In regards to the Motion finned valve covers, it's pretty well accepted they became available some time in 1970 and could have been delivered on a couple of the 1969 Camaros as at least three of them were delivered later into 1970.

They do look cool, so not surprised to see them on the 1968, but they certainly are not original to how the car was built by Motion in 1968.

Good luck with the sale.

Z and L78. My point is how do we know 100% the diff has not been out of the car.?. No paperwork correct? Diffs don't have partials so you tell me. If someone has proof I won't say another word. Its very possible that is the original diff but I haven't seen photos nor am I interested in purchasing. I am simply asking questions. Seems like a lot of folks are pushing the car or is it me? I hope its real, I hope it brings a bigillion dollars. I just like stone cold facts.

The catalog I imaged has extensive conversion parts specifications and both the L-71's and L-72's are cataloged by GM PN#.

So the car being discussed started life as a SB potentially? It should have started life as an L-78.

If it started life as a SB:

Motion sourced a correct 4.56 geared rear end assembly.
Did a BB heater conversion to the firewall
Built a spec L-72 block to Motion engine specifications using a donor engine
Added an Aluminum Blow proof clutch package to the build
Used the typical ignition system and Sun Tach
Used the Motion glass hood with no other cosmetics.
Used a FLY-EYE air cleaner
Used the Offenhauser style finned valve covers with the Motion plaques that later came into the full catalog line about 24 months later in 1970.

Small blocks had finned valve covers already in 1968 but they were the pre cast "Edelbrock" aftermarket kind.

If it started life as an L-78:

Built a spec L-72 block to Motion engine specifications using a donor engine
Added an Aluminum Blow proof clutch package to the build
Used the typical ignition system and Sun Tach
Used the Motion glass hood with no other cosmetics.
Used a FLY-EYE air cleaner
Used the Offenhauser style finned valve covers with the Motion plaques that later came into the full catalog line about 24 months later in 1970.


The catalog does state in the how to build section that "Any L-72 or L-71 with 4 bolt mains can be upgraded for maximum performance service using components from the heavy duty parts list" and Joel introduces the reader to the art of converting the lower end of these motors into what was called a complete "Stroker lower end" treating each engine as a unique and individual project.

With that said there is zero mention of Motion offering any in house substitution package using parts previously installed from another vehicle associated with a new car sale through Baldwin.

Anyone have a photo of the fuel line on top of the sub and down near the motor mount?

I really like this car!! I’m just having a hard time connecting all of the dots this is a Baldwin Motion Camaro in the strictest sense and not a car bought at Baldwin and converted a few years later.

Given the narrative the car was ordered through Baldwin and converted before retail delivery..I personally wouldn’t expect a passenger car L72 block to be in the car. I’d expect a CE coded block.

It makes sense the car was ordered as a L78 and an easy way would be pics of the fuel line. I’ve always understood Rosen ordered the cars that way through Baldwin to take advantage of the engine top end and HD suspension. Also because he recouped part of the conversion cost by selling the short blocks to guys looking for more HP.

What is to say given the lack of paperwork this wasn’t the case with this car.., and it just worked out the engine casting/stamping date is before the car? I mean the heads, intake, etc.. would have been off the L78 and therefore dated correctly.

How logical is it someone had Motion pull a L72 out of a big car and then the short block was used on this car?

Does the car retain the mechanical fuel pump? Are there components that could be dated that are on the car which Motion added?

Given the block stamping, mileage and engine parts which post date the notion of being done in 1968 before delivery., coupled with the lack of paperwork.. to me the car is more logically a L78 bought at Baldwin and then converted a few years after.

Still a great car which anyone would love to own.. including myself.

Just my thoughts

Gentlemen thanks for all the comments.The Camaro has the 3/8, fuel line ,the BBC heater box,and BBC radiator tag. As commented Motion took out the 375 and sold the engines.. The only 427-425 available were for a Impala wagon. The long blocks were probable taken off the line in Tonawanda since they had a abundance of them and sent to Motion . As you can see the date casting on block corresponds to the build date of car. As stated before I have owners history to present. Per the CRG the only cars available with the 4.56 gear was a 350-295 hp and the 396. Even the water pump ,starter, alternator are all dated in 1967 just as the block. Again I have over 100 pictures of this Camaro inside and out . Thanks again for all your comments Joe

Thank you for your post. It is a great car!

Just curious but where did you get the info Chevrolet only had big car short blocks at the time? Just curious as I believe Tonawanda forecasted both production and warranty needs. Not sure why they would over produce an arguably limited use code.

If they only had big car engines available I’d expect to see ID coded engines being installed under warranty in cars during this period., including in Corvettes and I personally have never seen a passenger car coded Corvette warranty engine.

