CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aaberg on July 28, 2022, 07:31:59 AM
-
I have found this Camaro Z28 1969 for sale in Sweden https://www.hemmings.com/listing/1969-chevrolet-camaro-751168 (https://www.hemmings.com/listing/1969-chevrolet-camaro-751168) Noticed that tachometer is redline from 6000 - 8000 rpm what is strange recording to building date. Also then checking with https://www.car.info/en-se/license-plate/S/DGK871 (https://www.car.info/en-se/license-plate/S/DGK871) the car is identified as a SS 350. What do you think? True or false Z28?
-
Block is a restamp, Trim tag has been off and possibly a repo (hard to tell from the photo angle) and possibly the vin has been off as well (but again might be the angle of the photo).
124379N506031
-
Interesting! how can you see all this? Please explain so we can learn more how to detect a fake.
-
Interesting! how can you see all this? Please explain so we can learn more how to detect a fake.
They don't discuss that information. They don't want to educate to people making the fakes.....Joe
-
VIN and TT do not appear to align.
-
VIN and TT do not appear to align.
In what way does VIN and TT not align?
-
In what way does VIN and TT not align?
You said it yourself:
what is strange recording to building date
Look at the trim tag date (10A) then compare that to THIS CHART (http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#HowMany) as to when the car was ACTUALLY built.
But it really doesn't matter since the trim tag is a reproduction and the block is a restamp.
Ed
-
As you wrote, the production number for N is not correct, but matches to L, can there have been any mistake then producing the tag and VIN? Guess it's a long shot but how knows? More likely they wrongly had add a N instead of L in the reproduction during restoration.
-
I don't believe the vin is repo. Hidden vin check to vin tag would be the most accurate way to confirm its correct to the car unless someone did a complete body/tag swap but that's another subject. IMHO no mistake on the car not being a NOR car.
-
124379N506031 was built during a short period of time at Norwood when body tags were mis-stamped 'NBR' rather than 'NOR'. Those tags were also mis-stamped '0A'; should have been '09A'.
IMHO, the repro tag was mis-stamped '10A'.