67 Camaro Engine Identification

[67nuts]

Hey guys,  I am new to the group.  Great resource for all of us Camaro lovers!  Quick question:  I have 67 with a 327/275 engine that is missing the VIN number.  it has the manufacturing date code but no serial #.  I was told that many 67 Camaros came w/out this VIN #.  Is this true?  How can I tell the engine is a #s match?  Date and code seem to be correct; however, I don't know where else to look for the engine ID... Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[bertfam]

Welcome to the site Ramon. With regards to your L30 (327/275), on the 1967 Camaro, generally only the Z28 and SS engines had the partial VIN's stamped. The only real way to validate it's the original engine to your car would be through paperword. Do you have the Protecto-Plate?

Ed

[67nuts]

Thank you Ed.  I look forward to sharing/learning early Camaro facts among members of the group.  As for the Protecto-Plate, I don't have it... The number I read of the block where the engine stamp assembly number and the VIN numer should be is T1123MK. No other number present in that area. If I read this number correctly, it is for a Tonawanda factory assembly, 327ci/275HP "L30", with a 3-speed transmission, manufactured on the 23rd day of November 1966.  The car still has the Saginaw 3-speed tranny and the engine's date is a close match to the manufacturing date (11D ) located in the upper left section of the cowl tag.  FYi... The 4th week of November 1966 went from Sunday, November 20 thru Saturday November 26.

I tried to look underneath the seat and under the seats for additional paperwork on the car but there's nothing there...  I also spoke with the second owner (had it for almost 40 years) and he told me that was the original engine.

The car is a true survivor and is in very nice original shape.  It is a convertible with the mountain green color (HH).  An unmolested car which is a joy to drive!

Any help that can lead me to better understand the reason why the VON # is missing would be very appreciated.

Thank you!

[bertfam]

Ramon, the partial VIN on low and mid performance engines didn't get stamped in 1967. It's wasn't a requirement.

Ed

[67nuts]

Thanks Ed.  Based on the information that I have, is it OK to call this car a matching #s? 

[bertfam]

I'd say "probably", but without documentation, you'll never know for sure.

Ed

[69Z28-RS]

You could certainly that all indications are that it IS the original engine, and you have the statement from the 2nd owner (of 40 yrs) that it was the original engine.   Even though you cannot PROVE that it IS the original engine, it would be more difficult for anyone else to PROVE that it isn't.. 

Based on the evidence you've stated, I'd feel good about it being the original engine.

Gary

[67nuts]

Thank you Gary and Ed for your responses. 

This gets even more interesting...  I forgot to tell you that the engine has a security wire attached between the upper control arm shaft and the exhaust manifold on the passenger side of the engine.  From what I was able to research and please correct me if I am wrong, this 3/8" wire securing the engine to the upper control arm prevents the engine mount to break from the result of excessive torque (i.e. sudden acceleration, engine abuse, etc.).  Someone told me this was offered by GM via dealership a few months after the car was introduced to the market (perhaps some sort of recall from the manufacturer) at a cost of $100.  I have seen this hardness in only one other 67 Camaro V8. 

Is this true?  If so, would this be another clue to suggest that indeed, this is the original engine?  As always, I welcome your wisdom in this matter.

Thank you ,

Ramon.-

[67nuts]

I would love to post a picture of the device... Not sure how to upload pics on this page...

[bertfam]

Yes, in 1971 GM issued a recall because the motor mount could separate, causing the engine to lift on a hard acceleration. This could cause the throttle linkage to stick, resulting in loss of control. The original NHTSA campain number was 71V235000, and the "fix" was to install the cable you have. However, since this was a recall, it didn't cost the owner anything.

Ed

[67nuts]

Great finding Ed.  Do you or anyone else know if this was also an issue back in 1967?  I have seen at least one more 67 Camaro with this bracket/wire... 

[JohnZ]

Great finding Ed.  Do you or anyone else know if this was also an issue back in 1967?  I have seen at least one more 67 Camaro with this bracket/wire...  

That's because the 1971 recall affected V-8 cars back to the early 60's. MILLIONS of V-8 Chevrolets were affected by the recall.

[bertfam]

Here's the complete list of cars (and trucks) affected.

Ed

[KurtS]

I think it was the biggest recall campaign ever at the time.....
People actually install them on their restored cars. It's ugly and it wasn't design intent - it was just the cheapest fix that GM came up with.
Use interlocking engine mounts instead.

[Mike S]

The wheel makes a full revolution.....I installed the original looking BB mounts I bought from LI Corvettes. I figure the days of stomping the gas to the floor are gone for my 'baby' so I'm not going to worry about a mount separating.

Mike