this site a while ago has one standard and one rosette rivit also.

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Stefano,
I do not remeber which forum the previous thread was posted nor have I EVER had any luck searching the forums for previous topics! I did print the old thread and have it at home so will see if I can determine when/where the posting occured. I do have some recent pics of underneath, trunk and engine compartment if anyone wants more posted. I do not have a lift so underneath is hit and miss as far as quality.

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Stefano,
Can you be more specific what previous thead you are looking for? I will see if I can find it.
Rick

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Stefano does not know anymore about the previous post, he is asking based on a comment I made in my sales ad. I can't remember which forum or when the previous post was made but I believe a member named Alan was inquiring about the pad. Zedder may know more as well. I do have a hard copy of the discussion at home and will try to determine more about it. Thanks for your offer to assist.

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Yeah that's it. I just wanted to read the discussion mentioned I don't recall when it took place or under which thread?

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Here are updated pics taken on 10/31 while trying to avoid the trick-or-treaters:

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...n_DSCN0811.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...n_DSCN0813.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...n_DSCN0821.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...n_DSCN0830.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...n_DSCN0827.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...n_DSCN0828.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...n_DSCN0824.jpg

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Can I have the guard dog? https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...mlins/grin.gif

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can I have the guard dog? https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...mlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

He would just bite you, as he does me and I have had him 12 years...

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone post the prior stamp thread mentioned? Any known reason why the vin tag has a std pop rivet.

Looks like a cool car.


Thanks,

[/ QUOTE ]

The previous post was made by quick-bowtie on 2/24/06, I am attempting to post the link

link to pad stamping post

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

I don't get the date stamp. How can that be correct? Just asking.

The motor build date doesn't even fall into the last week of June, 1967. The 3rd of July in 1967 was on a Monday and would have placed the engine build date in 07A. The VIN on the car falls in with the cowl tag of 06E . There were 5 weeks in June with Friday being June 30. Even if the week ended on Sunday, that was July 2nd. Last I knew the week didn't end on a Monday.https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...s/confused.gif https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...s/confused.gif

What makes it even more confusing is the VIN is a few thousand before the end of the June month VIN. Add in the fact the M and O look out of whack and more https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...s/confused.gif https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/dunno.gif


These cars whether a Z or not all rolled down the same assembly line did they not? Was a motor not available when this one came down the line until the following week?? https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/dunno.gif

The car is still nice regardless.

Rick H.

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Read this for your answers...assume that the body build at Fisher was started late in the Day Friday June 30th and it will all make sense to you...

http://www.camaros.org/assemblyprocess.shtml

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Not sure how an engine could be assembled at Flint, after the car was built at Norwood?
Don't really understand that part, but the MO part is how they did it.

The MO is the only part of the stamp pad that I really like...
I would like to see a close up of the VIN that is stamped on the trans?

Very Nice car. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...ns/worship.gif


Here is a picture of a untouched pad from a 67 SS350
Sold this car last year, was absolutely the original engine.
http://www.broachbuster.com/12df4770.jpg

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

With a VIN of 247737 and a final VIN in June of apprx 251048 I don't see this car beng built on June 30th. Especially with a production of 912 cars a day at a plant that only produced Camaros.

251048-247737=3311/912=3.63days before June 30th.

Puts it about the middle of the day the 27th of June. Almost a full week before the engine was made?????

So yes, that answers my question.

Rick H.

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a picture of a untouched pad from a 67 SS350
Sold this car last year, was absolutely the original engine.
http://www.broachbuster.com/12df4770.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that VIN and engine stamp works. VIN is first week of June with an end of May engine stamp. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...iggthumpup.gif

Rick H.

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

I actually like the 7N247 and I like the V07 MO
Not sure about that other stuff - is the pad completly flat?

Beautiful Car https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...ns/worship.gif

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...tn_Z28PAD2.jpg

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Hey Joe...rather than wallow in the mud, I'll go with my understanding of '67 Z's and Jerry MacNeish's certification and gladly give you what you paid me for the car last October https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...ns/naughty.gif

This is a very nice, driveable '67 Z guys...someone should pick her up!!!

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Legally speaking, that is all a seller is responsible for.
Refunding the original purchase price.
I am sure last october this car was sold for "all the money".

What does Jerry's certification say about the stamp pad?
Does he certify this stamp pad as being the original? I wouldn't think so.

No doubt in my mind at all - this is a genuine 1967 Z/28, with a real MO 302 engine.
It is a gorgeous car, that anyone would be very lucky to own. I would like to myself.

I just can't see this engine starting life in this car.
Especially since the engine post-dates the car. https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/dunno.gif

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

I work with Jerry on the '67 Z28 Registry and also with the CRG group. When you gather enough data, you see that 06E is a oddball build week that ran longer than usual for some reason. We have seen this with other months and in other years. There are very few 07A '67 Norwood cars. There are at least 7 06E-built '67 Z-28s with engine stampings in July. The latest 06E car has an V0706MO engine in it. I understand the initial skepticism but it is unwarranted. This car is a nice, legitimate '67 Z-28.

