Messages

976

Decoding/Numbers / Re: LA/Nor Vehicle ID numbers

« on: March 21, 2007, 09:31:24 PM »

In 69 the last 6 digits of the VINs could be the same at both the LA and Norwood plants, ie N523456, and L523456.  The 69 body numbers were unique since they were assigned by the central office.  In 67 and 68 both the VINs and the body numbers could be repeated, ie N100001  NOR100001, and L100001 LOS100001 (of course these numbers don't really exist) since the VINs were sequential, and the body numbers were assigned by each plant.

Actually there was a Norwood N300001, and a Los Angeles L300001.  The first production VIN is always number 1.

977

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct Front Coil Spring Tape Decals for 1969 Z/28 RS

« on: March 21, 2007, 01:44:35 AM »

According to the 69 spring chart, the YF spring is the base spring for all weight additions to the front end from 0 to 68 pounds.  The EY spring is used for weights from 69 to 148 pounds, and the YH was used for all weights above 148 pounds.  The rear spring was always a BM spring for all weight additions or deletions.  There is no HD suspension springs available for Z28s.

So your choices just got easier.  The RS option adds 23 lbs to the front and takes 2 lbs off the rear.

Typical Z28 options weights are:

M20 +11 lb  front +5 rear
D55  +8 front +4 rear
D80 -1 front +6 rear
J50 +9 front +2 rear
N10 +3 front +26 rear
N40 +30 front 0 rear
U63 +6 front +3 rear
U69 +7 front +3 rear
U79 +5 front +2 rear
V01 +7 front -1 rear
V31 +5 front -1 rear
V32 -1 front +5 rear
VE3 -6 front +1 rear
Z22 23 front -2 rear
Z28 3 front +33 rear

I don't think you could get to a set of YH springs unless you had a Z28 with just about every option made on it.

978

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct Front Coil Spring Tape Decals for 1969 Z/28 RS

« on: March 20, 2007, 10:47:53 AM »

There was about 8 different front springs available.  The spring used depended on the weight over the front and rear axles which inturn depended on the options the car had.  The RS option added something like 22 lbs to the front of the car, so stiffer springs were needed, but other options could have added or removed weight from the front or rear of the car resulting in the car using anyone of the available springs.  Each car is going to be different.

979

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dual Fuel Lines

« on: March 19, 2007, 10:44:21 AM »

One more possibility.  Have you ever seen the hidden VINs on this car?  If so I would assume they match the VIN on the dash and block.  If not, have a look.  If they match then I would have to say that someone, for some reason removed the return fuel line (and sender?).  You did say the fuel sender is also a single line version as well didn't you?

980

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dual Fuel Lines

« on: March 19, 2007, 02:19:56 AM »

Looks like they are a good set of stamps to me.

981

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dual Fuel Lines

« on: March 17, 2007, 12:41:17 PM »

Your just not getting it.  The is no reason to remove that return line when you put a holley on the car, or even if you removed the stock fuel filter whcih is where the connection to the vent line is located.  Lets take a poll of all the people on this forum who have put a holley on a car equipped with 2 fuel lines, (L48, LM1, L34 and L35s) and see who pulled that second fuel line out just for a carb and or engine change.  I had a holley on my car 15 years ago and I still have both lines.  Good thing cause I have a stock rochester on it now.

The real problem is that the engine is coded as an L35 and the date is correct for the cars build date.  If the car was an L78 originally and some previous owner put an L35 in it because the original engine blew up, is it very likely that the he (or she) would have gone thru the effort to find a correctly dated Camaro L35 block, or would he have just put any old big block he could find and build it the way he wanted it?  If someone puts a holley on their  car they just make a new fuel line, they don't have to buy one from GM, but they could buy one from an L78 if they wanted to.  There is still no reason to remove the return line from under the car, most people would just leave it alone, and at most put a cap on the end of it.

