exposingtime

I have located two correct 7029215 carbs...just trying to figure out which one would be properly dated for my car. They are not cheap, but so far the only properly dated ones I have been able to find. Price is $1595 restored with a 1 year warranty.

My 69's build date is L24 (July 24)

The carb dates are either 1259 (April 5) or 1689 (june 17)

Which one works better? I think that the april one is too early. Is the June carb too close to my production date?

Gary

qtlow

This is a tough call. I heard that carburetors were often batch built meaning that they would have a production run on certain models and then they could possibly sit on the shelf for a couple of months until needed.

So if this is true, I don't think the April carburetor would be out of the question.
Especially if the 7029215 is somewhat rare.
I'll be watching this post because I too am interested in what the answer is.

joewill

its not the build date of the car in question, it is the assemble date of the engine.. your stamped date on your carb must be before your assembly date on your engine, which may be months before your build date of your car. 1 week to a month before your engine assemble date would probably be a good date window for your carb..
$1595?? Wow....

find somebody that will stamp a carb for you with a date you want and buy it for 300..

either way it won't be original to the car.. why pay 5 times more for a carb that still may be a restamp and not original to your car?

Mike Ward

The carbs were installed at St. Louis not at the engine plant so an original carb can in fact be dated after the build date of the engine.

April or June would work equally well for a July car. But- unless this is the very last detail you need to make your car 100% perfect for judging, $1600 to buy a date code is ummmm aaah....ouch.

Faster Rat

Gary
What is wrong with the carb that is on the car now? Do you need to replace it in order to drive the car down to Miami? Are you planning to drive this car around town, have it flight-judged and/or re-sell it for a profit? I've got news for you, people are not paying squat right now for cars...Top Flight, correctly restored or otherwise. The economy is in the tank and heading down the drain. Maybe the fat cats are still paying decent money for the L88s, L89s and L71s...but that is not what we have on our hands. Real side exhaust L36s make great drivers but they are not first and foremost on the minds of collectors.

When I bought my L36, it came with a Carter Quadrajet supposedly from a '67 passenger car...but it had the same jets and rods in it as the correct 7029215. When the fuel inlet cracked and started leaking, time to get another. I opted for a brand new, shrink-wrapped, in the box service replacement carb for early C3 BBs (date coded 1986) for $750. Sure works and looks good. I just need to spend another $80 on parts and do some fine tuning.

At $1600 for supposedly an original, non-restamped, correctly date-coded, restored and properly/completely rebuilt 7029215...there is plently of incentive and opportunity for deception. Many people are looking for these carbs because there were over 10,000 cars that came with them in 1969. If you are running out of things to spend your money on (which I highly doubt) and feel you really need to do this, I would just be very careful who you buy one from.
Dennis

exposingtime

The car currently has a 69 dated 7029214 carb...I think from a truck or passenger car. It has been sitting for many years, but seems to be ok at least at idle and under throttle. I will have the car on the road in about a week so will know at that point if it is good.

I figured that if I was going to spend the money on a replacement carb I would be happier spending a bit more on a properly dated original.
Gary

joewill

these carb builders will guarantee its a factory stamp, but as always, with 40 years and many owners, there is no way to guarantee.. they rely on someone not figuring it out for a couple years and then know that most people won't spend 2000$ on litigation to get back some of their money. there is no way to prove or disprove a carb is stamped at the factory.. sure certain carbs have certain base parts and casting numbers and certain vacumm pipes that others may not, but who knows what the factory did when inventory got low or suppliers were running late...

way too many uncertainties to spend 1600 on a number...

Mike Ward

Not to mention that there's no guarantee that the engine will run any better than it already does.

dave s in NC

Hi,
I am new to the forum. I am looking for a Rochester carb 7029214 for my 69 chevy truck. I believe the carb you noted is for a chevy truck with 396 and automatic transmission. If you still have it, I am interested in purchasing.
Thank you,
Dave

rcread

You might want to PM him.

avalonjohn

Gary, for what is is worth, I found the correct 68 L79 carb (7028219 DG) for my car after searching for a few weeks from a carb shop on the internet. I called so many places and left my number all over that when they called me I had to ask who they were. Paid $50. Paid another $300 for a show rebuild. These regularly sell for about the same price as the one you want. Are you in a rush for the carb?

Also, yes, I have seen carbs built in "batches" as someone mentioned. Seems like many carbs with the same part number have the same build date. Makes sense if true.

7T1vette

Why do you want to spend that much money on a carb with a "correct" date code, when the P/N of the carb is wrong for your car?

Unless I'm mistaken, you need a 7029200 (for 427 w/auto trans) or a 7029201 (for a 427 w/manual trans). Will NCRS give you a better score because the date code is correct, even though the part is wrong?

Easy Mike

June would get my vote.

My references do not show 200 or 201 as Corvette carburetors. His 215 is correct.

7T1vette

Reference document I have from Lars shows 7029215 as a "69 CHEV 396/427 M/T"; that would indicated a full sized Chev vehicle.

Same document shows 7029200 and 7029204 as "69 CAMARO/VETTE 396/427 AUTO" and 7029201 as "69 CAMARO/VETTE 396/427 MAN".

Lars document could be in error, I suppose....