The owner of this 1969 Camaro Z/28 refers to it as a one owner, low mileage vehicle. The odometer indicates that the car has either covered 7,900 miles or 107,900 miles. The owner is claiming the lower figure but doesn’t indicate whether he has any evidence to back this claim. I have to thank Barn Finder Jack in Rl for referring this classic through to us. Located in Southbridge, Massachusetts, the Z/28 is listed for sale here on Craigslist.
Exterior photos of the Camaro are a bit scarce. In fact, we only get two of them. They do tend to show a car that is solid and rust-free, although it is really hard to be sure of this with the limited information available to us. The Daytona Yellow paint has a nice shine to it, although it does look that it might be worn through in a few spots. The black vinyl top looks quite good, and the stripes appear to have held up well over the years. I also noticed that the rear wheels appear to be wider than the standard fitment for a Z/28 and that all wheels are missing their chrome trim rings.
The Z/28 is a numbers-matching car, so you will find the 302ci V8 under the hood, pumping out 290hp. This engine is backed by the original Muncie close-ratio 4-speed transmission, while power steering and power brakes are also included. The owner really doesn’t give us a lot of information to work with here, but the presentation of the engine is quite clean for a car of this age.
While the original hounds-tooth upholstery on the seats looks to be in good order, along with the rest of the visible interior trim, there are a few items that I have noticed. The first is the fact that there is an aftermarket CD player fitted into the dash, and the dash would have to have been cut to fit this. I also noticed that the door handle appears to have been broken on the driver’s door, and will need to be replaced. Some of these things may seem like minor details, but it’s these sorts of minor details that can determine the difference between a good classic car and a truly great one.
This ’69 Camaro Z/28 is an attractive car, and it does seem to hold some promise. If the mileage claim can be verified, that makes it a pretty special example of what is an already desirable car. It is one of those cars where the owner has given us very little information, and it would require a personal inspection to determine whether it justifies its asking price. To my mind, the owner has not done his cause a lot of good with the lack of good photos and general information about the car. There will be some potential buyers who will be keen to inspect the car, while there will be others who look at the advertisement and put it in the “too hard” basket. The owner has set the price of this Z/28 at $49,900. When you are advertising a car, regardless of the asking price, you probably don’t want to deter potential buyers.
Might be a low mileage Z/28, however those black and white pictures suggest that the car might have been raced. Those toggle switches were not factory and looking at that third picture from the left on the bottom row, I’ve never seen a seat belt at that angle. Is that possibly a roll cage in there?
Good eye on the toggles RoughDiamond. Looks to me like a crate engine in the car and the 302 on the stand. This will be an interesting story to follow.
I would like to know if it’s been raised? And if it has been raised how many passes are on the car? Thank you very much.
no roll cage, very clear there is none
The vintage pics are of the car at an autocross (you had to remove trim rings and caps when you run) and substantiated by the attendance plaques attached to the console shifter plate (dated 1970)
appears to be a “real deal” car that had period mods (switches, hood pins, radio) and obviously another engine installed
WHY the 302 was removed is a puzzle though
Real deal car needing someone with a clue to inspect to confirm mileage claim, but guessing correct
A friend with a ‘69 Z28 pulled the 302 for a built 350 that is a much more flexible engine that he feels ok abusing.
Another friend pulled the hemi out of one of his ‘cudas & replaced it with a near 500cid 440 for the same reason.
Both replacement motors are rebuilt for lead-free 92 octane fuel.
The original engines sit on stands, the 302 in the corner of a suburban garage & the hemi in the middle of his Cuda Clubhouse.
As long as they don’t get separated from the car permanently it’s a good solution to modern issue with running a ‘60s hipo V8.
If you look at the cowl tag top left it says ST69. If you decode it, you will find that means standard 69 not z28. Therefore if it was a z28 it would most likely be a stock 350
William, that is wrong, the trim tag code X77 indicates the Z28 option:
“X77 = Z28, cannot have the RS or style trim option. With the style trim (Z21) RPO and RS (Z22) RPO, then the code would be X33 for a Z28”
quoted from the CRG forums
69 Z-28’s didn’t have hood pins and the hood itself is not a Z-28 hood.
terrible mis-information post Steve …
it is obvious the original owner changed some of the things to HIS liking when the car was fairly new. Hood pins and locks were a big thing back then.
