69 Z/28 Wanted

[Jonesy]

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.

[dykstra]

Originally Posted by Jonesy

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.

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?