Royal Plum 67 Camaro L78 on ebay

[AMANOCC]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...04497&rd=1

I was under the assumption that the L78 didn't show up in the 67 camaro till March-April 67, the trim tag/vin info on this car says the car was built 3rd week of November 1966 ???

Any comments?

[budnate]

would also like to confirm the date on the rear axel...cool car if its real.

http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#MidyearChanges


was the 4K car that sold as a roller real fast a long year ago on e bay a royal plum car??...kinda recall it was..I cant find the link I thought I had saved from that auction. wonder if its the same car done

[Steve Shauger]

This is a very questionable car. You are correct,L78's were introduced in Late March/April. The trim tag is very questionable.

[427TJ]

[ QUOTE ]
was the 4K car that sold as a roller real fast a long year ago on e bay a royal plum car??...kinda recall it was..I cant find the link I thought I had saved from that auction. wonder if its the same car done

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the same thought I had when I saw this auction yesterday.

Car should have a square traction bar, right?

Should also have white body side pinstripes.

And no spoilers! (Easy Bud, eeeeeasy!)

[mr396]

Looking at the End-Of-Month vin report on the CRG website it looks wrong, at least on the 68 Norwood cars. My 68 is a 07C vin 468959. that would put it at a may 68 build. The 2147 units for july seems to be low.

[budnate]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
was the 4K car that sold as a roller real fast a long year ago on e bay a royal plum car??...kinda recall it was..I cant find the link I thought I had saved from that auction. wonder if its the same car done

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the same thought I had when I saw this auction yesterday.

Car should have a square traction bar, right?

Should also have white body side pinstripes.

And no spoilers! (Easy Bud, eeeeeasy!)

[/ QUOTE ]

at least the guy has a little taste and will put a spoiler on it ...the last word I read is somehwere in Dec was the first cars to recieve the traction arm, have not seen a car before then with a arm...thats why I really want to see some pics of the date and codes on the rear..hate bugging people when I am not buying but it could have some time line value if the car is somehow a pilot car of sorts and the rear is correct to that body.....things that make ya go hmmmmmmm...I am no bogus tag detective by a long stretch.....any experts see the text as being slighly off???

[Kurt S]

That car can't be an original L78.


> Looking at the End-Of-Month vin report on the CRG website it looks wrong, at least on the 68 Norwood cars.

Those are #'s directly from GM. I put them together, but I agree that some of the #'s are off. Hence the disclaimer on the data.

[budnate]

Kurt your doing a great job of gathering good information!!..question for you what is the earliest '67 with a traction arm have you seen with doc's to back up the claim????.

Bud.

[plumL78]

I believe the car has a made up trim tag.On most 67 tags I've seen the GENERAL MOTORS CORP at the top and BODY BY FISHER at the bottom are stamped much lighter than the rest of the tag. I'm sure that they were already on the blank tags before the rest of the info. was added. That car tag looks to be all heavely stamped as in repro.

[budnate]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the car has a made up trim tag.On most 67 tags I've seen the GENERAL MOTORS CORP at the top and BODY BY FISHER at the bottom are stamped much lighter than the rest of the tag. I'm sure that they were already on the blank tags before the rest of the info. was added. That car tag looks to be all heavely stamped as in repro.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is what I thought I was seeing..the whole thing looks like it was really stamped hard and it crowded the top and bottom text...