~ 80% of the 20,302 69 Camaro Z28s made did NOT have the OPTIONAL ZL2 hood … this car indeed has a “Z28” hood, but then a base “Z28 hood” is the SAME hood as a plain jane 6 cylinder car … :-)
Cowl induction hood was an option flat hood was standard but correct about hood pin’s and the ones that are there are to close together, about the trim rings seems to me that Z28’s came from the factory minus trim rings only center caps but I may be wrong on that
If the low miles can be proven it’s worth at least $50k right?
If seller doesn’t offer docs to back up low like claim it’s still probably worth close to his ask.
Definitely needs a PPI from an early F-body expert to be sure
The seller never claims 7,990 miles, only low mileage. A 50 year old car with 107,990, or 2,200 miles a year, could conceivably be claimed as low mileage, especially since that term has no clear definition.
Steve R
A 302 with a solid lifter cam would not last that many miles as a matter of fact back then many of them didn’t last very long
He does claim 7,990 miles. Read the posting to the end. He will have a hard time convincing potential buyers that’s the original mileage making it worth $50K+. Like Grant said, looks like an average resto.
Not exactly.
The text of the ad states “low mileage”, on the right side of the ad next to the box that say, odometer is where the 7,990 appears. Someone might read it that way, but the seller doesn’t claim that is the cars actual mileage.
Steve R
Unless Steve has it spot on, this is obviously a restored car. Nothing original about it, and the aftermarket CD player proves it. By the time that was made only the stupidest owners would alter an original 7k mile car. I suppose the way to know would be to ask and see if he tries to pass it off as 7k, but it looks like an average restoration to me.
Some other sites like yenkos.com have reviewed the car as well. They are pretty convinced it’s been repainted. And it’s been for sale on and off the past 3-4 months.
This might be a “Semi-restored” car, but it’s not close enough to original to be worth that kind of money. As you guys pointed out the valve covers on the motor that’s in it now look like a crate motor. Also the dash cut for a CD player isn’t anything a restorer would do.
“IF” the pictures of the motor on the stand are correct, that is a “Real Deal” DZ block 69 Z/28. I’m disturbed by the fact that the thing is sitting there with the carb and exhaust ports uncovered, but maybe that’s just me. I salvaged a real
DZ block from a 35,000 mile car that a friend burned in a garage fire. It was out of the car, sitting under the work bench with the heads off when the fire happened. The obvious roller rockers on the motor on the stand look like it was previously raced.
The original motor in one of my cars is V 0515 DZ. It’s a low mile original car that I got in the 1980’s. This one is V 0517 DZ. It was built in Flint MI two days after my car’s motor was. It it’s the correct motor for this car the last six digits of the serial for this car should be right around 650 000 and it was built around the third week in May 1969..
Having said that, I let that sit on an engine stand in my garage for a year uncovered while I poured enough PB Blaster on it to get it unstuck. You haven’t lived until you’ve picked burned 2.X.4’s out of the bores of a real 302. The best part of the story is it was a low mile motor and it cleaned up at .030″ over bore. I married it to a Z/28 that was missing an original motor, so that’s my summer driver.
This car has obviously been messed with. The toggle switches in the dash were something we did in the 1970’s. My friends car had them for Hella driving lights. Three of those switches indicates there was something serious going on. Also there are some kind of hood pins that no restorer would leave and the Camaro emblem on the hood isn’t is the right location. I can’t get a look at the carburetor in the pictures, but the fuel line isn’t even close to right and the carb in the pictures doesn’t look close to a Holley 4053 DZ to me.
Comparing the carb and fuel lines to my ’69 Z, the appearance looks correct. Of course, can’t verify if it’s a DZ 4053 carb. The ‘837 alternator is correct and dates match the build.
Joe – you may want to re-check the dates. March not May. The DZ block is dated 0317, which aligns well with the cars build date of 03D. The cylinder head date codes are good as well.
It’s checking out. I haven’t decoded the proteco plate yet.
That car was in craigslist in Mass a few weeks ago. It had a picture of the trunk lid that showed a CB antenna mounted to it.
That picture has been deleted.
