I know there are a lot of guys on this forum that know a lot more about these cars than I...and I figure it is some to stir up a little controvery...

Has anyone, in all their years of obsessing over 1970 Camaros, ever come across a Norwood built Z28 that DID NOT have an RPO stamp on the trim tag?

Be careful...remember, a commonly used expression in the hobby is never say never...

I figure it is some to stir up a little controvery... why? are you bored or something? or are you fishing for and answer why your cars tt doesn't have the z28 code on it. why not just blame the factory like everyone else that has a car with a problem. its amazing what some people know about gmad plants and have never even stepped foot in one.

I haven't seen a Norwood 70Z without the Z28 on the tag. The cowl tag information was there for the assembly line to assemble the car correctly, so they were very consistent about getting the cowl tag right.
Remember, Chevy never intended the cowl tag to help us identify these cars 40 years later.

why not just blame the factory like everyone else that has a car with a problem.

Lets not be presumptuous...

I find numbers interesting and am wondering if anyone else, who may find them interesting as well, has ever seen a Norwood built 1970 Z28 without an RPO on the trim tag.

The controversial part comes from people, like yourself, who will have the "knee jerk" reaction to dismiss them as "cars with a problem"

So...anyone have any experience in the past with a Norwood built 1970 Z28without an RPO on the trim tag but with documentation or a documented history that can prove it?

The cowl tag information was there for the assembly line to assemble the car correctly, so they were very consistent about getting the cowl tag right.

True, but is is generally accepted that, for whatever the reason, the 1970 RS did not have an RPO on the trim tag...has anyone ever offered a reason for the omission?

How did the line worker know it was an RS?

with the build sheet

there is no real info used on the trim tag that helped the line worker. the worker grabbed the build sheet and read the box for his specific job. there was a body broadcast sheet in the body shop where i worked or build sheet roled up and stuck in the cowl as the car went by and you looked at it and performed the correct procedure . at the end of each station there were 2 inspectors that check the build sheet and then punched it with their own personal punch that stated the car was correct as per the build sheet. lots of inspectors about 2 per 30 jobs. i worked at GMAD Tarrytown between 1980 and 88 when the went to 1 shift and then closed in 92

some of the crew from L to R: Ramon, inspector: pat, spot welder : Scotty(my partner) door header mig welder:Benny, Pats partner and spot welder; AL, lead man; and Jimmy, inspector http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh155/stinsonz/PictureorVideo008.jpg me in the cut off flannel http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh155/stinsonz/PictureorVideo005-1.jpg so its not a "knee jerk reaction" what ever that means , it just a guy who's sick of people thinking they have it all figured out when they really don't

We've gone down this road before, recently with the "Is it an LS-3?" I'll state my position....while nothing is impossible....it is highly improbable, to the fraction of a percentage, that a Norwood car escaped multiple inspections and escaped with an incorrect Body tag. As previously discussed with the LS3 car..the owner had to really reach to make case, resorting to possiblities of phase-ins of trim tag protocols, cars sitting on the line to account for build-date discrepencies etc...I feel that the simplest explanation is usually the most reasonable. Having looked at dozens and dozens of Z's over the last 25 yrs..I've not ever seen a tag incorrect in denoting the presence of a Z/28 or LS3. RS cars were not denoted on the body tag because it is a trim option, not a performance option, and available on all the cars, whereas performance options were limited to specific cars.

So lets assume for sake of argument that a single Norwood Z/28 escaped without its trim tag stamped. Nobody cared about trim tags untill recently when more Z/28 are registered than were made by GM, which obviously shows that there are more fakes than real-deal cars. So do some math. 1970 Z's represent about 7.8% of all V-8 production. About 8300 cars. If we assume the car with the odd-ball tag IS a real Z, the chance of this happening is .0012% ( 12 1-thousandths) of 1 percent. Not quite astronomically improbabable. If we assume the car is a V-8 car, this chance drops to .0009% or 9 ten-thousandths of 1 percent. That is borderline impossible to me. Now, use the rule that after 10 years, only 10% of a given car is still on the road. But because Z/s are collected, lets bump that to 30% of the original production is still around. The chance that a car missed it's date with the trim tag stamping machine, all the inspections, got sold and lived to see the present day is about .0004%, ( 4-tenthousandths of 1 percent). The stretch is unrealistic and so highly improbabaly that I wouldn't risk a single dollar on the bet it exists today.

What's MORE probabale, that the car is the .0004% survivor, or it was a base V-8 car that was merged/cloned/copied over the past 40 yrs as so many THOUSANDS have been. This is a magnitude more probabable. Hell, I can get a trim tag for $400 that will say anything I want it to say. So, sorry, I go with the it-NEVER-happened crowd.

RS cars were not denoted on the body tag because it is a trim option, not a performance option, and available on all the cars, whereas performance options were limited to specific cars.

But didn't the RS cars after 1970 have an RPO Z22 on their tags?

I am definately not claiming to know anything about what was done on the line at Norwood...

I am merely posing a question, which I can know break into two:

1) Is anyone aware of a 1970 Norwood built Z28 without an RPO on the trim tag but a broadcast sheet exists to verfiy its pedigree?

2) Is anyone aware of a 1970 Norwood built Z28 without an RPO on the trim tag but an original owner and/or other documentation exists to verfiy its pedigree?

But didn't the RS cars after 1970 have an RPO Z22 on their tags?



Z22 didn't appear on the cowl tag any of the 70-73 years. RS has to be verified by the presence of the RS parts or a build sheet.
As Madmike once posted here. If the car has a RS nose and all the correct RS parts, it can be assumed to be an RS.
Whether it started life that way is impossible to tell without a build sheet, and even then, the authenticity of the build sheet can be questioned.

if there is/was one its probably long gone. what are the chances? even if there is one, so what? it really would'nt make it anything more than an oddity, at best., instead of a thread about what is'nt why not one about what is. IE: what are the rarest, lowest production camaro'? or what known trim tag slip ups have been documented? how many big block 2nd gens are known to exist?

I thought the RS cars had RPOs on the trim tag after 1970...so why do the reference guides on these cars specify 1970 as though it was the only year not to be tagged for RPO Z22?

even if there is one, so what? it really would'nt make it anything more than an oddity, at best., instead of a thread about what is'nt why not one about what is. IE: what are the rarest, lowest production camaro'? or what known trim tag slip ups have been documented? how many big block 2nd gens are known to exist?

If the question of whether or not an untagged Norwood built 1970 Z28 exists does not interest you then you are reading the wrong thread.

A thread on documented big block 2nd gens would interest me a whole lot... but this ain't it...

This thread is not just a hypothetical...the thread is to pick the brains of some very knowledgable Camaro enthusiasts who have followed these cars for a lot longer than I to see if any had personal knolwedge, or read any article in any publications, documenting one of these "oddity"s.

So...has anyone ever heard or seen anything more than mere speculation? If I knew how to use the "Poll" feature I would have taken a poll.:o

Here's my take:
An RPO is a regular production option. Relates to Chevrolet (or pontiac) motor division.
The trim tag, is for FISHER BODY. They could care less about RPO's, chevy vs. pontiac, etc... they're assembling BODYS - that'll become camaros and firebirds.

They need to know the stuff fisher body needs to know to correctly provide the body to the various line(s). Like what color trim to stick in the car, what color it's getting painted - and.... how/where to punch holes.

Here's an example I just thought up. The Z28 has a fancy/special throttle pedal. Regular camaros don't. So if I'm building what'll be a Z28, it needs to have holes punched in the floor to accomodate the bracket that'll hold the pedal. I may not realize what I'm doing or why, but I know since this thing is marked "28" or whatever - some holes get punched on the floor for some reason.

I also know the firewall won't ever accomodate A/C.
I also know the car may get a muncie (vs. saginaw) so any holes in the floor for speedometer cables, instrumentation, etc... will be punched. Or not punched.

Same thing with the LS3, etc... I as fisher body could care less if the thing is getting a 396 or 250 or whatever... but I need to provide the car to accept this equipment later down the road. Obviously, something on the body itself is unique when a big block will be present. ding ding ding... if I'm painting the car - psst... the back panel is blacked out on this thing. there's why that's marked.

Prior to 1970, the RS is coded on the trim tag I BELIEVE - cause the rocker panel and/or rocker trim was unique. So fisher body needed to know to paint the bottom of the rocker panel black, and/or punch some holes to accomodate rocker molding, etc... that was standard on a vehicle with the RS option.

Apparently, the RS option in 1970 didn't require fisher body to do anything different from a regular camaro. So it wasn't coded.

Then again, when it becomes a paint & tape package, it IS coded - obviously because fisher body is painting it. They need to know that stuff prior to chevy getting their hands on it.

Getting back to the question at hand, using my example: Lets say your potential Z was "accidentally" not marked as a Z on the trim tag. Therefore, you probably won't have the floor mounted throttle. Therefore, without a build sheet PROVING the car was ordered with the Z28 RPO, you'll probably be holding your sack when it comes time to "prove" you got a Z. And your paperwork might be called into question as well.

But didn't the RS cars after 1970 have an RPO Z22 on their tags?

I am definately not claiming to know anything about what was done on the line at Norwood...

I am merely posing a question, which I can know break into two:

1) Is anyone aware of a 1970 Norwood built Z28 without an RPO on the trim tag but a broadcast sheet exists to verfiy its pedigree?

2) Is anyone aware of a 1970 Norwood built Z28 without an RPO on the trim tag but an original owner and/or other documentation exists to verfiy its pedigree?

1. no

2. no

...
Prior to 1970, the RS is coded on the trim tag I BELIEVE - cause the rocker panel and/or rocker trim was unique. So fisher body needed to know to paint the bottom of the rocker panel black, and/or punch some holes to accomodate rocker molding, etc... that was standard on a vehicle with the RS option.

Apparently, the RS option in 1970 didn't require fisher body to do anything different from a regular camaro. So it wasn't coded.