What do verifiable other 68 and 69 Motion SS427 cars have for suffix codes?

I’m not saying it isn’t possible but without some paperwork originating from Baldwin or Motion I’m still leaning to the car being a factory L78 which was upgraded at a later date. Most likely very early ‘70’s.

It is important to remember all of the engine accessories (including essentially all the dated stuff save short block only) is the same between L78/L72. So the dates would already be spot on (provided original to the VIN stuff)

Also since the things on the car which are associated with Motion were all “over the counter” parts.. they could have been added early in the cars life and look completely period correct.

Are there any parts added which have production dates or casting dates? Carb date?

I do think it is telling the valve covers weren’t being used by Motion until later than when the car was built. This logically tells me someone added them at a later date and very well points to the car being upgraded later. Especially given the low mileage and overall original condition of everything else.. .. it would seem to me the original chrome covers would be with the car.

Do you have any period pictures of the car which can date the look? If often found original owners of such unique cars took a few and they help document.

Either way it is a very cool car!

GLWA… I couldn’t let that one go

The ID code 427 were the common replacement in 1968 and are also what were installed in boats of that time frame. I can’t remember with certainty but I believe CE blocks began production in 1969. Also, if the block were out of a production Chevy full-size, it would have a partial VIN stamped on the pad.

Jason

Cool story thanks for sharing.

Which of the owners recall the finned valve covers with the motion plaques installed?

When were they installed, and if not original to the 1968 pedigree-why?

When does this awesome car go up for auction?

It is lot 1418. So sometime Saturday evening?

From the Corvette Forum

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...engines-2.html

This is from the CRG

http://www.camaros.org/engine.shtml#ReplacementEngines


This is from another site...read the internal GM docs

https://www.chevytalk.org/fusionbb/s...hp?tid/351260/

It sounds like the CE engine program coincides with the 5/50 warranty program.

FWIW...there are apparently 1967 cast blocks with the CE engine prefix, presumably for 1968 warranty.

You keep saying it has a 3/8" fuel line. ALL V8's in 68 had a single 3/8" fuel line. Has the line been replaced? It looks shiny in the BJ photos so I don't wanna make assumptions. I personally like the car but the way you answer questions are very general and vague. You mention over 100 photos. Are there any you could share or someone could share with the group? Not to draw comparisons but Doug's 69 L78 has had so many photos all over the net and its an amazing car when it was at MCACN. I have only seen a handful of this car and most from the BJ auction and photos of photos on a cracked cell phone. Were there photos taken at the Camaro Nationals? I don't recall seeing any. Not a one in the Camaro Nationals thread that has photos of all the cars inside.

Hey - There's a flash from the past! Ben Lemmer issued one of the "CE" follow-up letters. Ben was one of my old bosses. He was plant manager of the Tonawanda Motor Plant at the time of that correspondence. Promoted to Chevrolet Regional Manager later (Tonawanda Metal Casting Plant reported to him then). Ben was a great guy.

This is the block code stamp in a 1969 Camaro that is believed to be a BM conversion. This whole discussion reminded me of the oddity. At the end of the day - who knows what happened back then?

I asked multiple managers about how process decisions were arrived at within GM.

The documentation and written direction was the formal process that was followed in the plants all the way through to the dealers.

Failure to do would have resulted in absolute chaos and lost revenue for GM.

Per the discussion: CE Blocks effective 8-1967

What plat managers from the 60s did you ask? - I may know them.

Here is one of the managers.

I negotiated and arranged this event with Barrett after his COPD became apparently terminal.

He was a Assembly manager. Did you speak to GM Parts managers? They are the folks who would have knowledge of non CE distribution & use. What would an assembly division manager know about GM parts distribution? This whole discussion has devolved - as usual Phil.

The subject of this thread is the BM Camaro. Nobody can say for sure when or how that block got into the car. I just pointed out that I have seen that anomaly once before. You, of course, speak with certainty. The guy who that letter was addressed to was my boss Phil - I don’t need call an assembly manager. I just hate to see you saying with certainty - basically calling the owner of the car a liar.

Plus. the manager that you checked with actually died 8 years ago.

I’m done with this thread.

I think this horse has beaten dead a while ago.

Joe has documented this car through the years and was very diligent in the pursuit of its pedigree. He doesn't possess Baldwin Chev or Motion Performance paperwork, however he has documented the history and has signed letters & affidavits ( I believe) from past ownership and personnel that worked for Motion.
That obviously is not enough for you which you've expressed in nauseum. Joe has a binder full of pics, letters detailing the history. What he has isn't convincing to you and I get that.


There are people who have looked at his documented history who may feel differently. Please let this go .

Btw Motion would perform what ever configuration you wanted. Yes they published documents outlining phase builds, but if you had the money the sky was the limit on your radical configuration.

