1969 Z28 Trim Tag - Real?

[Speedracer8]

Can anyone help me identify this as a real or reproduction trim tag?  VIN range is N575XXX on this car and best I can tell that range matches this body build.  Partial VIN is stamped on the rough casting near the oil filter, which I think also makes sense for this build.  V1219DZ stamped on the pad.  No further information at this time.

Thanks for the help!

[william]

Tag is ok. I have some old notes on it that indicate the engine & trans may be re-stamped.

[Speedracer8]

Care to share with me?  Maybe you could message me the info?

[william]

That's all I have on it. Someone else took the notes.

[Speedracer8]

Pics of engine stamps.  Any feedback on these?  I don't have the casting date just yet. 

[Speedracer8]

Another

[1968RSZ28]

Here's the eBay listing...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-Chevrolet-Camaro-Z28-/192049998029?vxp=mtr&nma=true&si=Mv4IwmxJq7r4Kao39bXW4MpJaSk%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

VIN: 124379N575944

Paul

[Speedracer8]

The data I'm finding so far seems to match up.  These numbers could be re-stamps, but if they match up to the casting date and assembly stamp, and also the right time frame with the trim tag, is it likely that this is the original stampings?  Or at least likely that the pad was restamped for a decked block?  What else can be done to verify that this is a 302, or that it matches the car?

[z28z11]

Casting numbers/date for the block, heads, trans. Difficult to look for things like crank flange (unique 302 flywheel flange), distributor number and date, exhaust manifolds, single 3/8" fuel line, 4 leaf rear springs, 12 bolt rear code and build date prior to car assembly, driver's side rear bracket for dual exhaust in the wheelhouse frame rail, 2418 non-dripper valve covers, and on and on. Documentation/paperwork would be a plus. Carb is a little early, BTW - could be closer to the engine by a few months in my opinion. Get the seller to give you more details if you have the time -

Regards,
Steve

[69Z28-RS]

I agree with Steve; the carb date is a bit early by a few months (but not impossible I suspect??)..  Personally, I didn't like the engine stamps:

1)  engine pad photo was poor; out of focus thus 'broach marks' are not visible...  When I don't see broach marks, I generally suspects deck and restamp..  doesn't mean that it is.. just suspected.

2)  The VIn on the block was VERY DEEP (not at all consistent with the original stampings I've seen).  It's possible from looking at the photo that the Deep stamping was stamped in OVER the original stamping?

I like the general looks of this car (from the photos); it's tempting to go look at it as it's only about 45 min away from me...  Bryan302 is even closer though.

You definitely should get the block casting number and date, as well as head cast no and dates.. see if all consistent and it matches up.. as well as any other parts you can check.

[Speedracer8]

I'm headed there Friday to check it out.  I think that if the engine cast date and assembly stamp line up, then the date puts the vin location near the oil filter. If that's the case, it's hard to fake unless the vin didn't exist there in the first place.  Maybe someone didn't like how faintly visible the original was?  Or maybe other engines that used the same block didn't have a vin there at all, meaning it is easy to fake?

[jdv69z]

Date on carb is earlier than on my 10B Oct 68 Z. Primary metering block stamped with 2 numbers - 4053 and 5583? No 4053 stamp on mine.

[69Z28-RS]

I'm headed there Friday to check it out.  I think that if the engine cast date and assembly stamp line up, then the date puts the vin location near the oil filter. If that's the case, it's hard to fake unless the vin didn't exist there in the first place.  Maybe someone didn't like how faintly visible the original was?  Or maybe other engines that used the same block didn't have a vin there at all, meaning it is easy to fake?

The original VIN stamps on the 'rough cast' part of the block are so difficult to see, many/most people who look *think* it wasn't stamped.  I pulled my engine and spent HOURS; cleaning the surface, trying different light - even moving it outside in full daylight, etc.. before I eventually picked up a character or two...  once you 'see' one ore more characters, it gets easier to find  (see!) the others.  After that, I spent much more time attempting to get a good photograph... (note:  This was in the 80's after reading an article in a car mag (HRM?, or PHR?) telling of this location for later 69 Camaro VINs.)   I had rebuilt the engine in 1976 without knowing (or seeing the VIN at that location, so it's NOT an easy thing to see.   What seems 'wrong' about the VIN stamping on this block is how obvious/legible it is compared to the many others I've seen...   I'd suggest you spend a little time searching here in CRG or on TC and find threads/photos relating to the VIN on the rough casting; I think if you see the 'typical' stamping, you'll see what I'm talking about...

You'd probably have to remove the alternator to get a decent photo of the engine pad; If you can get enough detail to see the existence of (or lack of) broach marks that would be the best means to determine if the engine is original or not. 

Of course, you know which block casting should be valid for Z28s built in the time frame?

[Speedracer8]

As I understand it there is more than one casting number used and they aren't just for the 302.  So, I guess I have to rely on the casting date and stamps.  Is it possible to see the rear of the crank through the Muncie bellhousing?

[KurtS]

These numbers could be re-stamps, but if they match up to the casting date and assembly stamp, and also the right time frame with the trim tag, is it likely that this is the original stampings? 

You are trying to make the data meet expectations. They can't be original and restamps at the same time.

IMO: Engine is not original. Trans stamp has been modified. Axle is not original to the car.