...
RS - as a stand alone option - was not coded on the trim tag in 1969. The codes for base car, SS350, SS396 or Z/28 incorporate a trim code as well for either Z21 or Z22 but there is no differentiation between the two (i.e. An X33 code denotes a Z/28 with either Z21 or Z22 while an X77 code denotes a Z/28 with base trim).

1st gen RS cars have an extra bracket on the inside of the front of the fender and cut outs on the rear lower valence for the back up lights. Plus, as you suggest, a few extra piercings in the fire wall.

'68 trim tags tell us nothing about the car.

'67 calls out Z22 or Z21. The number 3 position with either a "K" for Z21 or an "L" for Z22

you probably would get the floor mounted gas pedal without z 28 on the tt. we were told to look at the body broadcast sheet for info pertaining to different jobs to be preformed. what did they do in van nuys where nothing was marked on theTT? at Tarrytown in the 70s and 80s we ran 10 different models with a multitude of trim packages. the citation , 2 and 4 door hatch and notch, Phoenix the same configurations and the skylark ( no hatch on the skylark). all with different seat mountings (bench and bucket) and trim which required different nelson stud applications. the 8 years and hundreds of thousands cars i helped build when i worked there i NEVER looked at a trim tag always the broadcast sheet. the bs was thrown out at the end of the body line as the car was carefully cleaned washed and dried in a oven to ready it for the ELPO primer tank

and the input from a former line worker invaluable...judging from the number of previous posts some heavy hitters have weighed in on the subject, so obviously some have interest in the topic...there are still one or two I hope chime in on the subject...

I am going to lay out my case for a Norwood built Z28 without an RPO on the trim tag and I want your honest opinions... that is the point of this academic excercise...I am not trying to sell a car...I am trying to figure out if the car is legit and if I miss anything please let me know...be brutally honest and play the devils advocate...

Lets start with the basics...a Norwood built car with 04B on the trim tag so that is about the 6th week of production?

The car has all the Z28 specific items you would expect; gas pedal, gauge cluster, aluminum spacer under lower A frame bumper (saw that referenced in an ebay listing...is that really a Z28 specific item?) rear sway bar, 5 leaf springs, staggered shocks...should I be looking for anything else?

OK, so I have made my case for an accurate clone at first glance...lets look at the powertrain numbers I have gotten off the car so far...

Engine Block Casting # 3970010 1970 HiPo Casting
Casting Date: C 190 = March 19, 1970
Pad Stamping: V 0402 CTC = April 2 CTC = Auto

Intake Casting# 3972110
Casting Date: M9 or K 9 = Dec. or Oct. 1969

Differential Casting# 3969341NF = 1 year only Z28 casting
Casting Date: C120 = Mar. 12, 1970
Axle tube stamp not visible…can only see an E

I have to get back under the car to verify the trans numbers...and I can not locate a vin on the block, although it might be easier if I removed the headers...

OK, so if I check and the trans numbers are consistent all that means is some one had an entire donor Z28, with a matching build date to the stamp on this car, and pirated the powertrain, right? Strange that they would not also take the trim tag from the donor Z28 as well but anything is possible...

Now, before I get into the cars history and paperwork (obviously I do not have a BS) is there anything else I should be checking on the car? What are the things most guys miss when cloning a 1970 Z28?

Did you pull out the back seat looking for the build sheet?

04b would be about the 4 month of production not the 4 week ( probably just a typo on your part) aluminum spacer is a z28 only thing supposedly for the 15 inch tires would bottom out inside the fender well during extreme driving. no other camaros came with 15 inch tires. everything seems correct . what size radiator support opening do you have 21 inch or 26 , you should have 26 for the hd cooling system. 3/8 fuel line all the way from the tank. check your vin with the z 28 data base here and see if it fits numerically for the last week in april. if worst comes to worst then check the hidden vin under the blower motor and see how that fits. I'm not sure of the aluminum heat Shields but my 73 has exhaust heat Shields on both sides I'm not sure of a 70 though

from the data base to should have a vin ( on the dash NOT the trin tag) of somewhere in between a 04c of 17836 and a 04e ( there was actualy 5 week in april that year) of 19820.....http://www.camaro2ndgenerationregistry.net/1970-registry.php

04b would be about the 4 month of production not the 4 week ( probably just a typo on your part)

I thought 04B would be the second week in April and productrion started the last week in Februrary 1970?

I did not think to check the vins...thats great...there are two 04Bs on that list at 25523 and 26746. My
04B is 26731 so that appears to make sense.

The interior is gutted and no BS....

I will check radiator opening and fuel line as that is something the average guy might miss...

Keep it coming...

duh , my mistake! but production started in january. in the dats base there are a few 01 cars

what size radiator support opening do you have 21 inch or 26 , you should have 26 for the hd cooling system. 3/8 fuel line all the way from the tank.

I have the 3/8 fuel line and 26 inch radiator, but the core support opening is 21 inches...

Reading another post I just realized something...should this car have a tank sticker? A broadcast sheet glued on top of gas tank?

I am not sure the tank has ever been down and will have to try if it should be there...did they all have them?

Another z28 only item is the rear fangs.

unlikely for the build sheet under the tank as its a norwood car. build sheets are rare on norwood cars, but not impossible. that 21 inch opening is not good. check for dual exhaust hangers also

The car in question is it a restored car or an original, Two area's I would look at would be front spring tags, Z28 had stiffer springs, also the engine wiring harness would be setup for the smog, since only the Z28 had emissions over a base model.

check for dual exhaust hangers also

Where? What exactly am I looking for? Any photos available on this forum?

I found a tag riveted to the pass. side of trans...its hard to see but looks like this:

447
*
70-CW- 2934

That * is the location of the rivit which is actually centered with the "70-"...etc starting in the left (rear)corner of bottom of tag with a space after the "CW" and the "2934" in opposite corner...the "447" slightly above the rivit and towards the front of the tag...anyone know what it all means? I forgot to check for a vin...duh...

And the rear bumper has the fangs, if that is what you meant...

The car in question is it a restored car or an original, Two area's I would look at would be front spring tags, Z28 had stiffer springs, also the engine wiring harness would be setup for the smog, since only the Z28 had emissions over a base model.

The frame is unrestored but with 80K+ on the clock and NY winters its not likely any paper tag survived...

What would be different about the electrical harness for smog?

The TCS wiring on the passenger side toward the back of the cylinder head.

CW is the correct trans for a 70 M40

447 puts the trans in March 3rd week or so

CW is the correct trans for a 70 M40 447 puts the trans in March 3rd week or so

M40? Is that the RPO for TH 400? So the trans code and build date are consistent with a 1970 Z28 built 2nd week in April?

According to this site, I thought the correct code was CK?

What does TCS stand for? There is no smog currently on the car so I am looking for a plug thats not in use coming off the engine harness at rear of passenger side cylinder head?

The CK is the engine code with the trans.

M40 Transmission, Turbo Hydra-Matic automatic

For the year 1970:
*TH400 CY Trans. was coded for the LS6 Chevelle,& Corvette LS5.
Higher-shift point and stronger bands & springs.I believe a thicker shaft as well?
*TH400 CW Trans. was coded for the L78 Chevelle-Nova-Camaro,& LT-1 Camaro Z28-Nova(Yenko Deuce).
*TH400 CR & CS Trans. was coded for the LS5 Chevelle-Monte Carlo,& Corvette w/Transitorizied Ignition.
*TH400 CF Trans. was coded for the L34 Chevelle-Camaro-Nova.
*TH400 CK Trans. was coded for the 300HP 350cid Corvette.

*TH400 CW Trans. was coded for the L78 Chevelle-Nova-Camaro,& LT-1 Camaro Z28-Nova(Yenko Deuce).

So it would appear that the entire powertrain...block, trans and diff...are the correct castings and the casting dates pre-date the vehicles assembly date of mid April and are consistent.

With the exception of the 26" inch opening in the radiator support (I do have the 26" radiator) all of the Z28 specific items are present...I have to check for the presence of the green wire in the engine harness for the TCP plug...

Now this is where it gets interesting. In addition to old registrations going back to the mid 80s I was provided with copies of some paperwork with the car. Here is the retail order for the car...check out the trade in!
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o93/GregM06/CamaroRetailOrder.jpg
Note that the car was not sold until late Sept. 1970...did a new bodied Z28 sit unwanted on the dealer lot for 5 months? Nope, thats not what happened...check out the invoice...
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o93/GregM06/CamaroInvoice.jpg
The car was a "Company Car" and sold with 4380 miles on it as a used car... it indicates that the car was "licensed" and "put into service" on 5/5/70 so that ls when the warranty began. What exactly does that mean?

Originally I thought it was a dealer demo and kept around the lot to show off the new Camaro. But they would not have "licensed" the car...just kept it around on a dealer plate. It is more likely the car was ordered internally and used by Chevrolet for a while before being sent to the dealer to move the car when he was done. But why license it? A GM executive's driver for a while?

Anyone have any experience with "Company Cars" in the past? Does my theory make sense?

With the paper work you have their, I woud question if the car was a z28 if the 2 vins match.

The only thing that matches the 2 peices of paper is the stock number 878.

With the paper work you have their, I woud question if the car was a z28 if the 2 vins match. The only thing that matches the 2 peices of paper is the stock number 878.

The VIN is on the invoice and stock number on both...the dealer, buyer, description, dates, all correspond to the same transaction...

I think its fair to say both documents apply to the same car...the real questions are a) are the copies (not originals) legit and b) if so, do I own the same car referenced in the documents? :confused:

I wonder why someone would pay that kind of money for a "use car" or even a program car, that looks like it was every bit of full price ?????

:screwup:

I wonder why someone would pay that kind of money for a "use car" or even a program car, that looks like it was every bit of full price ?????