Those finned valve covers did not come out until very early 70's Most of the early Motion cars from the mags back in the day used factory chrome valve covers with Motion decal added.

Another question about the car. Do you know why the washer bottle was moved to the pass inner fender like a 69 and then moved back to the drivers (correct position)? Wasn’t sure if it was due to a Motion mode or what.

I have potentially great news for the seller... I have alerted Marty Shorr to the existence of this thread. :burnout:

Marty has viewed the thread. What follows is his authorized reply:

Hi: I understand your, as well as others, concerns about this car. All I really know is that Joel Rosen did not document this car as he has not been well and has passed on all Baldwin-Motion and Motion archives to someone else. I've seen lots of detail pix of this car sent to me by Joe Steff, but without conversion paperwork from Motion Performance or documentation from Joel Rosen, there are unanswered questions. The auction companies, unfortunately, do not care. And, I can't document a car, even a car like this one that has all the right stuff.

I agree with Marty. It has all the right stuff, but the timing for some of it seems to be the source of at least some of the debate here.

What interests me is the comment from Marty that JOEL has passed the archives to "someone else".

That's a good thing and I want to thank Marty for allowing us to know that.

Camaro Nationals
 

I attached a few pics from someone who took just a few pics of the docs displayed at the Camaro Nationals in July 2022.

I really think the car is (Kind of accurately) represented from a legal prospective for the auction.

Car was sold new at Baldwin Chevy.

Car was likely converted at a much later date by motion as a job in the early 1970’s

So the car is also Motion conversion.

So it is accurate to call it a Baldwin/Motion that is kind of factual.

The unanswered questions center around the absence of any record of the car being an actual Baldwin-Motion performance combine product and in addition there are no records of a later motion conversion on this specific car either.

Phil, you haven't laid eyes on the car yes, it's your opinion but pure conjecture. Go to the auction and verify the documents, call the present and previous owners, so you have a more complete and some actual information. You may be correct, but it is just a guess since you have no intimate knowledge other than a few online pictures.

If Joel has passed on all the Motion archives to someone else, I’m assuming that person will be the new go-to for documenting these cars from now on? Someone needs to search the Motion paperwork to see if this is indeed a B/M new car conversion or a Motion conversion that just happened to be sold new at Baldwin.

Steve,

With all due respect I have had a lifetime interest in these cars. I have met and spoke to Joel and Marty.

Factually when Joel was doing these cars you got two kinds of letters:

This is a car we built in our shop letter and the VIN matches our records

Or

"This is a car that kind of looks like something we may have likely worked on"


This car has neither. In fact neither Joel or Marty will endorse it.

20 years ago the hobby called a car like this "undocumented" or a "catalog car"

If I am getting any of this wrong please correct me.

Paperwork would make this a 350,000-400,000 car. It was probably built by motion in 68 as per the prior owners and mechanics but the paperwork would guarantee the high price.

The valve covers were not available until the early early 1970's

This has been pointed out and asked about.

The description of the affidavit from Billy describes his range of employment as through 1972 so it is possible that he worked on it.

Idk, if I owned this car and was selling it, I’d want the absolute most I could get for it as it’s one of a kind and not easily replaced. That being said, imagine finding out the next owner got the car authenticated as a new car conversion by whoever has the Motion documents. Although it could also go the other way, but still, I’d have to know.

I can tell you in the video of the second owner talking about the car. Incidentally he bought it from his boss the original owner. He says the car had steel valve covers when he owned it. He also says he thinks the third owner an acquaintance of his added the cast valve covers. Jerry MacNeish has looked at it and says it is an original unrestored car with Motion modifications. No it does not have a letter from Motion but it has been inspected by a Motion employee who said he did the work. The engine in this car is not an engine that would have been put in it after the first owner because the second owner says it is the motor that was in the car when he bought it from his boss. If I owned the car in 1970 I would have put those valve covers on it and so would most everyone else. Very few knew then what would be being scrutinized 53 years later. The car speaks for itself those that have seen it, the documentation including notarized letters and a video, are not the ones feeling it was built or converted years later.

Please valve covers Phil???really! You don't think a subsequent owner wouldn't have added them be cause they were awesome looking. Btw there is an early pic of the car with the original chome valve covers. Great research Phil way to cast shades on a car without facts.

You just like to debate and speculate and when called out change the subject.

Btw I am not saying it is, but your opinion lacks facts and based on conjecture...

You want to see what real MOTION documents look like?

PM Me.

Is the original owner Tex Faulkner still alive?

Phil as I anticipated you are attempting to change the subject.... I have a comprehensive collection of Motion documents, so no thanks!

The original owner has passed but believe 2nd,3rd & 4th are alive.