-Jon

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Hey Jon,
Based on your professional experience, are you certifying that this engine stamp as THE original born with stamping?
Or, are you just saying the original engine was stamped this way, and this was possible?

We all know this is a nice legitimate 1967 Z/28 - NO QUESTION.
I am asking you directly: In your professional opinion - from working with the Z/28 registry, and the CRG.
IS THIS THE ORIGINAL ENGINE AND VIN STAMPING?

Would really like to hear this from the CRG.
I really like the car, this is just a real weird one???
We all know that anything was possible, but is this a true example?

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

I'm not a certified appraiser. I guess my opinion should carry no more weight than the next guy but this block pad looks legit to me based on many others that I have seen over the years. That is just my 2 cents worth, which is maybe all it's worth.

-Jon

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

I dont think anyone would touch that subject or give thier guarantee.I cant really blame them. Im sure any appraiser will have plenty of clauses in his inspection clearing him of any errors or misjudgements.Alot of what is stated would be based on "experience" and similar cars and criteria,not on written guarantees. Alot of people use to assume that since a corvette got a top flight, that the ncrs was verifying the engines as being original. They may not deduct any points for a stamp pad on the judging form , but they would never guarantee they were right either,which is being realistic

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Jon, thanks for giving your opinion and sharing some of the info that you and Jerry have collected over the years. I too can understand the questions, I just hate to see people infer that the engine is a restamp without having the experience with '67 Z's to make that judgement or having seen the car in person. Everyone has to remember that these were very low production car and odd things are seen with them all of the time. Maybe they ran short of engines in 06E or something to cause a delay for a few days??? Here is a better pic of the pad that my inspector took prior to my purchase. For what it's worth, he is an NCRS master judge and used one of Jeff's broach busters for viewing the pad. He then took this high res pic with a macro setting. This pad is beautiful!!!

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

Great information on the 06E week Jon. I've heard of the problems with the 06A week with the 69 Camaros and how many cars have later dated engines. But I had not heard about the 67 06E week. It almost sounds like they left the trim tag stamp 06E on into the 1st week of July.

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

This doesn't surprise me, don't we see the same situation with other years of cars built in June? Aren't the rears of June of '69 Yenko Camaro's built after the scheduled build week on the TT? The deuces have this situation as well, and have the vin/body #'s in reverse in some weeks. So, once you've gathered enough data on a particular car's build range you will recognize patterns - even strange ones! Nice work Jon https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...iggthumpup.gif

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

The second pad picture is actually much better then the other one. Even the pad surface looks better.
Yes, it is very hard to tell without seeing it in person.

I WILL NOT call it a restamp, it is just very strange.
If you guys say that an engine later then the build date is typical for that time period,
then I will have to defer to the experts.
Sorry, I just have never heard of such a thing.

It is very very unusual, but I am always willing to listen and learn.

Like I said before, that Z is gorgeous.
If I had room for another, I would seriously be considering it. And that price seems like a deal.

Good luck with the sale.

https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/beers.gif

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

80% of Deuces built in 06B have their rears dated later than the scheduled build date on their trim tag https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/dunno.gif It happens!

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

If you say it happened, I will believe it.
Just can't imagine GM building a car, then letting it sit around waiting for the rest of the parts to show up the following week.

Just doesn't make sense.
There must have been a lot of 1/2 built bodies sitting around waiting in June 67.

What about the rest of the engine componets - how are they dated? Alt, Carb, dist.
https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/dunno.gif

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just hate to see people infer that the engine is a restamp without having the experience with '67 Z's to make that judgement or having seen the car in person.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never used the word "restamp". I am just questioning how a car built in one week can have a motor built the following week. Plus just because it's a Z/28 in my mind doesn't matter. It was ordered just like all the other Camaros and rolled down the same assembly line.

Plus you can speculate all you want but the truth of the matter is that unless there is substantial paperwork to support the later motor the car will always be suspect. It's just a fact.

Other then that the car is extremely nice.

Rick H.

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you say it happened, I will believe it.
Just can't imagine GM building a car, then letting it sit around waiting for the rest of the parts to show up the following week.

Just doesn't make sense.
There must have been a lot of 1/2 built bodies sitting around waiting in June 67.

What about the rest of the engine componets - how are they dated? Alt, Carb, dist.
https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/imag...lins/dunno.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeff, you're reading it wrong. The trim tags were stamped wrong so it looks like they were being built the last week of June when they really weren't started until the first week in July. Somebody probably forgot to change the stamps for the trim tag. Look at the 69 Camaros with 06A (almost all of June was stamped 06A but most cars were built later in the month) and the 69 Camaros with 04L on the trim tag. CRG should have better examples of these situations, but I don't think it's an issue of the car being built and then sitting and waiting for components.

Re: 1967 Z/28
 

"Plus you can speculate all you want but the truth of the matter is that unless there is substantial paperwork to support the later motor the car will always be suspect. It's just a fact."

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.