:screwup:


just like when the 82's came out

and when the 93's came out

a friend that works at the GM Proving Grounds in MI bought one from a small dealer in OH then sold it to a dealer 6 months later for MORE than what he paid for it
(all new cars like that can't be bought internally through the GM program, they want the cars to get to the consumers)

and now with the 10's, people pay more money to get the "new" car, used or not

A LOT of 10's were flipped and sold as used with no miles on them because dealers would buy them low and sell them higher, not really driving them

the car can't be sold as new, so it is sold as used

Look around today for a 10 Camaro and see how many out there are "used" already ...

my 70 Z28 was bought by an employee at the GM Proving Grounds in Mesa and he had to scour the local dealers for a car as he couldn't get one through GM, same story about getting consumers in the cars and not employees

I see your point Jim, still seems strange, I thought camaro sales were starting to slow in 70, I'm not sure though.

I wonder why someone would pay that kind of money for a "use car" or even a program car, that looks like it was every bit of full price ?????:screwup:

What would an RS Z28 with TH 400, deluxe interior and decor package (? I have woodgrain on console, gauge cluster, steering wheell and door panels) plus 4:11 diff sticker for new?

What does TCS stand for? There is no smog currently on the car so I am looking for a plug thats not in use coming off the engine harness at rear of passenger side cylinder head?

Yes....here's one at the end of the green wire. It's a two prong plug.
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL18/594411/9473717/340725369.jpg

One thing I see here is this. Look at the 1st document. The Z28 is clearly written in a different handwriting. Larger, more vertical and open than the hand that wrote the rest. The 2 is completely different. I say that Z28 notation was added after-the fact.

Give the dealer a call, maybe they kept some records. Their number is: 585-586-7373

One thing I see here is this. Look at the 1st document. The Z28 is clearly written in a different handwriting. Larger, more vertical and open than the hand that wrote the rest. The 2 is completely different. I say that Z28 notation was added after-the fact.

Look at the frist doc. were it says body type the 2 is the same.

when i worked at gm there was a procedure for buying cars from gm ( employee discount) . there was "option 1" which was find a car at a local (50 miles from the plant) dealer, negotiate a price and receive 20 percent off the negotiated price. then there was "option 2" which was order any new car and receive 18 percent off the base price and 18 percent off the options. BUT you had to keep the car for 6 months as the price could be and was likely less than the dealer paid. i purchased a 86 olds 442 fully loaded with a sticker of 16,500 and i got it for 13,282 under "option 2". there were also "corporate cars " that were advertised in the weekly plant news letter "the beacon bulletin" that could have anywhere from a few hundred miles on them to 1000 . these cars were real cheap. there was a little know thing in the plant called a car evaluation where you took a brand new car home and put up to 75 miles on it and you went to the big room ( end of the line) to evaluate the car the next day. they had a real problem with the 75 mile thing as it was still concidered NEW and could be sold as new with up to 75 miles. i took home a 86 Buick century with a 4 cylinder, plastic on the door pannels and seats and everything and it had the weirdest dark brown, light tan vinyl roof combo Ive ever seen.

One thing I see here is this. Look at the 1st document. The Z28 is clearly written in a different handwriting. Larger, more vertical and open than the hand that wrote the rest. The 2 is completely different. I say that Z28 notation was added after-the fact.

Give the dealer a call, maybe they kept some records. Their number is: 585-586-7373
I'm no handwriting expert and I'm not saying you're wrong about the "Z28" being added (of course I'm not saying your right either;)) but the "2" is written differently almost every single time on that document - look at the added column of fees. I mean, the first figure of "4652.25" has adjacent "2"s written differently.

wow! I have this same problem but only mine is a 71'!

I'm no handwriting expert and I'm not saying you're wrong about the "Z28" being added (of course I'm not saying your right either;)) but the "2" is written differently almost every single time on that document - look at the added column of fees. I mean, the first figure of "4652.25" has adjacent "2"s written differently.

I was waiting for some keen eyes to disect the documentation...in fact after I purchased the car and became more acquanted with Norwood Z28s and thier trim tags I began to question the copies I was provided...especially because of that "Z" you referenced, which almost looks like it was written over...after all, you can get very creative with copies...white out...recopy...write in...recopy...and presto: instant documentation. That was the first point I made in my eariler post on the documents: how do I know the copies are legit?

First of all, the documents were prepared on different days so it would stand to reason the hand writing from one to the other might vary. But that pesky "Z"...I called Hostleton and spoke to the only "old timer" left and he did not remember the car. The salesman is long retired and I am still going to try to find him to see if he can shed some light on the circumstance surrounding the "Company Car" designation.

But what about the original owner? If the paper was real but the car was altered he would be able to verify that fact...kind of risky for me, though, as it could burst my bubble if I found him and he said he bought a Biscayne instead...

Well guess what? I found him and he gave me a notorized affidavit...
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o93/GregM06/CamaroAffidavitII.jpg

I prepared the affidavit and furnished the reference to a "demo" which, in hindsight, may or may not be accurate...he did not know how the car had been used before his purchase. He was not a "car guy" at all but could describe the car he purchased and drove off that lot as a Z28 and also identified the docuementation as accurate copies of the originals...

So, there seems to be little question that the documentation is in fact correct and that the car depicted in the documentation actually existed...but how do I know it is the same car I currently own?

I mean the VINs match, of course...but if some one "rebodied" the car, due to rust or a wreck, and the VIN, powertain and all Z28 specific components were pirated and installed on a donor shell, why not take the Z28s trim tag also?

And did they get lucky enough to find a donor shell with an existing trim tag with matching paint, trim and build date of 04B consistent with the rusted or wrecked Z28?

wow! I have this same problem but only mine is a 71'!

Norwood built but no stamp on tag? Do you also have some paperwork?

I was waiting for some keen eyes to disect the documentation...in fact after I purchased the car and became more acquanted with Norwood Z28s and thier trim tags I began to question the copies I was provided...especially because of that "Z" you referenced, which almost looks like it was written over...after all, you can get very creative with copies...white out...recopy...write in...recopy...and presto: instant documentation. That was the first point I made in my eariler post on the documents: how do I know the copies are legit?

First of all, the documents were prepared on different days so it would stand to reason the hand writing from one to the other might vary. But that pesky "Z"...I called Hostleton and spoke to the only "old timer" left and he did not remember the car. The salesman is long retired and I am still going to try to find him to see if he can shed some light on the circumstance surrounding the "Company Car" designation.

But what about the original owner? If the paper was real but the car was altered he would be able to verify that fact...kind of risky for me, though, as it could burst my bubble if I found him and he said he bought a Biscayne instead...

Well guess what? I found him and he gave me a notorized affidavit...
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o93/GregM06/CamaroAffidavitII.jpg

I prepared the affidavit and furnished the reference to a "demo" which, in hindsight, may or may not be accurate...he did not know how the car had been used before his purchase. He was not a "car guy" at all but could describe the car he purchased and drove off that lot as a Z28 and also identified the docuementation as accurate copies of the originals...

So, there seems to be little question that the documentation is in fact correct and that the car depicted in the documentation actually existed...but how do I know it is the same car I currently own?

I mean the VINs match, of course...but if some one "rebodied" the car, due to rust or a wreck, and the VIN, powertain and all Z28 specific components were pirated and installed on a donor shell, why not take the Z28s trim tag also?

And did they get lucky enough to find a donor shell with an existing trim tag with matching paint, trim and build date of 04B consistent with the rusted or wrecked Z28?
2006?

If you want to know if it is rebodied or not. Then check the hidden VIN under the heater box where the blower motor is and see if it matches the VIN.

One thing I see here is this. Look at the 1st document. The Z28 is clearly written in a different handwriting. Larger, more vertical and open than the hand that wrote the rest. The 2 is completely different. I say that Z28 notation was added after-the fact.

Give the dealer a call, maybe they kept some records. Their number is: 585-586-7373

You know, that's an interesting point. At first I looked and thought that it was the same handwriting but now I'm not so sure. And it definitely could have been done after the fact.

It ties in with what I noticed earlier. Unless I'm missing something, nowhere does the second typed invoice document say Z28. It refers to the car as a "2Dr." for two door. It would be a little harder to tamper with a typed document as opposed to a handwritten one wouldn't it? Now look at the first hand written doc and imagine that someone fudged a 2 into a Z. The next number 2 looks kind of funky as well almost like someone wrote over something else. It has that strange loop at the top and it almost looks like it was originally a straight line and someone curved it into a two. Although, I can't get Dr. out of 28 no matter how hard I look at it. A decent white out job could have looked better and raised less suspicion, so who knows.

Without the original docs it's all speculation anyway. And the car being an anomily not having Z28 called out on the trim tag is always going to be suspect without iron clad docs.

The biggest questionable thing to me is that the invoice does not call out the car as a Z28. Isn't that a blatent omission of a fairly significant characteristic of the car?

Yes....here's one at the end of the green wire. It's a two prong plug.
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL18/594411/9473717/340725369.jpg
This is smog? I thought it was an engine temp sensor?

How come the statement is dated 2006 and the notary is 2009??? The reason for the notary is to document and witness the signature and verify the signer is who they say they are. I would think the date thing would have been questioned or corrected. Also the Notary's signature seems to be very sloppy and spelled differently than the spelling on the notary stamp???????????????

:eek:

Why dont you post all the docs for review and see where it goes. Lay the cards on the table, Picks, docs and see what you get, or maybe there are selective things you dont want to show???

This is smog? I thought it was an engine temp sensor?

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj121/70COPORSZ28/TCSpg1AssMan.jpg

Did you say you had the protect-o-plate?

Did you look under the gas tank for a build sheet? Although if this is a fake Z-28, there could be a fake one there.

The only reason I am 99% certain my car is an original Z-28 is because of a combination of things.

One is the fact I bought it a year and a half after it was sold.
Two is the protect-o-plate that shows the correct engine number for a Z-28 engine.
Three is the 'other' documentation that went with a Z-28.
Four is the Norwood Plate that has 28 19 in it.

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj121/70COPORSZ28/TCSpg1AssMan.jpg
Been so long since I looked, I forgot some things...thanks.

