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 - jdv69z

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 75
1
I see no issues with the engine stamping and the date lines up well with the car production (mid to late Feb), but the axle stamp date (early march)  is too late for the car (from the factory).
Thatís essentially why I posted.  By everything Iíve learned in the last 34 years of messing with 1st gens that rearend is too late to have been on the car when it left Van Nuys.  But it boggles the mind to think that someone randomly found a 3.73 posi with a date that close to the cars build date to stuff in this car.  No one tried that hard nor got that lucky with the tranny.  Even if restamped, as suggested above, the cast date is amazingly close.  FWIW, The car is well worn and shows no signs of an abandoned restoration. 

I know that defects during production could send a car off to the side For correction but it seems unlikely it would sit for two weeks or so waiting for a rear end.

Which brings me back to my original questions about what could have happened in the factory (John??) or warranty parts. 

As always, not trying to make it something itís not just trying to understand what it is.

On my 69 Z, I originally thought it had the original 892 water pump. Turned out it had been replaced. (probably around 1978) Replacement pump was same part no. 892, but cast date was I 23 8, and engine assembly was 0912DZ. So totally at random it was only a few weeks late from being perfectly in line with the original engine build.

2
General Discussion / Re: Factory Production 69 Camaro JL8 L-78?
« on: December 15, 2018, 11:02:51 PM »
Know of 2 302's that went into other cars in the early 70's. One with a spun bearing in 1972 into a 55 chevy for a running 327. Bought my first car, 57 Nomad, in spring of 73. Guy I bought it from just bought a 69 Z. 302 gone, replace with 327. I don't think it took long at all for these cars to stray from originality.

3
Decoding/Numbers / Re: Fisher Body Number Report (1969)
« on: December 12, 2018, 02:02:53 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.

4
General Discussion / Re: Another 69Z project for sale (orange this time)
« on: December 09, 2018, 10:20:57 PM »
Original 15 x 7 AD wheels would help it's case.

5
General Discussion / Re: 1969 Camaro Engines
« on: December 09, 2018, 04:38:37 PM »
I read/heard somewhere that the 307 replaced the 327 because it was a better emissions engine?

6
Decoding/Numbers / Re: Caveat Emptor...another tag mismatch
« on: October 18, 2018, 07:57:29 PM »
Even in the case of the December ordered/March built ZL1's though, the trim tag still correlates with the VIN right? Trim Tag for a March built ZL1 is not 12B, but 03A, or something like that, right? Both trim tags and VIN's are related to when actual production occurred, whereas the order number is not and could float in limbo indefinitely.

7
Decoding/Numbers / Re: Caveat Emptor...another tag mismatch
« on: October 18, 2018, 02:06:12 PM »
Not an expert in any sense, but the TT doesn't look like it's been off?

8
Decoding/Numbers / Re: It's back!
« on: October 16, 2018, 07:07:06 PM »
So the typical RS Grille is black. Is it also black on a black car, or was it then silver?

9
General Discussion / Re: 69 cowl tag
« on: October 15, 2018, 01:01:53 PM »
Sep 1968 Correct?

10
General Discussion / Re: 69 cowl tag
« on: October 14, 2018, 12:55:10 AM »
Trim Tag typo

11
General Discussion / Re: Anybody know this Z28 ?
« on: October 12, 2018, 06:55:11 PM »
This is the typical price point of a Garnet Red car. I thought everyone knew about "resale red" .... ;D

I do!!  ;)

12
General Discussion / Re: Anybody know this Z28 ?
« on: October 09, 2018, 01:54:17 PM »
Yes, you would think that someone that would order the deluxe interior would also order the console? I wonder how many of these were ordered by the dealers for stock as opposed to the individuals themselves ordering through the dealers?

13
General Discussion / Re: Anybody know this Z28 ?
« on: October 09, 2018, 01:04:14 PM »
My Oct 68  10B Z has no tach, no gauges, no clock. Does have console. VIN516355. My Muncie date is exactly the same, P9P11. Brake booster is also exact 267.

14
Originality / Re: 3 different intakes same cast number 3927184
« on: September 25, 2018, 01:08:28 PM »
I'm not certain, but I believe the change to the valve cover oil fill was related to emissions controls, and the pcv valve. Previously there was an opening in the back of the block behind the distributor and the crankcase was vented from this opening via a fitting and rubber hose. The opening was eliminated when the pcv valve setup instituted. So a 69 block does not have the opening. I'm not sure about 68, but I had a 67 327 which had the opening and was vented out the rear of the block. It did not have a pcv valve, and there were no openings in the valve covers.

15
Originality / Re: 3 different intakes same cast number 3927184
« on: September 24, 2018, 12:57:13 PM »
Oil fill tube went away in 69, and oil was added via valve covers.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 75