|
I think he has since posted the rest of the report.
|
cannot beat Lemans Blue!
|
2 Attachment(s)
Block Stamp. Rebuild pics.
|
Stamping looks good, but I wonder why no current pic or pic of the rear axle tube stamping. Just helps the sale. I dont trust anything anymore these days.
|
That 2nd and 3rd page of McNeish report sums up some suspicions.
Things that I see that raise questions NCRS says car was built 4-1-69, but rear is dated 3-31? POP - is it a repop? McNeish questions it. Says dealer stamp is not legit In the handwritten notes pic 330 - Aug 3, 2003 - new shortblock rebuilt? So is the really the born with engine? That dealer invoice looks too fresh and made up, MacNeish questions it also. Was POP made up to match the current drive line? I like the Trans stamp. Engine pad stamp but not sure about the VIN stamp on the engine. I question the 3/31 rear (no stamping pic) in a 4/1 built car. Kurt S is the expert on POPs If the POP is in question by McNeish, then you got to wonder. The other docs are suspect. |
Agree docs are suspect. I just always assume POPs are repops unless there is some reason to believe they are not. My first Z came with a POP in the glove box. I tossed it, because in my mind "it was no use to me." Most were tossed once out of warranty.
Jerry stated the engine is "original to vehicle." Not saying he couldn't be wrong. He has been fooled before. |
Quote:
So because the rear was built on 3/31, does that mean the rear was built too late for a 4/1 built car? In other words, should the rear have been already built weeks before 4/1?:dunno: |
Jonesy what do you think of the engine vin and transmission vin being different fonts? I thought they were stamped at the same time. Jerry seemed to approve it.
|
My burgundy Z has a production date of 03/26/69. Axle is dated 03/25/69 Tag is 03D
|
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.