How come the statement is dated 2006 and the notary is 2009???

Now there's another good point! That prompted me to compare the signature on the signed owner statement to the original docs. There are definite discrepancies in the writing styles. I'm in no way a signature verification expert but you can plainly see differences. Just look at the way the initial J is scripted. Could the guy have changed the way he signs over a 25 year period? Sure, I suppose he could. But again, the date discrepancy only casts more doubt over the validity of the documents.

So, basically even if you to have a one of ??? (one... none) Norwood Z28 with no trim tag designation (or build sheet), the docs are so screwed up you can never prove your position that it is real. Unless of course more substantial evidence materializes.

Do you have a title? Where was it first registered? Do you know who owned it since the first guy?

Without the original docs it's all speculation anyway. And the car being an anomily not having Z28 called out on the trim tag is always going to be suspect without iron clad docs.

The biggest questionable thing to me is that the invoice does not call out the car as a Z28.

Z28 is an RPO and not a model...would an invoice call a Judge a Judge and not a GTO?

As for the copies of the documents, they have been verifed as acccurate by the original owner so why is their accuracy speculative? He was no car guy but could certainly see the stripes and emblems on the car that he drove off the lot. That affidavit would hold up in court...and it was signed and notarized as indicated in 2006...the notaries commision expired in 2009.

I understand there will always be doubters despite the documentation...but viewed along with the affidavit, the cars powertrain and Z28 components, its makes a strong case...

The 2009 date is when her commission expires.Not when the doc was done.

Now there's another good point! That prompted me to compare the signature on the signed owner statement to the original docs. There are definite discrepancies in the writing styles.

Your kidding, right? The guy is now in his 70s...of course his signature may have changed somwehat from 40 years ago! I am 48 and my signature is unrecognizable from that in my 20s...I recently had to resign signature cards at my bank!

I already addressed the notaries commissions expiraton date in an earleir post...dated, signed and notarized in 2006.

And the saga continues- stay tuned for more to come!
This is getting good! I love it.
Oh ya one more thing, My signature isn't exactly the same everytime I sign it, much less the same as 25 years ago!

the docs are so screwed up you can never prove your position that it is real.

I opened this up to debate and I expected the debate to be spirited...

But you come on a little strong for someone who can't even read the date on an affidavit...

This is getting good! I love it.

The purpose of this thread is not to prove the car is a real Z28 or a 1 of anything...just laying out the facts as they are known on this particular car...I think it make for interesting reading for an enthusiast...

I always say that every car has a story to tell...you just have to be listening...

Do you have a title? Where was it first registered? Do you know who owned it since the first guy?
Hello again...do you know about this? ^^^

Do you have a title? Where was it first registered? Do you know who owned it since the first guy?

From the time it rolled off the lot with the original owner...I have spoke to all but 2 owners...

I never considered the "Company Car" period from 5/5/70 until sold as the original owner...I am still running down leads on that and hope to locate the salesman or someone who may know about the cars original use...

I do not have a POP and was not aware of the possibility of a BS on gas tank until I read it in another thread...even though I have been told its not likely on a Norwood car I am going to check this weekend...

The 2009 date is when her commission expires.Not when the doc was done.

My mistake :screwup:

I guess I wonder why? Why is this conversation taking part in bits and pieces, it seems like the intent is to direct the thread such that it can be used to authenticate the car as a Z, and I can understand why, but unless I'm missing something the only thing we can really rely on is that the tag does not contain the proper markings to designate z28. It gotta be frustrating but until the car is reviewed in total the bits and pieces only create a cloud around it.

I would suggest taking it to Carlisle and lay it out. Let the experts go through it and settle it, let the chips fall where they may.

Just my opinion....

I opened this up to debate and I expected the debate to be spirited...

But you come on a little strong for someone who can't even read the date on an affidavit...

I read the date just fine... or I wouldn't have known it said 2009... just misinterpreted what it meant.

And yeah, I probably deserved a kick in the sack for that.

From the time it rolled off the lot with the original owner...I have spoke to all but 2 owners...

I never considered the "Company Car" period from 5/5/70 until sold as the original owner...I am still running down leads on that and hope to locate the salesman or someone who may know about the cars original use...

I do not have a POP and was not aware of the possibility of a BS on gas tank until I read it in another thread...even though I have been told its not likely on a Norwood car I am going to check this weekend...
The reason I mentioned this is the Monroe County clerk may have copies of the transactions; maybe they can shed light on the vehicle configuration as sold.

Z28 is an RPO and not a model...would an invoice call a Judge a Judge and not a GTO?

I'm not sure in this case, but the pontiac line does dicate what the car is. Even though we know the are firebirds, pontiac sees these as different cars firebird, esprite,formula and trans am. So the exp. you gave might be a mute point.

Why is this conversation taking part in bits and pieces, it seems like the intent is to direct the thread such that it can be used to authenticate the car as a Z, and I can understand why, but unless I'm missing something the only thing we can really rely on is that the tag does not contain the proper markings to designate z28. I

I would suggest taking it to Carlisle and lay it out. Let the experts go through it and settle it, let the chips fall where they may.

I am laying out what is known of the car in fragments...first the numbers, then the documentation, etc... I felt one lengthy post would be way too much to read and digest...I figured I would get opinions on each aspect as it developed, which I have...I have actually learned quite a bit and am going to check this weekend for the TCP plug and the top of the tank...

Without a BS all we can do is take stock of what is on the car (#s) weigh them in light of the documentation, taking into the account the original owners affidavit, and have an opinion as to likelhood...there is no smoking gun...unless I find something on the tank this weekend...but what fun would that be? :)

I would assume you mean the all GM at Carlisle? That gives me incentive to get the car back together before that date...it is undergoing a cosmetic restoratrion and I am putting it pack together now...I would love to as I am as curious as anyone...

The reason I mentioned this is the Monroe County clerk may have copies of the transactions; maybe they can shed light on the vehicle configuration as sold.

An automobile transaction dating back nearly 40 years? Maybe it is worth a shot...

And yeah, I probably deserved a kick in the sack for that.

No foul...

Not to step on anyone,really,but I think we all know where this ends.And whatever youre trying for,good luck.I mean really,if theres this many open ends..................

I want to see the Hidden VIN. That at least tells the tale of a possible rebody. The case for the car is pretty strong. Not perfect, but not terrible, either. Lots of if's, maybe's. But the Affadavit is solid enough for me. It would take a huge set of balls to forge that. Having once been a NY State Notary, I can tell you this, NY takes the role of a Notary very seriously, far moreso than here in NJ where almost any idiot can get the license. In NY, the penalty for forging anything having to do with a Notary License is a major bad. So I go back to my original premise, that the most likely scenario is usually the simplest, and at this point it strikes me that the simplest explanation is that it has a screwy Trim tag and the wrong rad support. I think that anyone cloning a Z to the degree that this one would be, down to proper date codes, would not have overlooked the Tag and would have just bought one off Ebay. I like the idea of letting the Judges at Carlisle go over it, let them endorse it or not. But being the skeptic I am , I lean towrds it's probabally a real Z with a slightly troubled pedigree, which unless it's a major restoration, isn't going to affect it's potential resale or marketability much. I'd still really like to see the hidden VIN.

An automobile transaction dating back nearly 40 years? Maybe it is worth a shot...
Their data go back into the early 70's.

One other thing, exactly what documentation is in the glove box or came with the car?

The case for the car is pretty strong. Not perfect, but not terrible, either. Lots of if's, maybe's. But the Affadavit is solid enough for me. So I go back to my original premise, that the most likely scenario is usually the simplest, and at this point it strikes me that the simplest explanation is that it has a screwy Trim tag and the wrong rad support.

That is exactly my point...when its all added together its a strong case...not perfect...perfect would be a build sheet...probably carry the civil burdon of "by a preponderance of the evidence" but not sure about the criminal burdon of "beyond a reasonable doubt". That jury is still out. :confused:

As a side note, the original owner is an attorney, agreed to sign the affidavit although having no interest to do so and signed in the presence of a notary in his office...without his affidavit the authenticity of the copies of the documentation would clearly be in question for all the reasons mentioned earlier; with the affidavit it is not...

I do not think that is just my opinion...it would appear the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the facts...he identifies the documents as accurate copies and that the car he drove off the lot had stripes and Z28 emblems...the fact that the clerk at the dealership who typed the invoice identified the car by model, vin, stock # and color but failed to write Z28 on the invoice does not change that fact...those are the documents; that is his signature on the documents; the car he left the lot with was a Z28. I am not sure how a different conclusion can be drawn...

I want to see the Hidden VIN. That at least tells the tale of a possible rebody.

Ok, so where exactly is this vin? The inner fender wells have not gone back on the car yet so it would be easy to remove the blower motor...the number is stamped under the blower motor, on the firewall or cowl? Anyone got a picture of what I am looking for?

On the issue of potential rebody, here is the last piece to the puzzle: the original owner had the car Ziebert (remember them) coated in 12/70 in anticipation of driving the car in Rochester, NY winters....and before any one cries foul that is the dealers signature on the certificate and not the owners...
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o93/GregM06/CamaroZiebart.jpg
Guess what? When I stripped the car prior to paint I found the holes that were drilled for treatment are still present in the rocker jamb area and I even removed one of the vintage yellow Ziebert caps they used to plug the holes after the treatment. (as a side note I can say it worked as the rockers are solid) The fenders were replaced and quarters had some work done to them when the car had paint done by the 4th owner in the late 1980s so I am not sure any evidence exists there...

So the only question remains whether it is the same car depicted in the documentation...the Ziebert holes make a "pretty strong" case but I am pulling the blower motor this weekend and will check the top of the gas tank...

One other thing, exactly what documentation is in the glove box or came with the car?

I did not get an owners manual or POP if that is what you mean...

I am going to call the Monroe County Clerk on Monday and inquire...got nothing to lose...I love running back history...

