Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - william

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 138
1
Originality / Re: Big Block interior heater box question
« on: Today at 03:17:56 AM »
True. The bb inner has a larger mounting area for the heater core.

2
General Discussion / Re: Factory Production 69 Camaro JL8 L-78?
« on: December 15, 2018, 04:59:55 PM »
I bought my first '69 Z/28 July 1975. Virtually every '69 Z I looked at was already messed with. Rarely saw one with the original 302 even in those days. The car I bought was decent but had a 307. I swapped in in a 350.

A good friend still has the '69 Z/28 he bought in '72. 4 years old and already had a 350, 10 bolt axle and a couple of repaints.

What's it like 50 years later?

3
General Discussion / Re: Known COPO?
« on: December 15, 2018, 03:00:12 PM »
Mecum stopped listing VINs for most auctions a few years ago. CA auctions will list the VIN.

4
General Discussion / Re: Factory Production 69 Camaro JL8 L-78?
« on: December 14, 2018, 06:19:48 PM »
As a production option, JL8 included Corvette front brakes. Requires some rare parts to adapt. A production build would have 15" rally wheels. Chevrolet offered a retrofit kit to adapt Corvette rear brakes to the standard 12 bolt rear axle. It was for off-road use only; no provision for a parking brake.

By 1978 that car was nearly 10 years old. Anything could have been done to it. The JL8 option was released to production January '69 and dropped in June. Earliest known build was mid-February '69. If the car was built outside the February - early June time frame, it wasn't built with JL8.

William,   It must be easier for you to 'imagine' someone ADDING a JL8 rear, wheels, brakes etc to a 69 Camaro SS/RS 396/auto, sometime in the car's first 9 yrs, and THEN trading it in on a new 1978 Oldsmobile? (and getting less than $900 on the trade in)???   

I couldn't imagine it then, and can't imagine it now!   which is why I'm 99% certain that it was original to that car...  I don't know what the young owner did to it in the last 40 yrs (but I told him NOT to modify it and to keep it as original as possible with GM parts - rebuilding the brakes), but in 1978 it had all the appearance of a 9 yr old original car without any work having been done to it...


It's more a matter of hearing dozens of stories like this over 43 years in the hobby. Guess how many of those were verified.

5
General Discussion / Re: Factory Production 69 Camaro JL8 L-78?
« on: December 14, 2018, 03:47:02 PM »
As a production option, JL8 included Corvette front brakes. Requires some rare parts to adapt. A production build would have 15" rally wheels. Chevrolet offered a retrofit kit to adapt Corvette rear brakes to the standard 12 bolt rear axle. It was for off-road use only; no provision for a parking brake.

By 1978 that car was nearly 10 years old. Anything could have been done to it. The JL8 option was released to production January '69 and dropped in June. Earliest known build was mid-February '69. If the car was built outside the February - early June time frame, it wasn't built with JL8.

6
General Discussion / Re: Factory Production 69 Camaro JL8 L-78?
« on: December 13, 2018, 08:52:25 PM »
No. Of the 206 JL8 builds about 50 exist, few with docs. The only non Z/28 to date is an L65/4-speed. Very original when found but no docs.

7
Decoding/Numbers / Re: Fisher Body Number Report (1969)
« on: December 13, 2018, 07:22:09 PM »
Here's a few others. Reading all of them gives one a better feel for what dealing with Chevy was really like in the good 'ol days.

Chevrolet = Racing?

By Paul Van Valkenburgh. He worked in Chevrolet R & D in the ‘60s. In the 320 pages there is virtually no mention of drag racing. It is briefly noted: “In the field of drag racing Chevrolet has been even less concerned with any specific individual or team activities.” They did do some evaluation on one of Jenkins cars but didn’t learn much from it. Chevy had tremendous involvement with stock car racing, T/A racing with Penske/Donohue, sports car racing with Jim Hall/Chaparral. 

The author had some involvement with Tony DeLorenzo, at the time an amateur racer. Never mind that his father was a GM VP, he had to buy his L-88 Corvette from a Chevy dealer. Their normal parts source was junkyards. For the ’71 season they bought a pair of Bud Moore Mustangs. Quoting the book: “Just how much Chevrolet racing support can there be when two such insiders buy Fords to race?”

Best Damn Garage in Town

By Smokey Yunick. The consummate insider, Smokey was there at the birth of NASCAR and was involved with R & D well into the ‘70s. There are some amusing comments about the Hemi 302. A constant theme throughout the book is how cheap and difficult Chevy was to deal with.

The Unfair Advantage

By Mark Donohue. There is no better source for perspective on what dealing with Chevrolet was like. The Penske/Chevrolet relationship was so bad by the end of ’69 they switched to AMC Javelins for the 1970 season, a ballsy move considering Penske was a Chevrolet dealer. Same theme as Smokey: cheap and difficult to deal with. When their ’67 Camaro race car was damaged in a trailer wreck it was rebuilt with junkyard parts. When they wanted Chevy to air freight improved engine parts direct to a track Piggins refused stating “We aren’t involved in racing.” All they did was win back to back championships for Chevy but couldn’t get someone to send them some parts.

