View Single Post
  #78  
Old 03-25-2008, 04:26 AM
William William is offline
Yenko Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New Berlin WI USA
Posts: 2,667
Thanks: 258
Thanked 2,948 Times in 818 Posts
Default Re: THE LAST??? 1967 Z-28

Yes Norwood and Van Nuys were different. Van Nuys built other Chevy models; at that time Norwood only did Camaros.

I was not critical of anyones car. I pointed out that I know of a '67 Z/28 built later than his.

The CRG db is proprietary; not mine to share. But here is a summary:

Starting at the 1st 07A data point the CRG db has just over 200 cars, in VIN order just like they were built. At data point 18 there is an 06E Z/28 with a July 5th engine. There is no way that car was built anytime in June; according to the few Canadian shipping records I have the car was probably built July 10th. That means all the Fisher build paperwork and body tag for this car sat untouched for up to two weeks. Engines became available; the car was scheduled and built. Moving along another 21 07A builds there is another 06E car with a July 5th engine. That car was definitely built July 10th. After another nine 07A cars the first 07B tag appears followed by 5 more, then another 07A. It goes back and forth until data point 95 – the 67 Z/28 our business owned. 06E tag, July 6th engine, built on or about July 12th. From that point on it is all 07B until data point 187/188, the first 07C tags. A few more 07C tags, more 07Bs. The last data point, very close to the end of production is an 07B tag.

There is no possible way these cars were built in “body tag” order. If they were 06E tags could not have July engines. They were built as Chevrolet scheduled them and received VINs in sequence as all the known shipping records show. Once again Chevrolet did not care one bit about the date on the tag. By July ’67 both plants were changing over to 1968 model production [June 67 builds are known] so there were plenty of scheduling headaches.

Good news!! My last post on this thread.
__________________
Learning more and more about less and less...
Reply With Quote