Hidden vin is usually stamped in the 7 or 8 oclock position around the hole for the blower motor,outside in engine bay.Removal of heater cover is necessary.Can be viewed with a flashlight with fender on,if inner fenderwell is off as you say.

I put a picture in this link:

http://www.nastyz28.com/forum/showthread.php?t=171142&highlight=VIN

I did not get an owners manual or POP if that is what you mean...

I am going to call the Monroe County Clerk on Monday and inquire...got nothing to lose...I love running back history...
You can inquire online; I did last night:
http://www.monroe.ny.us.landata.com/

The documentation I mean is any papers put in by the dealer, tire load document, etc.

You can inquire online; I did last night:The documentation I mean is any papers put in by the dealer, tire load document, etc.

I wish I did not have to remove the heater box though...damn...what about the one in the cowl? My cowl grille and complete windheild wiper mechanisms are still off the car...forgot to mention they are the black "articulated" wipers that shoudl be on an RS...

Did you email the County Clerk about my car? If so I wont do it again...I may call on Monday...

I wish I did not have to remove the heater box though...damn...what about the one in the cowl? My cowl grille and complete windheild wiper mechanisms are still off the car...forgot to mention they are the black "articulated" wipers that shoudl be on an RS...

Did you email the County Clerk about my car? If so I wont do it again...I may call on Monday...
No email...it is an online service.

I wish I did not have to remove the heater box though...damn...what about the one in the cowl? My cowl grille and complete windheild wiper mechanisms are still off the car...forgot to mention they are the black "articulated" wipers that shoudl be on an RS...


Can you access the firewall from INSIDE the car? If you can, you can see the stamped numbers reversed in the metal.

Can you access the firewall from INSIDE the car? If you can, you can see the stamped numbers reversed in the metal.

Carpet is out...I guess I can lift the firewall insualtion and give it a shot...

But what about the cowl? Are they also in the wiper well on the pass side?

Carpet is out...I guess I can lift the firewall insualtion and give it a shot...

But what about the cowl? Are they also in the wiper well on the pass side?
Look at the link I listedabove (http://www.nastyz28.com/forum/showthread.php?t=171142&highlight=VIN); figure out if you can see it with whatever is in the way inside your car...

Don't know if this helps at all but my '70 has partial vin# stamped on the rocker panels below the front edge of the door. You have to lay down on your back on the ground and look up.

Don't know if this helps at all but my '70 has partial vin# stamped on the rocker panels below the front edge of the door. You have to lay down on your back on the ground and look up.
Where exactly?

Hmmmm. Fenders replaced? RS wiper assembly? Maybe a little front-end damage along the way? Might explain the wrong rad support. Body shop might have found a front clip and replaced the original RS clip? Are there any other signs of the RS package?

Norwood built but no stamp on tag? Do you also have some paperwork?
yes it was norwood built also, but no stamp on cowl tag. I also have some paperwork but not much.I had been told by a few of people that not all 71'
Z28's got their tags fully punched & also all of my power option's were deleted
when new.

^ what? thats a new one! the trim tag has no options on it (just the z 28 for norwood cars) . what power options are we talking about. power steering was optional so it wasn't deleted it was added. but power brakes were standard on a z28 and the build sheet would have the z 28 and also the power brakes. when the cars were assembled the build sheet was referenced not the trim tag

^ what? thats a new one! the trim tag has no options on it (just the z 28 for norwood cars) . what power options are we talking about. power steering was optional so it wasn't deleted it was added. but power brakes were standard on a z28 and the build sheet would have the z 28 and also the power brakes. when the cars were assembled the build sheet was referenced not the trim tag
don't want to take over his thread but I didn't say the trim tag has no options on it. I said the cars power options were deleted when new.
no power steering,no power brakes. was bought for drag racing when new.

Hmmmm. Fenders replaced? RS wiper assembly? Maybe a little front-end damage along the way? Might explain the wrong rad support. Body shop might have found a front clip and replaced the original RS clip? Are there any other signs of the RS package?
Hidden wipers are not a conclusive sign of RS as they could be ordered separately under RPO C24 (although you probably knew that code Glenn;) ). RS stuff (read front clip) is so easily bolted onto 2nd gens that I find it difficult to "sherlock" it out many years down the road without documentation (i.e. build sheet, continuous ownership, photos with reference, etc) unlike 1st gens where there are physical alterations to the body that are not as easily duplicated by non-factory practitioners.

That is exactly my point...when its all added together its a strong case...not perfect...perfect would be a build sheet...probably carry the civil burdon of "by a preponderance of the evidence" but not sure about the criminal burdon of "beyond a reasonable doubt". That jury is still out. :confused:

As a side note, the original owner is an attorney, agreed to sign the affidavit although having no interest to do so and signed in the presence of a notary in his office...without his affidavit the authenticity of the copies of the documentation would clearly be in question for all the reasons mentioned earlier; with the affidavit it is not...

I do not think that is just my opinion...it would appear the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the facts...he identifies the documents as accurate copies and that the car he drove off the lot had stripes and Z28 emblems...the fact that the clerk at the dealership who typed the invoice identified the car by model, vin, stock # and color but failed to write Z28 on the invoice does not change that fact...those are the documents; that is his signature on the documents; the car he left the lot with was a Z28. I am not sure how a different conclusion can be drawn...



Ok, so where exactly is this vin? The inner fender wells have not gone back on the car yet so it would be easy to remove the blower motor...the number is stamped under the blower motor, on the firewall or cowl? Anyone got a picture of what I am looking for?

On the issue of potential rebody, here is the last piece to the puzzle: the original owner had the car Ziebert (remember them) coated in 12/70 in anticipation of driving the car in Rochester, NY winters....and before any one cries foul that is the dealers signature on the certificate and not the owners...
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o93/GregM06/CamaroZiebart.jpg
Guess what? When I stripped the car prior to paint I found the holes that were drilled for treatment are still present in the rocker jamb area and I even removed one of the vintage yellow Ziebert caps they used to plug the holes after the treatment. (as a side note I can say it worked as the rockers are solid) The fenders were replaced and quarters had some work done to them when the car had paint done by the 4th owner in the late 1980s so I am not sure any evidence exists there...

So the only question remains whether it is the same car depicted in the documentation...the Ziebert holes make a "pretty strong" case but I am pulling the blower motor this weekend and will check the top of the gas tank...

Perhaps I'm being thick here but what is the Ziebart receipt supposed to add to the provenance of this particular car? It was common enough in the state in which I grew up - for a lot of new cars in a lot of states with inclement weather.

Hmmmm. Fenders replaced? RS wiper assembly? Maybe a little front-end damage along the way? Might explain the wrong rad support. Body shop might have found a front clip and replaced the original RS clip? Are there any other signs of the RS package?

it is an RS Z28 and has all signs of the package...it has the front sheetmetal, of course, and the additional trim/brightwork, steering wheel emblem, taillights, wipers, etc...

The interior also has the woodgrain dash, steering wheel, console and door panels...is that the decor option?

Then what came with the deluxe (custom) interior option?

The 4th owner performed a cosmetic restoration in the mid 80s and said back then it was easier to replace the fenders with genuine GM units than perform rust repair...would have to check my notes but I believe he said he replaced door skin as well...

Perhaps I'm being thick here but what is the Ziebart receipt supposed to add to the provenance of this particular car?

In the context of everything discussed above, if the original car was Ziebart treated, and the car I have has the holes drilled for that treatment and even a Ziebart plug, doesn't that make it more likely that the car I have is in fact the same car and not a rebody?

My mistake :screwup:

I guess I wonder why? Why is this conversation taking part in bits and pieces, it seems like the intent is to direct the thread such that it can be used to authenticate the car as a Z, and I can understand why, but unless I'm missing something the only thing we can really rely on is that the tag does not contain the proper markings to designate z28. It gotta be frustrating but until the car is reviewed in total the bits and pieces only create a cloud around it.

I would suggest taking it to Carlisle and lay it out. Let the experts go through it and settle it, let the chips fall where they may.

Just my opinion....
That's kinda of what I've been wondering, Carl, as I follow this thread. The whole thing started out with a hypothetical question....it wasn't until post #18 that we learn that there is an actual car in question. Individual pieces of info/evidence are turned over only to counter the hypotheses and WAGs generated by the previous piece of info/evidence. And still we have no photos of the engine, trim tag, Z only items, etc to throw into the mix.

All this is not to say that the car is or is not legit, just that I am having to work at separating my distaste for the manner in which the case is being put forth with evaluating each "new" piece of the puzzle on its own merit. At one point gpm6367 calls this thread an academic exercise - which it is not as that refers to a theoretical exercise which this stopped being with post #18.

As Bikefixr put it, "The case for the car is pretty strong. Not perfect, but not terrible, either. Lots of if's, maybe's."

In the context of everything discussed above, if the original car was Ziebart treated, and the car I have has the holes drilled for that treatment and even a Ziebart plug, doesn't that make it more likely that the car I have is in fact the same car and not a rebody?
I did and I do not find that to be a compelling argument nor a useful piece of additional info for establishing any provenance for this particular car. Admittedly, the Ziebart receipt is hard (for me) to read clearly but I see nothing to indicate that it is anything other than a receipt for a '70 Camaro that received Ziebart. How many '70 Camaros sold in or near the area and then Ziebarted? (or for that matter moved into the area and were subsequently Ziebarted?) How many cars were Ziebarted at that Ziebart dealer? Like I said, I grew up in a state where snow was an October to May event (Alaska) and many, many folks Ziebarted their cars (even if they had just moved up from outside).

it is an RS Z28 and has all signs of the package...it has the front sheetmetal, of course, and the additional trim/brightwork, steering wheel emblem, taillights, wipers, etc...

The interior also has the woodgrain dash, steering wheel, console and door panels...is that the decor option?

Then what came with the deluxe (custom) interior option?

