'70 Chevelle SS396/4-sp, Interesting Protectoplate Error
 

Decent looking car with hideous wheels...but the POP image is most interesting. The engine code seems to be "TX" which I assume was supposed to be "CTX." Wish the seller had provided a picture of the deck stamp which he is claiming to be the original.

Link to 1970 Chevelle SS396 eBay auction
*Note: When you click on this link and make a purchase, I may earn a small commission from eBay. These commissions help to provide financial support for the sYc site.

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/XeAAA...CT/s-l1600.jpg

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/DR0AA...CV/s-l1600.jpg

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/bGQAA...CX/s-l1600.jpg

https://images.auction123.com/2efc0a....jpg?wtrmk10nw

https://photos.smugmug.com/Ebay/i-xs...370K157207.jpg

136370K157207

I’m pretty sure the TX is correct as I’ve seen others the same way. I’m not sure if there’s a reason behind why some got the 2 letter code vs 3, maybe related to build date? Hope someone more familiar with the 1970 POP can chime in.

Chinese brake booster and Master cyl :hmmm:

I believe it has to do with the 402 CID verses 396 CID when they went from 2 digit code to 3 digit codes but with a January 3rd week build date that is very late from what I have seen with 2 digit codes in the past. Bill

The 402 & 3 digit suffix codes started late in the 1969 model year.

I commonly see 2 digit engine and rear codes on Kansas POP's and sometimes I see one each on the same POP. I do not have a lot of them in my database but every one of them after July has a 3 digit code. It does not seem to matter what engine option it has. This particular POP does not look suspect to me.

I've seen lot of mistakes on POPs. Nothing would surprise me.

I looked at a 69 SS 396 375hp Chevelle about a year ago. It was a one-owner car that was being sold as part of an estate. The hand written info on the POP was for the 396 car with correct "hand written" VIN. The POP itself was for a 4-door 69 Chevelle with the OO's correct info on the dymo tape. I'll try to dig up some photos. The car was a low mile #'s matching car, but needed a full resto.

My thought was that the OO may have bought both cars at the same time and the dealer mixed up the POPs.