Its the date coded L35 that is the root of this problem.  If we can accept the fact that GM would never let a single fuel lined L35 out of the factory, and assume that 99.9% of all camaro owners would not replace the fuel lines when they put a holley carb on an engine we end up with the conclusion that that engine does not belong in this car.  We then take the next step and then assume someone attempted to clone a matching numbers big block from something else.  There are very few 69 Camaros that had a 3.07 axle as one of its three standard ratios (economy, standard and performance) and those cars are the LM1, L48, L34, L35 and L78.  Four of those have dual fuel lines, one has a single fuel line. Thats not to say someone couldn't order it as an optional ratio on any car but the 3.07 is not exactly something you would pick if you were selecting an optional axle ratio.  So if we further assume that the axle is original, the single fuel line is original, the car had power front brakes then the car begins to look like an L78.  BUT is has a date coded L35 in it and theres the problem.   

I'm just playing the odds that while engine swaps are extremely common in these cars over the past 36 years, people swapping fuel lines is extremely rare unless the car is being totally restored which it sounds like this one hasn't been.  Thats why I rely more on the fuel line being original than the engine code being original.

So do we have someone (previous to the current owner) attempting to make a matching numbers big block out of a big block and just not being smart enough to know they were replacing an L78 with an L35, or do we have someone just a little smarter and they replaced (or restamped) the engine transmission and rear axle with correctly dated parts and putting it in this car.  I don't know, everything is speculation atthis point with the info we have at hand.

982

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dual Fuel Lines

« on: March 17, 2007, 03:28:36 AM »

Your right I don't know if the car was originally a big block or not, just like you don't know it was.  

I do know that no L35 made during the 69 model year was equipped with a single fuel line.  GM would not send a car out of the factory that required two fuel lines equipped with a single line.  The dual fuel line was there for a reason and it wasn't for looks.  There was no engine fuel lines that would have connected the fuel pump to the rochester carb that didn't have the return line on it.  The only big block with a single fuel line was the L78 which used a holley carb.  We know its not an L78 because the engine has and L35 assembly code.  The Holley fuel line will not fit onto a rochester, and the guys on the line really weren't in a position to be making up parts to make a car with a mismatched fuel system work.  If the car mistakenly came down the line with a single fuel line it probably would have taken them 15 or 20 minutes to get the dual lines installed if the car needed it.  Could some previous owner have pulled out the dual fuel lines and the tank pickup and sender assembly and replaced it with a single line setup the day after the car was bought, sure they could have, but I would say the chances of that happening is way less than 1%.  Could some previous owner have put a big block in a small block car, and a big block heater cover, sure they could have.  Which of these two events do you think happens more often changing a fuel pickup and fuel lines or putting a big block in a small blcok car?

At the moment we know the car has an L35 engine, a big block heater core, a replacement transmission, a 3.07 posi 12 bolt axle power disc brakes, and a single fuel line.  Throw the JG engine code out and most people would say its an L78 as thats the only big block that could have a single fuel line.  Add the JG code and most people would say its a clone because no L35s came with a single fuel line.  As I said before theres not enough info to make a definative judgement at the moment, heck we don't even know the VIN or trim tag info beyond its a 12A Norwood car.  It could be an L78 that someone put an L35 in for all we know.  The only thing thats sure is the parts in the car right now, don't match what left the factory, be it the fuel lines, or the engine.

983

Restoration / Re: cant find rs sheetmetal in assembly manuel

« on: March 16, 2007, 11:03:05 PM »

Doesn't really matter, there is no sheetmetal instructions in the Z22 section.  The fenders, while they are different, they assemble the same as the non RS  fenders so they are not illustrated.  Same with the rear panel, it was already on the car when it came to the GM side, so all they show you is the backup light assembly and the hole it goes in on the tail panel.  The only dimensional info you get is for drilling the holes for the rallysport emblem on the front fender.

984

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dual Fuel Lines

« on: March 16, 2007, 04:30:56 PM »

If you were putting a big block in a car back in the day, would you have pulled out an extra fuel line if it didn't interfere with anything else you were doing?  If you put a rochester carb on a 2 BBl engine would you put an extra fuel line in just because the factory did it that way?  All I'm saying is that people don't usually mess around with things on a car when they are making changes to a car if they don't have to.  I just use the "FACTORY" method of installation to try and figure out what a car was originally using whatever clues are available.