The 4th owner performed a cosmetic restoration in the mid 80s and said back then it was easier to replace the fenders with genuine GM units than perform rust repair...would have to check my notes but I believe he said he replaced door skin as well...
I guess that is not a solid endorsement for Ziebart - ;) :bowtie: - LOL

Obviously, there is no sure way to tell if a 1970 Camaro is a Z-28. The factory didn't release VIN with Z-28 combination numbers, so everything is moot.

I have 99% confidence my car is a Norwood factory Z-28, but since I bought it one year old, even mine could have a poor pedigree.

The whole thing started out with a hypothetical question.... And still we have no photos of the engine, trim tag, Z only items, etc to throw into the mix. All this is not to say that the car is or is not legit, just that I am having to work at separating my distaste for the manner in which the case is being put forth with evaluating each "new" piece of the puzzle on its own merit. At one point gpm6367 calls this thread an academic exercise - which it is not as that refers to a theoretical exercise which this stopped being with post #18.

and that is your perogative...I choose this manner, really, because I knew any effort to "prove" the car legit would be rebuffed as an effort to increase its value, which it is not; I want to know what I have here.

I merely began by framing the issue: Norwood built/no stamp. No conspiracy...just asked how many knew, had heard of or if any had seen one.

It was my intention to lay out what I know about the car to those more knowledgable than I to see if I was overlooking anything, or if I should be looking for anything else that I was not aware of, and to that extent it has been an academic learning experience for me.

I also wanted to present it in a manner in which I could ask those same people to consider what I knew about the car and offer me thier opinion without thinking I had an agenda. I could not dump all of this information into one post...it had to develop like a conversation.

If I posted photos of every # and Z28 characteristic on the car it is no longer academic and then I am trying to prove the cars as legit. It is was never my intention to ask anyone to tell me this car is or is not legit...I was, and am, merely soliciting opinion and criticism. It was necessary to show the paper documentation as it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to describe it.

The owners name and address are on the Ziebart receipt.

However, if anyone finds this subject interesting and would like to see photos of the cars numbers and Z28 specific components I will be more than happy to post them...

I have 99% confidence my car is a Norwood factory Z-28, but since I bought it one year old, even mine could have a poor pedigree.

You have a 1970 Norwood Z28 without a stamped tag?

I would assume you have no bs or other paper?

You have owned it since it was year old?

What is the build date on your tag?

Do all of your powertain components match in casting # and dates?

Do you know where the original owner is?

I did and I do not find that to be a compelling argument nor a useful piece of additional info for establishing any provenance for this particular car.

and you are certainly entitled to yours...I suppose it could be just another coincidence...

But remember then, what you are saying is that the owner of the Z28 purchased in mid Sept. 1970, which is the subject of the documentation, had a different 1970 Camaro Ziebart treated in Dec. of 1970...I guess that could be the case...

But far more likely it was the same car...and the evidence of the treatment being present would appear to support this logical conclusion...JMHO...

You have a 1970 Norwood Z28 without a stamped tag?
I didn't say that. Mine does have the 28 19 stamp.

I would assume you have no bs or other paper?
I do not have the BS. I DO have another piece that was punched for a Z-28.
You have owned it since it was year old?
Yes.
What is the build date on your tag?
My foggy brain is saying, it isn't on the tag.
Do all of your powertain components match in casting # and dates?
Yes.
Do you know where the original owner is?
Yes. I have the original POP.

But since I was the second owner, there is still no absolute to me. I no longer have the engine pad VIN (I will be fixing that, soon), but even then, a CTB motor could have been used in another application besides the Z-28 in 1970. At least that is what I think. You more dedicated experts can chime in on this!

actually the ctb is only on the z28 the z28 shared its basic LT-1 motor only with the corvette from the factory( as with all z28s up to 74). corvette LT-1 suffixes are CTU, CTK, and CTV.

actually the ctb is only on the z28 the z28 shared its basic LT-1 motor only with the corvette from the factory( as with all z28s up to 74). corvette LT-1 suffixes are CTU, CTK, and CTV.
Make my confidence up to 99.999% now! :D

Unless you pull the blower case and show that VIN, you will always have a shadow of doubt, I would just pull the cover and document the VIN#.

I don't remember if he said he had the original motor...but from the posts above, it needs to be a CTB engine with part of the VIN number on the pad...correct?

and you are certainly entitled to yours...I suppose it could be just another coincidence...
Thanks for the validation...;)

But remember then, what you are saying is that the owner of the Z28 purchased in mid Sept. 1970, which is the subject of the documentation, had a different 1970 Camaro Ziebart treated in Dec. of 1970...I guess that could be the case...

But far more likely it was the same car...and the evidence of the treatment being present would appear to support this logical conclusion...JMHO...
Based on the electronic copy I was unable to discern the name and address on the Ziebart receipt (it may be more legible on that actual document). Should the name and address coincide as you state then I would certainly see it as yet another document tied to the car that was owned by that person. I don't know that it does much to support the other documents.

actually the ctb is only on the z28 the z28 shared its basic LT-1 motor only with the corvette from the factory( as with all z28s up to 74). corvette LT-1 suffixes are CTU, CTK, and CTV.
Implies that all Z/28s from inception of the RPO until '74 did so. Therefore it requires clarification - from '70-'74 (as the 1st generation Z/28 had an unique engine not shared with any other cars in the GM lineup)

^ sorry, thats what I meant. i was just testing everyone (JK). no vette came with a 302

Make my confidence up to 99.999% now! :D

If your tag is stamped with the 28 why is there any issue?

Isn't it fairly well documented that some did not have the Z and had just the 28 stamped on the tag?

I don't remember if he said he had the original motor...but from the posts above, it needs to be a CTB engine with part of the VIN number on the pad...correct?

and it is stamped on the pad...my understaning is that the vin derivative on a 1970 Camaro if visible is stamped above the oil pan rail near oil filter on drivers side...

If your tag is stamped with the 28 why is there any issue?


Well, yes it is stamped 28, but who's to say it wasn't replaced before I bought it? Farfetched, but stranger things have happened!

and it is stamped on the pad...my understaning is that the vin derivative on a 1970 Camaro if visible is stamped above the oil pan rail near oil filter on drivers side...
Yup, enough to match to the original car VIN...

Where exactly?
On the rocker panel, I just went out and looked its not towards the front of the door but inline with the middle of the door on the bottom of the rocker facing the ground. Like I said you need to lay on the ground on your back to see it. My car is a L.A. built car, don't know if Norwood cars had this or not maybe someone else can chime in.
By the way this thread is become a soup opera, I'm hooked!

So whaddid GPM-whatever find out? :confused:

By the way this thread is become a soup opera, I'm hooked!

Probably "As the wrench turns" is a good title...

My wife saw to it that I had no time this weekend with shopping, wrapping and decorating...damn holiday...

Work swamped me the last two days...I plan on getting out to shop tomorrow nite...

Sorry, but you will have to wait until then for the next installment :)

I don't remember if he said he had the original motor...but from the posts above, it needs to be a CTB engine with part of the VIN number on the pad...correct?

Yes that is right....... your pad is stamped a partial Vin is in 1/8" charcters. CTB in 3/16" w/ build date...... going from memory partial vin looks something like this.... "1" = GM CHEVY , next digit= year of your car, plant letter " N "= norwood, then I believe your cars serial number of 6 digits I think ??? . Maybe I'm close;) You should be able to get this same Vin partial off the tranny too . BASically it told ...this was a chev engine , its model year , the plant it ( engine and trans) was installed in and the cars serial number. All the info one would need to recover or ID a cars heritage.

Whats going on!! We are jones'in for some more info!

On the rocker panel, I just went out and looked its not towards the front of the door but inline with the middle of the door on the bottom of the rocker facing the ground. Like I said you need to lay on the ground on your back to see it. My car is a L.A. built car, don't know if Norwood cars had this or not maybe someone else can chime in.
By the way this thread is become a soup opera, I'm hooked!
I took a quick look at my Norwood built Z-28 while it is still on the rotisserie, and didn't see any stampings on the underside of the rocker panels.

Whats going on!! We are jones'in for some more info!

in part due to the fact I have been busy refinishing parts...in addition to the interior components I am refinishing I needed 2 early oval hole 5 spoke rims and picked them up on epay so I am busy blasting and refinishing...I am heading down to finish the last 2 tonite...I want the correct rims and bias plys back on the car bad...

I did have a chance to go back over the history and called a few previous owners to touch base and tell them I am still hoping they can locate photos. You need to be patient and persistent in order to suceed.

The 4th owner who restored the car in the early 80s had a lot to say about the car. He is really a Corvette guy and does restoration as a side job. He told me what I arleady knew; that its an early car, he verfiied every number on the powertrain as correct and that the tag is not stamped. In fact he said the aircleaner decal that was on the car appeared to be original and was a 370hp decal...he was suggesting the car was so early it had the Corvette decal before the LT1 in the Z28 was "changed" to 360hp...anyone else hear that story?

He does have photos...he just has to locate them...he said the car was tired when he got it and he did more than just cosmetic...dropped the front subframe and had the shell up on drums (no rotisseries back then) to sandblast and refinish the underbody. He saved me the effort of dropping the tank as he told me he had the tank down and the interior out...no build sheet anywhere...

It sounds like he did a nice job restoring the car but sold it to owner #5 in 1986 who just drove the car and did not garage through 2002. He put about 18K miles on the car and it was tired again after 15 years exposed to the elements.

Anyway, I am going to get my "honey do" list done tomorrow as Sun it should be a little warmer and I am heading out to the shop...will try to find one of those hidden VINs...

In fact he said the aircleaner decal that was on the car appeared to be original and was a 370hp decal...he was suggesting the car was so early it had the Corvette decal before the LT1 in the Z28 was "changed" to 360hp...anyone else hear that story?


That would not make sense. The Corvette was assembled in a different assembly plant. The air cleaner assembly was not shipped with the engine but was added on the engine dress line in Norwood hours if not minutes before the engine and the chassis met up with each other. The decals would have been placed on the air cleaner in Norwood. So there was no way for it to end with decals from a Corvette by Chevrolet doing. That would be bs, he or a previous owner added a different lid.