Engine on stand should have short water pump and heads should have no bolt holes
Camaros used long water pumps in 1969, Chevy stopped using the short water pump after 1968 for everything except Corvette’s and pick up trucks. That switch necessitated the use of heads with accessory bolt holes.
Steve R
Ok, guys, here’s the response from the seller:
“Mileage is on Mass title, original owner signed affidavit, odometer on car, car has been registered and inspected in Mass it’s entire life , I have the protecto plate for Z/28. All numbers match. Thanks”
If the original owner signed an afidavit, it must be real right? (doubtful)
A signed affidavit must be real. Reminds me of the time when I was looking at a house that had a “submerged” garage under the house (never understood that design, personally. As I was looking at the dried mud on the garage floor, the real estate agent said that the owner would sign a paper stating that the garage didn’t get any water in it. I had a good laugh that day.
The owner of this 1969 Camaro Z/28 refers to it as a one owner, low mileage vehicle.If he is the original owner, he would have proof of mileage ,and what was done to the car. How can a second or more owner claim a car is “One Owner”? Can we say FLIPPER?
I was told a long time ago this way to tell. Assuming it hasn’t been replaced, wear on the rubber brake pedal cover is one of the best ways to tell if the odometer and claimed mileage is accurate.
Having restored many GM dashes, I can say the tale tell sign of use is the silver highlights around rim of gauges and switches. Look at the wiper switch…worn off. Driver side air vent.. worn from adjustment. Took many years (miles) of use to do this. Can’t say mileage is right, but I see red flags ?
BTW, if all else is there and correct it may still be worth asking price. ACC lists avg sale price of $63,500.
Where is the cowl induction hood?
Where is the cowl induction hood?
Jerry – only about 10% of the ’69 Z’s had factory installed cowl induction hoods. The cowl hood was released in late Dec of ’68 so no early Z’s had cowl hoods. This particular Z is a 03D car, so it would have been optional
the OPTIONAL ZL2 “cowl induction” hood wasn’t available until December 1968 as stated above. WAY too many were added so many “experts” think they ALL had them … not so
10,026 ZL2 hoods were delivered on 1969 Camaros. 3,675 of this 10,026 were delivered on the Z11 Indy pace cars, plus a few hundred additional Z10 coupe pace cars. That leaves ~ 6,151(assuming 200 Z10 coupes) factory built SS (non Z10/11) and Z28’s were delivered with the “cowl hood”
In addition ALL of the COPO 427 (997) and ZL1 (69) cars came with them too, so subtract those numbers from 6,151 ~ = 5,085 “plain” SS and Z28s came with the cowl hoods. Even if ALL of those were on Z28s (they weren’t) that would mean 1/4 REAL 69 Z28’s had the factory installed ZL2 hood. The number is more likely 1/5 or less ~ 4,000 maximum Z28s with the hood.
Was cowl induction an option ?
My short research find’s that a cowl induction hood for 69 was indeed a option !
I have a intake from a 69 Z winners choice GM what is the intake worth
the Winters (not winners) foundry marked OEM manifolds vary in value, depending on condition, whether they have ever been bead or sand blasted, cracked, etc and the production date (you have to take the oil shield off the bottom of the manifold to find the casting date)
eBay may be your friend in selling it …
Hans, you’re right about the carburetor and gas line. They appear to be original. There’s a rag over the front end of the carb, so it didn’t look right. Without looking at the numbers you can’t tell if it’s a 4053 DZ, but it looks right.
90% of the fuel lines were replaced by a better looking “Mr. Gasket” chrome piece in the 1970’s, but what’s there is correct. Some of those details point to it being a low mile original car, but I’d want to see proof before I paid that price.
As for missing the engine code date, my eyes aren’t what they were 37 years ago when I got my first one of these. Or maybe I had a couple too many drinks while I was replacing the snow plow lift cable on my quad so I could plow the ‘hood this morning.
I want some of what this guy is taking. He is obviously shooting for the moon. This is what is the matter with our hobby. The crying shame is that someone will come along and pay the rediculous asking price or close to it. That’s what drives the prices up on these classics. Heck 10 years from now it will probably be worth half of what he thinks it’s worth.