So far we have a big block in a camaro with a 3.07 rear axle 2 fuel lines and an automatic transmission that was replaced years ago.  The assembly code on the engine is dated prior to the build date of the car, but I've not seen the stamping on the pad, so I won't use that as evidence to say that it is original until I see a picture of it.  A 3.07 axle ratio is the economy ratio for a small block SS, and the standard ratio for a big block SS, so that doesn't help.  2 fuel lines were used on the L48, and the LM1 when this car was made, so thats 1 point for the car being either an L48 or LM1 originally with a big block added later.

Do we know for sure if its originally an SS at all?  No, we don't hence the questions on the location of brake line brackets, and there is a difference in the bracket locations between drum front brakes and disc front brakes.  Someone who doesn't change the fuel lines when the put a big block into a car certainly wont change the brake brackets.  Do we know if there is a dual exhaust bracket on the driver side sub frame?  For all we know the car has a small block heater cover as that hasn't been mentioned either.

It makes no difference to me if its a big block or an L6 car, I'm just trying to help someone figure out what they have.  alot of what is needed to do that is visual, and if you can't see it you have to ask questions.  If the evidence points towards small block then thats the way it goes, if it points towards big block its a win for the owner, but right with the info in hand I wouldn't pay big block money for this car if it was for sale.  Need more info to make an educated decision one way or the other at this point.

985

Restoration / Re: Wire routing

« on: March 13, 2007, 11:42:47 PM »

The front lighting harness goes under those two straps, it doesn't go between the inner and outer fenders (at least in 69's).  In the 69 AIM its shown on UPC 12 A4, which says its for an L6 but every car was built that way.  The only difference is on the V8's (in 69) the generator harness is on the passenger side.

986

General Discussion / Re: Car Insurance

« on: March 13, 2007, 09:47:40 PM »

The ONLY way to tell if you have an agreed value policy is to look at the wording on the endorsement.  Don't take your agents word on it, make sure you know what you have.  If the policy says in the event of a total loss we will pay you the amount specified (and the amount specified is what you agreed to), or we will repair it with like parts up to the value of the amount specified then you have an agreed policy, end of story.  If there is any wording in the endorsement about depreciating it, or value on the date of the incident, or the term like value is used then its not an agreed value policy.  There are two examples of agreed value policy wording in this thread, what does your endorsement say?

987

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dual Fuel Lines

« on: March 13, 2007, 04:23:14 PM »

Block cast on nov 1 1968 assembled on Nov 30th 68 with November 29th cast heads.  Yes blocks and heads can be cast on one day and assembled into a motor the next, or even the same day if they were cast early in the day and assembled late in the day so thats not to odd.  So can we assume that this would be a 12A Norwood car (Is it a Norwood Car?) at the earliest?  3.07 is one of the standard small Block SS axles (economy, I beleive) as that is what I have in my car.  Not sure if it was one of the standard ratios for a big block or not though.

Have you looked for a crayon marking on the front of the rear package support, behind the back seat?  You may find an X code back there, like X1, X2 or a combination of exterior color and X code together like RG2 for Rally green X22.  The codes were pretty common in the November time frame on Norwood cars anyway.

988

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dual Fuel Lines

« on: March 13, 2007, 02:35:29 AM »

No reason, most people don't give the fuel lines a second look.  Every small block except the LM1 and L48 and both the L34, and L35, have a single fuel line.  It's much more likely that the engine is not original than to find an L35 with a single fuel line.  When was the engine assembled?  How about the stampings on the tag on the pasenger side of the TH400 transmission.  Whats the rear axle ratio, and assembly code on the rear axle?  On the front end, where is the bracket for the front disc brakes rubber lines going to the wheels, on the top of the frame, or on the side?

989

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dual Fuel Lines

« on: March 12, 2007, 10:32:52 AM »

Nope, the only big block with a single fuel line is the L78.  The other two (L34, L35) have two fuel lines.

990

General Discussion / Re: Differences in CE and DZ block

« on: March 06, 2007, 01:32:55 AM »

Look at the casting numbers on the back of the block.  They are probably different, a 68 block will be 3914678, while 69 blocks were either 3932386, 3932388, 3956618 or 3970010, depending on when it was cast during the model year.  Oh and 68 Z28's didn't have DZ coded blocks, they had MO coded blocks.