Keep in mind you can find just about any part you want at swap meets and many an owner has added things to a car then later claimed it came that way. Any time someone tells you they restored the car it should be a warning signal. Not many keep things true to the way the car was before, they change a lot of things including engines and trans etc. And many have been known to fake engine codes to make it appear original.

Fyi - St Louis MO was where the Corvette was assembled until 1975 and in 1976 it was changed to Bowling Green, KY

An engine dress line

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb222/Z15_34396/1959_283-PG.jpg

engines being unloaded from rail cars at Impala plant - Tarrytown, NY
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb222/Z15_34396/c.jpg

very interesting photos, not to highjack the thread, looks like all the engines were painted after the exhaust manifolds were put on, anyone have a breakdown of what years this was done? i have noticed orange paint on the exhaust manifolds on some very low milage cars but never realized the whole manifold was painted. i always thought it was overspray. this is a pic of our 70 ss396 car with 42,000 miles on it, still has some orange paint on the manifold. if this was the case a nice correct resto would look the same.
http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/772435/fullsize/hpim3447.jpg

So there was no way for it to end with decals from a Corvette by Chevrolet doing. Keep in mind you can find just about any part you want at swap meets and many an owner has added things to a car then later claimed it came that way.

Understood, but his point was not that it had a Corvette decal. His point was the same decal was intended for use on the Z28 as well.

The Z28 got the same LT1 as the Corvette and should have had the same decal but GM policy dictated that nothing in the lineup could have the same hp rating as the Corvette, so they rated it at 360 hp and claimed the exhaust manifolds accounted for the 10hp difference. I have heard that tale told elsewhere.

I am unaware of what aftermarket decals were available in the early 1980s and he had the 3 previous ownership history to that point...he did not sell me the car and has no reason to lie...and if he has restoration experience I suppose he would know what a 10 year old decal would look like and if it appeared consistent with the overall wear and tear in engine bay...it is just his opinion and a theory, I suppose....

more from Tarrytown Assembly here
http://images.google.com/images?q=chevrolet+tarrytown+factory+source:life

very interesting photos, not to highjack the thread, looks like all the engines were painted after the exhaust manifolds were put on, anyone have a breakdown of what years this was done? i have noticed orange paint on the exhaust manifolds on some very low milage cars but never realized the whole manifold was painted. i always thought it was overspray. this is a pic of our 70 ss396 car with 42,000 miles on it, still has some orange paint on the manifold. if this was the case a nice correct resto would look the same.
http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/772435/fullsize/hpim3447.jpg


My 74 454 corvette is low miles and the black rubber "OIL" cap even was sprayed orange along with valve covers and all from the factory .........

more from Tarrytown Assembly here

Those photos of the line circa 1959 are amazing!

I need a few hours to digest all of this...

after doing some very extensive research on the opening of the radiator core support;the conclusion is, in conclusive.We talked to 3 owners of van nuys built 70 z28s that are fully docked,all three owners said there cars had 21"openings not 26".they all have heard the same:but have stated very unlikley.SO saturday at there last club meeting of the year they will post a *special Notice* on this matter: to there fellow members;in the state of (calif.nv.and,oregon) to try to firm up this matter.I had no intension of changing the subject. those picts of the motor assembly line are awsome!.Will repost back after this week end! GOOD LUCK!

Um.....no. The Corvette left the St, Louis plant in 1983. The 84 Corvette was the first Bowling Green built Corvette.

after doing some very extensive research on the opening of the radiator core support;the conclusion is, in conclusive.We talked to 3 owners of van nuys built 70 z28s that are fully docked,all three owners said there cars had 21"openings not 26".they all have heard the same:but have stated very unlikley.SO saturday at there last club meeting of the year they will post a *special Notice* on this matter: to there fellow members;in the state of (calif.nv.and,oregon) to try to firm up this matter.I had no intension of changing the subject. those picts of the motor assembly line are awsome!.Will repost back after this week end! GOOD LUCK! are you saying that HD cooling was NOT part of the z 28 package in 70???? and by documented do you mean a build sheets as most LA cars had build sheets as HD cooling would be on the build sheet (or not) as would RPO Z28.

Um.....no. The Corvette left the St, Louis plant in 1983. The 84 Corvette was the first Bowling Green built Corvette.
None-the-less, Camaros and Corvettes were not built on the same line - ever. I think the real point was that the decal would go on at car assembly time and not at the engine plant - which calls into question the whole story of the wrong decal on the car.

How about a photo of the decal?

How are we doing on posting some photos of the engine pad, tim tag, etc?

None-the-less, Camaros and Corvettes were not built on the same line - ever. I think the real point was that the decal would go on at car assembly time and not at the engine plant - which calls into question the whole story of the wrong decal on the car.

How about a photo of the decal?

How are we doing on posting some photos of the engine pad, tim tag, etc?


Someone got the point of my post. The air cleaner was not installed till near the engine of the line where the car was first started. They needed to prime the carb to fire it up or it would slow down line operations if it failed to start.

Four or five gallons of gas were pumped into the tank, the carburetor was primed by filling the float bowl through the vent tube, and the car was started for the first time; idle speed was adjusted, automatic transmissions were topped-off, the air cleaner was installed, and the car was ready for drive-off.


I just guessed at the Bowling Green start up.........


Another engine dress line photo, 1967 Camaro
http://www.camaros.org/images/assembly/assembly-engine.jpg

The Corvette was assembled in a Fyi - St Louis MO was where the Corvette was assembled until 1975 and in 1976 it was changed to Bowling Green, KY

Sorry, wrong...

Um.....no. The Corvette left the St, Louis plant in 1983. The 84 Corvette was the first Bowling Green built Corvette.

Hmm sorry, wrong again...

The 1981 Covette was the last to be built in St. Louis and the first to be built in Bowling Green. In fact, the 1981 was built in both facilities until the St. Louis Plant was shut down.

There was no production 1983 Corvette sold to the public, period. There were only 43 1983 Production Corvette's and only one left and it resides at the Corvette museum at Bowling Green.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s304/80TAPaceCar/83Info.jpg
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s304/80TAPaceCar/83Front.jpg

St. Louis Assembly Plant.

http://www.80transampacecar.com/Corvette%20Assembly%20Plant.htm

Bowling Green Assembly Plant.

http://www.80transampacecar.com/Bowling%20Green%20Assembly%20Plant.htm

There were also 2 Dealer Brochurs for 1981, the later showing what the new plant can do. The Bowling Green had an advanced painting system where they started the two-tone paint jobs for 1981.

http://www.80transampacecar.com/Site/Magazine%20Articles/09_23_08/1981%20Corvette%20Brochure%201.pdf

http://www.80transampacecar.com/Site/Magazine%20Articles/09_23_08/1981%20Corvette%20Brochure%202.pdf

Kev

So there was no way for it to end with decals from a Corvette by Chevrolet doing.

the point is missed...there were no Corvette and Camaro decal origianlly...just a 370 hp decal originally intended for use on both...anyway, that is not so important...just his theory.

I find the documented 1970 Z28 cars with 21" radiator support openings interesting...do they have the 26" radiator none the less?

The 4th owner has located photos and sent me these 2 of the car completed by him in the early 80s...
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o93/GregM06/IMG.jpg
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o93/GregM06/scan00012.jpg
He is going to send me the before and during resto photos next...I am interseted in seeing the before photos as I need to see the rocker molding, which is a single spear and not 1970 moulding, and whether the stripes on the rear spoiler ran off like this originally...

just when you thought it was put to bed . here the 1100 mile 70 z with its own website ( a member here) http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh155/stinsonz/0016.jpg its an LA car . website credit...http://www.1970z28camaro.com/misc/

but sometimes they raise more questions then they answer...the car had a single spear rocker moudling on it which I did not believe is "correct" for a 1970...it is an early car, maybe they had some left over 1969 trim to get rid of on the line? I was hoping to see a before resto shot to see what rocker moulding was on the car originally...

The 4th owner, who restores Corvettes for a living, says it was definately an original paint car when he got it in the spring of 1979...here it is still on the trailer...
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o93/GregM06/IMG_0002.jpg
I see NO moulding at all...anyone ever hear of an early car coming through without rocker moulding?

When I got it the car had stripes that ran straight off the trunk (see finished resto photo above) and I duplicated that when the car was painted...of course, now I have a shot of original paint, again still on the trailer...
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o93/GregM06/IMG_0009.jpg
Of course the stripes do not run off the trunk and have a finished egde..now I will need to redo the trunk lid and stripes...

And this photo of the engine bay pre-resto shows the original smog still on the car when he got it...
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o93/GregM06/IMG_0003.jpg
He said the exhaust manifolds were rotted and he put the headers on...he is not sure what happened to the smog pump...damn...

But on the bright side, he still has the original bumpers and grille surround! He replaced them with over the counter GM parts at that time as easier than having the origianls rechromed...I will make a run up to him to pick them up and as long as they are not rotted I will have them rechromed...

thats got to be the first z with white walls ive seen. it kinda looks strange but it shows how the cars (and other muscle cars of the era) went from pricey boulevard cruisers to daily driver status. it makes it so hard to try to reconstruct them 40 years later

thats got to be the first z with white walls ive seen. it kinda looks strange but it shows how the cars (and other muscle cars of the era) went from pricey boulevard cruisers to daily driver status. it makes it so hard to try to reconstruct them 40 years later

By the spring of 1979 it was just a clapped out muscle car...a near decade of driving it in upstate NY winters quickly took its toll...that engine bay looks like it was 50 years old!

And those white walls do look so funky...:eek:

I find the documented 1970 Z28 cars with 21" radiator support openings interesting...do they have the 26" radiator none the less?


I have been studying the resto photos for the better part of the day and just noticed this now! Here is a picture during tear down with the valance, grilles, etc... removed but the motor, radiator support and front clip still in place...
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o93/GregM06/IMG_0010.jpg
Look at the size of the radiator support opening...