8
Decoding/Numbers / Re: Fisher Body Number Report (1969)
« on: December 13, 2018, 02:47:25 PM »
Back in the day I read two business books that mentioned De Lorean. Both authors thought he was one of, if not the best, car guy in Detroit. At 36 he was Chief Engineer at Pontiac; at 44 General Manager of Chevrolet. He didn't fit in at GM, didn't even try. As stated, his ego took over. The DMC-12 was a bad car even in those days, the SS body an expensive gimmick.

There is no denying he turned Pontiac around with the GTO; did it again at Chevrolet. That's how he should be remembered.

Looks like there is another auto industry maverick making news these days. Like them or not, its people like these that change the world.

9
Decoding/Numbers / Re: Fisher Body Number Report (1969)
« on: December 13, 2018, 12:41:20 AM »
Thanks Bryon!

We're learning more and more about less and less!

10
Decoding/Numbers / Re: Fisher Body Number Report (1969)
« on: December 12, 2018, 05:31:34 PM »
Remember the body numbers were assigned by Fisher, a separate division from Chevrolet. When production started in Aug 69, it was a new year to Fisher and they started over.

Fisher had nothing to do with confirming or scheduling dealer orders. All done by Chevrolet; they dictated to Fisher when to release the confirmed order for body fab.

As for all the cancelled orders, entirely possible. For years I have been recommending reading De Loreans' book "On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors." He took over as Chevrolet General Manager early in 1969. They had just installed a new system and it was a mess. Dealers weren't billed for some cars. He stated up to 30% of new car orders had errors so given that and other reasons 77,000 cancelled orders was possible.

11
Decoding/Numbers / Re: Fisher Body Number Report (1969)
« on: December 10, 2018, 05:00:15 PM »
Couldn't even guess how much time I have spent on this over my 43 years of 1st Gens. The two numbering systems [confirmation # and VIN #] are completely unrelated.

For 1969, both plants [Van Nuys and Norwood] were on the same system. My guess, the 1st confirmation # issued was 100001. Highest confirm I know of is in the 377xxx range so 277,000 orders were confirmed at one time. By the end of July '69 both plants had produced just over 200,000 Camaros so 77,000 orders were not built. In his book, John De Lorean stated dealer orders often contained errors; also dealers often exceeded allocations. Many orders were cancelled.

The confirmation # was assigned when Central Office determined the dealer order could be built within normal lead time. Orders that could not [usually material availability] would not be confirmed until the material was available. Under normal circumstances, not unusual to see consecutive confirmation numbers for a group of orders placed at the same time. Many, but not all, COPOs are like that     

The confirmation number had nothing to do with production scheduling. The 50 Fred Gibb ZL1 Camaros were ordered at the same time; 49 had consecutive confirmation numbers 222001-222049. 1st car built [222002] December 30, 1968, 222001 was the 14th built on or about March 4, 1969. Last Gibb ZL1 order was built on or about March 24, 1969 [222044]. Some very early confirmations [105000-110000] were built in November.

I state 'on or about' because the last 6 digits of the VIN were assigned as the completed body assembly was received from Fisher Body. Bodies were then queued in the Schedule Bank and released to final assembly based on labor content to maintain line balance. VIN order was not a factor. 512345 may have released late on 2nd shift; 512340 may have been released the next day.

So what were the determining factors in when a dealer order was built? With two plants and 6,400 dealers ordering cars I'm sure the considerations were complex. Dealer status, location, equipment, paint color may have all been factors.


12
Decoding/Numbers / Re: interesting but rough...
« on: December 09, 2018, 04:23:58 PM »
D80 was included with Z/28 equipment as of early April 1969.

13
Decoding/Numbers / Caveat Emptor...another repro tag
« on: December 08, 2018, 03:04:21 PM »
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-Chevrolet-Camaro-RS-Z28/173680473800?hash=item287029b6c8:g:goIAAOSwnWpcCqXQ:rk:8:pf:0&vxp=mtr

124379N666745

From the ad:

"ALL NUMBERS ARE CORRECT, IT HAS THE ORIGINAL DZ 302 THAT WAS REBUILT AT THE TIME ,ALSO THE ORIGINAL M21 MUNCIE THAT WAS REBUILT , AS WAS THE REAR END..."

That VIN was final-assembled on or about July 8, 1969

Claimed engine date is February 6; 152 days prior. Trans is dated Dec 27, 1968 [not 69 as stated]; 193 days prior. Axle date is close but may not be OE to this car.

Body tag has errors; 07C would be the third week of July. Norwood was shut down July 14-Aug 11.

Not its 1st rodeo:

https://www.camaros.net/forums/15-tag-team/242274-cowl-tag-1969-z28.html

CAR SPEAKS FOR ITSELF

It sure does!



14
Decoding/Numbers / Re: interesting but rough...
« on: December 08, 2018, 02:17:36 PM »
Sold for the BIN.

15
Decoding/Numbers / Re: interesting but rough...
« on: December 07, 2018, 09:07:26 PM »
I had the Citation '81-'87 and put 100k on it. Had a few repairs but not much. My '85 Pontiac 6000STE, another story. Worst car I ever owned.

I believe several manufacturers do at least some build-to-stock. With limited color/trim selection and no more discrete options, not that risky. At one time Kia did that; a dealer told me they got whatever was sent. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 138