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 - TangoBravo

Pages: [1] 2 3
General Discussion / Re: Fold Down Rear Seat Panels
« on: May 19, 2019, 11:21:09 PM »
But when the fold down seat is specified, the arm rests and associated tabs are used. If it is a standard trim interior, it would necessitate a cut off standard panel--suspect this is what they did---
OR----Maybe they placed a deluxe rear side panel??? The chrome trim strip would not line up, the vinyl ribbing would not be present and it would look out of place.

General Discussion / Re: Fold Down Rear Seat Panels
« on: May 18, 2019, 12:45:17 PM »
I am understanding the deluxe interior version well and thank you for the clarification. The biggest confusion is how the standard interior version might have been done. The side panel for a standard interior should ALSO have the lower removed--- so that it would not hit the 2 armrest forward tabs? Still unclear how the panel beneath the armrest, for standard trim version, would be-

General Discussion / Re: Fold Down Rear Seat Panels
« on: May 18, 2019, 04:06:35 AM »
68 model year with fold down rear seat is my interest.
 If the interior is standard, then the side panel is the regular standard panel? That panel has 2 chrome strips on it. Seems the lower one could interfere with the top of the arm rest when installed?? It seems that the factory would have to use the standard panel-- as none of the others would fit (convertible) or align properly (deluxe). Were the panels full height under the arm rests?
 If deluxe fold down, then it came with the regular deluxe side panels?? The deluxe regular rear seats came with arm rests also- but only have an upper chrome trim strip? Seems the arm rests would go over these ones well for either seat.

General Discussion / Fold Down Rear Seat Panels
« on: May 16, 2019, 01:08:19 PM »
I have never been very clear on how the rear panels were handled on the fold down seat coupe applications. I realize they used the added on arm rests common to the convertible.
 I am unclear how the side panels were handled though. Were the quarter side panels full height and the arm rests put over them, or were they a foreshortened panel that was a different part? Or perhaps a cut off full panel?? Any difference deluxe vs standard interiors?

Maintenance / Re: Low Fuel light fixed
« on: March 25, 2019, 05:31:48 PM »
I had a similar experience like this a long time ago. I think it MAY work for a 67 sender module when used in a 68-69 application. It was never intended to have a bulb in the module socket on any Camaro application.
Old post-

General Discussion / Re: Engine painting video
« on: December 18, 2018, 09:03:08 PM »
Is that the Van Nuys Plant at the 10:20 mark?

Originality / Speedometer cable marking for m20/21/22 cables?
« on: October 20, 2018, 07:23:16 PM »
The Assembly Information Manuals reference a "color identification mark" on the cable housing that is supposed to be aligned with the middle cable retention clip during installation. Is there any information on what this may have looked like?

I have the Fisher Body Service manual and it is very helpful. My interest is primarily in the assembly process and information like the AIM has. It would be beneficial to have the Fisher Body version of the AIM too.

Yep-quite familiar with the report-and it is truly outstanding. Just seems that a big and important part of the building of these vehicles is missing. It would be great if someone might find some docs at an estate sale around LA or something-----

General Discussion / Fisher Body Assembly Manual.. or similar possibilities?
« on: September 27, 2018, 03:55:37 PM »
Is there any assembly line guides, or manuals related to what happened behind the "Hole in the Wall" for how Fisher put things together on their end? Seems we would probably have some available if they exist. Also seems reasonable there must have been some guides for those who were on the Fisher side .There were a lot of mysteries on what happened during the body builds, and very little information on everything upstream on the build of the vehicles.

General Discussion / Re: Heater Box Ducting
« on: September 01, 2017, 05:45:40 PM »
I'm unclear on the non A/C ducting. Seems there is a drivers side duct that comes off the side of the box and another one that attaches to the lower end?? I am unclear if different parts were used for D55 console option? Was it consistent across 67-69 models?

General Discussion / Heater Box Ducting
« on: September 01, 2017, 05:10:08 PM »
Is there any research information on the heater ducting configurations on the first generation Camaros? Seems to be a very confusing topic as to what ducts are used on these vehicles??

Maintenance / Re: Recall Notice Feb 22, 1972
« on: April 06, 2017, 06:12:01 PM »
Ever since this Camaro was found a couple years back in an Oklahoma lake, I have wondered if it was lost in 1970 to a jammed throttle from a faulty motor mount. Seems it could very easily have been caused by one. Maybe they will have a report on it one day......................

General Discussion / Re: 1968 AIM revision question
« on: November 23, 2016, 09:19:54 PM »
Thank you for clarifying this. Camaros seem to be an eternal search for more interesting discoveries. Glad we have archaeologists like you digging up and sharing this history!

General Discussion / 1968 AIM revision question
« on: November 23, 2016, 04:32:13 PM »
In the 1968 factory AIM on the RPO Options Index sheet (A1) it shows a note about RPO D88 being removed on 2 28 1968. RPO D88 was apparently  Z-28 striping. This raises the question-was it possible to order optional striping on other Camaros?

Pages: [1] 2 3