Now here it is with the front clip and detailed radiator support reinstalled...
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o93/GregM06/IMG_0008.jpg
Compare it with the other photo and it is clear he replaced the radiator support....the original opening was clearly larger...the original must have had some rust and it looks like he used a new over the counter GM part...I believe the photos to be clear proof of this fact...

So...one mystery solved...it originally had the 26" opening...but what is the deal with the rocker moulding?

excellent, i can imagine it was bugging the crap out of you about the opening. you can cut the excess out of the smaller one to make it the bigger one with one of those mini saws or a wizzer wheel. its has to be cheaper than replacing the whole thing

excellent, i can imagine it was bugging the crap out of you about the opening. you can cut the excess out of the smaller one to make it the bigger one with one of those mini saws or a wizzer wheel. its has to be cheaper than replacing the whole thing

do it myself, but I would want it to look like it was done at the factory...

Does anyone repop the support with the 26" opening already cut out? I checked Year One and only saw the support with the standard 21"opening...

If the correct one is sold I would probably buy it, replace this one and sell it...
has anyone seen the 26" support for sale in any parts catalogs?

I am afraid to ask what a good used one might bring on epay...

...but what is the deal with the rocker moulding?

Simple, it was a Rally Sport, it didn't get one ... 'doh!!!!! :cool:

Edit:
hmmmm, I may be off on this, I thought the RS didn't get the rocker molding, now after searching, have found pictures of them with it ... hmmmm

it was definately an original paint car when he got it in the spring of 1979...here it is still on the trailer...
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o93/GregM06/IMG_0002.jpg
I see NO moulding at all...anyone ever hear of an early car coming through without rocker moulding?

looks like the Corvette "restorer" didn't take any pictures to refer to before he painted (or didn't give them to the painter) the stripes and maybe he thought the car would look better with some chrome down low ... dunno, people did weird things in the 70's ... LOL :crazy:

PS, cool pics !!!!

Simple, it was a Rally Sport, it didn't get one ... 'doh!!!!! :cool:

An RS had no rocker molding? What about the 1100 mile Z28 referenced above...its an RS and has rocker molding...

http://www.1970z28camaro.com/body/0013.jpg

I am surprised he dropped the ball on the rear stripes. When we spoke years back he had not located the photos and thought he put them back the way he found them, so I did the same....:(

i was under the impression that all z28s( at least the chrome bumper ones) got the wide rocker molding. from Hooper's book http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh155/stinsonz/hooper.jpg i don't even think that molding existed (the 3 piece) in 70

i was under the impression that all z28s( at least the chrome bumper ones) got the wide rocker molding.

...if this car should have rocker molding...I think it is clear that the rocker molding was part of the Z28 option package, but what happened when the RS option was added? Would the RS Z28 cars have none? If so, why does that pristine 1100 mile RS Z28 on that website have rocker molding...

So, I am taking a poll...who out there has a fairly original 1970 RS Z28, or photos of the car when new, and does it have rocker molding?

...if this car should have rocker molding...I think it is clear that the rocker molding was part of the Z28 option package, but what happened when the RS option was added? Would the RS Z28 cars have none? If so, why does that pristine 1100 mile RS Z28 on that website have rocker molding...

So, I am taking a poll...who out there has a fairly original 1970 RS Z28, or photos of the car when new, and does it have rocker molding?



The rocker molding is part of the Z/28 option but is NOT a Z/28 only item. It's not an RS option, it's a Camaro option. To summarize, it was found on every 1970 Camaro.

The 67-9 rocker molding does not belong on that 1970 Camaro.

To be honest there is so much misinformation in this thread that it has gotten out of hand.

While I am on this little tangent let me state that I don't believe that notorized document is legit either. There are many inconsistencie. Just about every letter in the signature is different. I am getting old as well but can assure you that 3/4 of my signature looks the same as it did 40 years ago.
Plus why would a lawyer in Monroe County call in a notory from another county? Lawyers have their own notories on staff. Plus Williamson is in Wayne County NOT Monroe. There's more.

Here is a picture of my 1970 survivor (barely). Notice the rocker molding. quaranteed original to the car.

Sorry but I am having a hard time with this thread.

Rick H.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb168/rhtoys/before01.jpg

The rocker molding is part of the Z/28 option but is NOT a Z/28 only item. It's not an RS option, it's a Camaro option. To summarize, it was found on every 1970 Camaro.

While I am on this little tangent let me state that I don't believe that notorized document is legit either.

Sorry but I am having a hard time with this thread.

I too thought all 1970's had rocker molding and was surprised when it was suggested here to the contrary...

I am sorry you are having a hard time with this thread. Why any particular notary qualified in any particular county and not in another is certainly beyond the scope of this thread. I live in New Jersey, yet I am qualified as a Notary in Kings County (former place of residence) in New York and in Passiac County (former and not current place of residence) in New Jersey...I notarize routinely in Richmond County (current office location) in New York...in fact I can take a notary in any county in the either state, so I am not sure why the concern here...

Anyway, no need to be troubled or apologetic for your skepticism...I opened the floor to debate and everyone is entitled to thier opinion...but I still need to know if a 1970 RS Z28 should have rocker molding ;)

but I still need to know if a 1970 RS Z28 should have rocker molding ;)


Yes, it should have rocker moldings. The correct moldings are available in reproduction and look very good. Or you can buy NOS and pay someone big money. You can't tell the difference once they are on the car.

I will state again. I don't care if it's a Z/28, RS/Z28, an SS or RS or a 6 cylinder coupe, it will have the wide rocker moldings.

Rick H.

I will state again. I don't care if it's a Z/28, RS/Z28, an SS or RS or a 6 cylinder coupe, it will have the wide rocker moldings.
Rick H.

So...is that the final word?

There was a member on here a few years ago who found a bunch of broadcast sheets from 1970 in his fathers garage. His dad worked at Norwood and brought the sheets home to be used as scratch paper. The only link I could find for him is this, I don't know if the email address is still valid. http://www.nastyz28.com/buildsh.html

So...is that the final word?

I would agree. Every 70 Camaro I've seen has it. It should be part of the "Camaro" option. If you have a Camaro, the wide rocker moldings should be on it.

I would agree. Every 70 Camaro I've seen has it. It should be part of the "Camaro" option. If you have a Camaro, the wide rocker moldings should be on it.

The 4th owner who retored it said the car was a clapped out driver with original paint as it sat on that trailer n 1979..I see no rocker modling...clearly he installed the 1969 spears when he restored the car so they are not going back on...

I guess it is time to bug the original and 2nd owners again...one of them has to have a photo with this car in the background so I can what, if any, rocker molding came on this car from the factory...

The 4th owner who retored it said the car was a clapped out driver with original paint as it sat on that trailer n 1979..I see no rocker modling...clearly he installed the 1969 spears when he restored the car so they are not going back on...

I guess it is time to bug the original and 2nd owners again...one of them has to have a photo with this car in the background so I can what, if any, rocker molding came on this car from the factory...


The rocker panels should have studs on them for sliding clips on to hold the moulding support brackets (4 on each side). If it doesn't then somebody removed them, they are part of the panel.

http://home.comcast.net/~michaeldixon763/pwpimages/rocker moulding mount pin1.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~michaeldixon763/pwpimages/rocker moulding mount pin2.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~michaeldixon763/pwpimages/rocker moulding mount.jpg

This I would still recommend you check out, you don't have to take the whole air duct off, just remove the blower motor...
http://home.comcast.net/~michaeldixon763/pwpimages/hidden vin.jpg

this one just for fun...
http://home.comcast.net/~michaeldixon763/pwpimages/ziebart plugs.jpg

The rocker panels should have studs on them for sliding clips on to hold the moulding support brackets (4 on each side). If it doesn't then somebody removed them, they are part of the panel.

I do not think I have those studs...I believe that metal bracket was attached with screws...

This I would still recommend you check out, you don't have to take the whole air duct off, just remove the blower motor...

I thought I had to take off the entire box...I will defintely pull blower motor...

this one just for fun...

ZEIBART!?!

gpm6367

I have a Norwood 70 Z that does not have the wide rocker mouldings. It has the spears like yours. The car was repainted before I bought it in 1982 so can't say as to originality. I always wondered why they were changed to that style when in the 80's the wide ones should have still been available from GM. Now you have me wondering if they could be the ones that came with the car. Two Norwood 70 Z's with small mouldings??? I like everyone else thought that only the wide ones were correct. I even bought a new set but never installed them.

My 1970 Norwood Z-28 has the aluminum moldings on it. Here is a picture of the assembly manual page that shows the moldings. Mine is just like the assembly.

http://my1970z28.com/pics/etc/1970_moulding.jpg

I am curious as to what revision 2 (by item 6, the clip, in the parts listing) is,
and the date the revision was added.

I am curious as to what revision 2 (by item 6, the clip, in the parts listing) is,
and the date the revision was added.

UPC1 Sheet C1 shows note #2 to have been added on 12-12-69 and states: "Item 6 added & drawing revised" which is well ahead of actual production.

...if this car should have rocker molding...I think it is clear that the rocker molding was part of the Z28 option package, but what happened when the RS option was added? Would the RS Z28 cars have none? If so, why does that pristine 1100 mile RS Z28 on that website have rocker molding...

So, I am taking a poll...who out there has a fairly original 1970 RS Z28, or photos of the car when new, and does it have rocker molding?

Article from March 1970 Hot Rod, 1970 Z28 and 1970 SS 396 with wide rocker molding, standard on all Camaros

M21RSZ28


http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n22/M21RSZ28/NASTY%20Z28/000_2207.jpg

I found a picture of my 1970 L65 4 speed car. Car also had F41 suspension. The picture was taken in 1974. You can see the wide rocker moldings. Car was never touched until I got it .

Rick H.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb168/rhtoys/camaro70a.jpg