CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: cook_dw on October 10, 2012, 12:26:57 AM
-
Any info on this car? Anyone else notice a few things that are off?
CLICK ME!!! (http://"http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chevrolet-Camaro-RS-SS-1968-Camaro-RS-SS-396-375hp-Collectors-/170920322702?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item27cba5268e#ht_3580wt_1165")
-
Your link is bad
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/RS-SS-/170920322702?forcev4exp=true (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/RS-SS-/170920322702?forcev4exp=true)
Its got a 67 rear axle complete with the radius rod.
-
small block trans crossmember?
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/$T2eC16VHJHYE9nzpeCqeBQbz89TkZg~~_4.JPG
-
Looks like the interior was changed out along with the top color. green with the white top would have been nice. Says what you see is what we have but no block picture??
-
I'd certainly would want to see the VIN pad on the block and being the heads are off, a close up of the deck surface.
Did you guys notice the massive rip at the rear tunnel? The car must have thrown the drive shaft in its day.
Maybe the owner put in the mono rear for racing purposes. I know of a few who have done that to get a better wind up of the suspension.
Looks like a solid body though for its age.
Mike
-
Your link is bad
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/RS-SS-/170920322702?forcev4exp=true (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/RS-SS-/170920322702?forcev4exp=true)
Its got a 67 rear axle complete with the radius rod.
Thanks.. Thought I had fixed that but I guess not.. lol
-
I'd certainly would want to see the VIN pad on the block and being the heads are off, a close up of the deck surface.
Did you guys notice the massive rip at the rear tunnel? The car must have thrown the drive shaft in its day.
Maybe the owner put in the mono rear for racing purposes. I know of a few who have done that to get a better wind up of the suspension.
Looks like a solid body though for its age.
Mike
Agree...my first thought was an old race car that had been put out to pasture. The bottom looks like it has been sitting on top of the pasture....rusty tank and all the way to the front.
-
Anyone notice the mono leaf springs?
Does 4A date and April 16 dealer sticker work?
-
Yes, those are 67 6 cylinder (L22) springs part number 3909942 code BK. If you just look at the BK designation you won't find it listed as a service replacement code in any P&A manual for either a 67 or 68 car. It is a valid service part number code for a 69 Camaro, but it has a different part number. It does show up in the 67 assembly manual under UPC4=B1. GM did not carry this spring forward into its service parts in 67, instead keeping the 3909941 BJ coded spring instead, which was the G31 version of this spring. Either way its not the orignal spring, or rear axle for this car.
-
Looks like a nice solid car , but as you guy's have pointed out the rearend looks like a direct transplant from a 67 and the sbc crossmember. Everyone knows how the engines were swapped in the cars back in the day.
Does the paper look authentic?
It would be a nice car to put back to 68 Norwood style.
-
Looks like a nice solid original ,im told the person selling it is a nice guy . But based on all the cars Ive looked at to buy ,that have grown dealer papers in the past few years ,its hard to judge the car simply on that. Would be nice to speak to the original owner if available. Neat options
-
Spoke to the owner and the rear is June 7th, 1967 and the code is qj which is 3:07 posi
-
"I'd certainly would want to see the VIN pad on the block and being the heads are off, a close up of the deck surface".....It doesnt[didnt] come with a block