Amen to that, that’s why I have an 2011 Camaro instead of a 69
Its the original motor, I just really really really really wanted that Pep Boys Crate motor look………
I was originally contacted to sell this car for the second owner (neighbor of the original owner).
He has documentation of the car being raced, both drag and autocross with the crate 350. The original 302 sitting on the engine stand.
I was going to have roughly 150 photos and would have checked into the history, spoken with the original owner, gone over the “numerous paperwork” the current owner said he had, etc. Would have suggested a realistic price range. This owner has had the car for more than just a flip.. he’s driven it for a couple of years.
Unfortunately, as mentioned, he hasn’t done himself or the car any justice in his presentation.
Talk soon,
Has anyone noticed the mirrors. Too many wrong things for a car with less than 8k miles. Who makes all those changes and doesn’t drive the heck out of it?
Yep….what’s up with that Z/28 on the front fenders…..?
What small block had angle plug heads?
Price is reasonable for car if all pictures match together, which I assume they all belong together. Many comments to hit. The hood issue isn’t an issue, does anyone realize how many cars received hood pins in the 60’s-90’s?!? Most ’69 camaros didn’t come with a cowl induction hood which I believe is code ZL2? A lot of people pulled the 302’s for many reasons. Either the blew them or lack of torque, torque gets the car moving and 302’s are known for their higher end horsepower not torque. If the trim tag shown in pics matches this car which it matches this car if you break it down. ST69: 69 model year, 76B is Daytona yellow with black top, 729 is white houndstooth, and most important the x77 which is non rs z28. Not sure why there is a question about Z badges on fenders, they should be there. The mirrors to me look like Ford mirrors from 69 or 70? Put it back to correct and it’ll be worth more than seller is asking.
Amen to that, that’s why I have an 2011 Camaro instead of a 69
The car appears to be a legit Z/28 @ first glance. It is a crate motor (with the 302’s air cleaner) under the hood. The 302 appears to be resting on an engine stand. The car indeed looks like a “track rat” car for slalom (SCCA); hence the removal of the center caps and trim rings on the rally wheels. The rear wheels appear wider/bigger than the front wheels. The hood pins, toggle switches and other alterations are probably related to the racing. Clearly the car was painted at one point, so you have a “neither fish nor fowl” scenario. Is a repainted car with the motor out of the car a survivor? Probably not. Is it a restored car? Certainly not. Sort of a tweener car. As previously mentioned, you don’t need a ZL2 Cowl Induction hood OR the air spoilers (front & rear) to necessarily establish that this is a “true” Z/28, but depending on the production date, later cars came with the D80 front/rear spoilers as standard equipment.
moepoe, the big question is why was the 302 taken out and what shape is it in? The seller says the transmission is an M-21, that’s a 2.20:1 low gear. With the lack or low end torque and a “high” low gear, that car wasn’t happy trying to launch. My best friend had one almost identical to this one in 1973 and I drove it quite a bit, that’s not a happy combination below 35 MPH. The M-20 (2.52:1 low gear) transmission was worlds of better.
If the owner was trying to autocross it, he probably got tired of no torque and not a low enough low gear off the slow corners and put in the 350. My friend ended up putting a “make your own” LT-1 360 HP 350 in his and it was faster and better in every way. I missed the way the 302 doesn’t have torque below 3500 RPM and then jumps to 6500 RPM really quick, but the LT-1 just goes without effort. That’s a bunch easier to drive fast.
My information says that spoilers and stripes were standard on all Z-28’s. After I found a “barn find” Z/28 in 1996 that had been parked since 1976 I questioned what it really was because it had stripes but no spoilers. More research turned up a “spoiler delete” option that let you order a Z/28 without spoilers. Apparently there was also a “stripe delete” option so you could get a plain looking 69 Z/28 with no stripes or spoilers if you wanted it.
Chevy would let you leave out the stripes and spoilers, but you got nothing off the price if you didn’t take them, so almost everybody did. When I restored the “barn find” car I gave it spoilers. I know it’s probably rare without them, but I just didn’t like the way it looked without spoilers. And I have the 62 Impala that I got in 1972, so I’m not in this game to sell stuff.
Look at the car close, both front fenders and rear quarters have been reworked for tire clearance. Actually his latest ad lists it as 107,000 miles.