CRG Discussion Forum

Camaro Research Group Discussion => Originality => Topic started by: jim28607 on November 07, 2017, 01:06:44 PM

Title: 1969 clock usage
Post by: jim28607 on November 07, 2017, 01:06:44 PM
What trim level or etc dictated what cars got a dash clock ?
Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: x66 714 on November 07, 2017, 01:13:30 PM
U35 is the RPO for a clock by itself. U17 is the RPO for tach & gauges. The clock was included in the U17 package. No trim level dictated either...Joe
Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: bertfam on November 07, 2017, 02:18:35 PM
It also depends on what year you're referring to. The above is correct, but only for 1969.

Ed
Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: jim28607 on November 07, 2017, 02:27:56 PM
Yes 69,

So is it correct if you have console with gauges you should
 have a clock?
Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: bertfam on November 07, 2017, 02:52:07 PM
Quote
Yes 69,

So is it correct if you have console with gauges you should
 have a clock?

If it came from the factory with U17 then yes.

Ed
Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: Z28Project on November 07, 2017, 03:13:38 PM
I can understand the potential confusion since half the cars on ebay are incorrect. :)

The missing clocks with U17, the unpainted grill surround, and incorrect striping are running rampant these days!

Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: william on November 07, 2017, 04:39:04 PM
Very early press release photos show a '69 SS convert with U17 but no clock. Typically those were Pilot builds, not production cars. Early '69 Communication kits depicted a '69 Camaro dash with tach but no clock so a clock may have been a late addition to the option.
Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: Z28Project on November 08, 2017, 12:28:26 AM
Yes, I remember that from the early car mag roll out of new for 69 GM products.

(http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac71/speartech/1969%20Z28%20Early%20Prod-No%20Clock.jpg) (http://s887.photobucket.com/user/speartech/media/1969%20Z28%20Early%20Prod-No%20Clock.jpg.html)
Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: william on November 08, 2017, 02:36:50 AM
A few years ago I got to spend some time examining N500003, probably the 1st '69 Z/28. The dash cluster was hand-made. Never had a body tag; has a '68 style floor pan. Hope to see it again with a lot more lighting.

Obviously a Pilot Car, hard to believe Chevy sold it.
Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: Stingr69 on November 08, 2017, 02:03:37 PM
A few years ago I got to spend some time examining N500003, probably the 1st '69 Z/28. The dash cluster was hand-made. Never had a body tag; has a '68 style floor pan. Hope to see it again with a lot more lighting.

Obviously a Pilot Car, hard to believe Chevy sold it.

That car would keep me up at night. So cool.
Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: dannystarr on November 08, 2017, 05:22:30 PM
Car in picture is an Automatic ?? Danny
Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: william on November 08, 2017, 07:01:55 PM
Car in picture is an Automatic ?? Danny

Yes. What's your point?
Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: bertfam on November 08, 2017, 07:17:12 PM
If Danny's freaking out because the picture of the car itself is a Z28 (and as we all know, you couldn't get an automatic in a Z28), it's because magazines typically use several different cars for their layouts. The pictures on that page are of at least two different cars, and maybe even three. And most likely the pictures were furnished by the Chevrolet publicity department.

Ed
Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: x66 714 on November 08, 2017, 07:50:13 PM
Probably 3. The engine is a 68...Joe
Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: ZLP955 on November 09, 2017, 02:09:58 AM
William could you please clarify how the '68 style floorpan' differs from the '69?
Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: william on November 09, 2017, 03:56:17 AM
'67 & '68 manual trans floor shift pans had a die-punched hole for the shifter. The hole had a rectangular reinforcement spot-welded around the circumference.

'69s ordered with a 4-speed trans were built with the standard floor pan. The hole for the shifter was cut with a torch, probably using a template to properly locate the hole. Looks cobbled and people new to '69s often question it. Perhaps the upgrade to a Hurst shifter mandated the change. A much simpler solution than tooling up for another floor pan stamping by Fisher.

'69s with a 3-speed floor shift [M11 & MC1] continued to use the '67-'68 style floor pan. Both still used the infamous Inland shifter.

Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: ZLP955 on November 09, 2017, 11:13:35 AM
Thanks for confirming. Knew the '69 hole was flame-cut, but thought maybe there was some other visible difference in the floorpan that I hadn't learned yet.... so many quirks to these cars!
Title: Re: 1969 clock usage
Post by: william on November 09, 2017, 02:59:58 PM
Thanks for confirming. Knew the '69 hole was flame-cut, but thought maybe there was some other visible difference in the floorpan that I hadn't learned yet.... so many quirks to these cars!

Actually there is a difference in '67s. The driveshaft tunnel is about 1" shorter in the rear seat area.