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 - Flowjoe

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25
346
General Discussion / Seat belt question for KurtS
« on: September 20, 2006, 04:18:39 PM »
Hey Kurt,

I have a quesiotn about seat belt tags.  can one tell what interior color the seat belts are from the tags?  In particular these are from a 70 car...any help would be appreciated.

347
Originality / Re: Muncie dating.
« on: September 19, 2006, 08:39:13 PM »
Thanks John, you're the best..i really mean that. :)   One follow up quesion...I know 69 produciton 660 cases did not receive a drain plug but that all 661 cases in 70 up did.  since this is a 70 built 660 would it have been normal proceedure to drill and tap for a drain plug?  thanks again


Joe

348
Originality / Re: Muncie dating.
« on: September 18, 2006, 08:37:34 PM »
Thanks guys...It has a ratio designator....I just didn't include it as I was more interested in the "P" month code and the model year '70 on what should be a 68-69 case...there is no VIN but I went back after posting (but before reading your responses)and noticed that it has CTO stamped near the build date...John:  Would that stand for Chevrolet Transmission, as in replacement tranny?

So i solved the "P" month code...i forgot Muncie didn't follow the straight linear progression of Alpha character to Month formula..."P" = September...my error.

So now all I am still confounded by is the use of the earlier case (660) with a model year '70 build.  Perhaps replacement trannies would have something like that? 


349
Originality / Muncie dating.
« on: September 18, 2006, 05:59:49 AM »
hello, I'd like to pick your brains.  a friend emailed me a picture of a  muncie he picked up with a 660 case & a 584 tail shaft.  The assmebly date stamp shows a P0P03...that would make it a 1970 model year correct?  but a 660 case should be a '69 model year application.  And the date seems odd with the P03..any thoughts?

350
Decoding/Numbers / Re: your thoughts on date code 302
« on: August 19, 2006, 09:10:04 PM »
If the original trans is in the car snap a pic of the Vin stamping on it and if you can get a better one of the engine Vin that would be great as well.
The pair of them should display the same characteristics.
 

As previously mentioned the tranny is not original to the car....that much we knew.  So no help there.  I suppose that it could be the original block that was rebuilt/decked and then restamped but of course no way to prove that jsut supposition.

351
Decoding/Numbers / Re: your thoughts on date code 302
« on: August 19, 2006, 04:21:30 AM »
That pad is restamped.
As ever, A man of few words ;-)

I don't see this fellow very often, so now the question is whether or not to share the above info wiht him and burst his bubble.  He's not looking to sell the car...I think it's a keeper at this point.  I figured out his quarters were replaced and let him know and he was kinda bummed about that (looks like GM not repro quarters were used and it is not a bad job by any means).  I know the tranny is not original to the car...don't recall the rear axle details. 


And no, there is no documentation to go with the car.

For my edification, at what point did it become standard practice to stamp the VIN by the oil filter?  I had alwasy thought it was possible that either location could be used, but having just checked the CRG site :-) I see  it is noted as a "mid-model year" change...since mid model year would normally be around January or so is that when the change over occurs?  Or since '69 is a long production year does it occur later?

I' going to go out and check my '69 307 car (which I got from the original owner) which was built in 05A at Norwood as well and see where it's VIN is stamped....Kurt, I think you took a picture of that pad along with the '67 coupe.

352
Decoding/Numbers / Re: your thoughts on date code 302
« on: August 19, 2006, 12:03:40 AM »
I tried to include other pictures showing the pertinent numbers but they didn't attach...here is the VIN stamping.

I'm no expert on broach marks so you could be right about the lack of broach marks. Although it didn't have the look of a block that had been entirely surfaced nor have the "fakey" broach marks added.  Besides the casting date of the block jiving with the car I thought the location of the VIN stamp (by the oil filter) was more legit.  Or put another way, if someone were to go to the trouble to locate a date correct block, surface and stamp a plausable build date why not stamp the partial VIN next to the build date as well?  (instead of hidden down on the oil filter boss)... Perhaps someone else will chime in with an opinion.

the car did have a plausible date on the carb,   a proper intake, wrong heads (dart heads originally now 186's) but a correct bottom end as well.  So at least someone went to great lengths to fake the car if it is fake...he bought it 6 or 7 years ago so before teh market went totally insane (BTW it does have an X-33 code on the trim tag)

PS I realize the VIN is nearly impossible to see in the photo but  in "real life" one can make out the numbers

353
Decoding/Numbers / Re: your thoughts on date code 302
« on: August 18, 2006, 11:36:31 PM »
My friend's Z is a norwood car also built 05A.  His block appeared to be original as it had a vaild build date of 0425 and a cast date of D89 and block casting number of 3932388 (as well as other tell-tale signs of correctness).  The VIN was stamped by the oil filter (although very hard to see).  My Z is also an 05A norwood car but unfortunately it has a CE block from before I owned it (I bought it in '84) so I can't add any data from there.

354
General Discussion / Re: 69 z/28 what to with it?
« on: August 18, 2006, 02:54:14 PM »
A BB x-member for manual trans has a different offet for the trans mount and a different shaped hole (square with a corner knocked off).

Thanks Kurt, So how great is the offset?  does that mean that a STD crossmember for manual will not work with a BB?  Or just not work perfectly?  Or will just not be technically correct?  A friend recently pondered converting his '68 from SBC to BBC and asked me what it would take to convert.  I tried to give him as complete a list as possible  but not being aware of the crossmember difference I ommitted that aspect.  Now I wonderr if I should bring it to his attention.

355
General Discussion / Re: 69 z/28 what to with it?
« on: August 17, 2006, 08:26:00 PM »
http://www.camaros.org/engine.shtml#EngineMounting

Thanks for the referenced article.  i was already aware of the difference in engine mounts (towers).  What was referenced above in this thread was a SPECIAL BB CROSSMEMBER.  To my knowledge there are only three crossmembers on a 1st gen Camaro...two at the front of the subframe (more or less under the motor) that are permanently welded into place  and are the same for every car including L6 and BB.  the third is the crossmember that bolts into place and upon which the transmission mounts.  The only variation for this component, of which I am aware, is the TH400 crossmember...but that is transmission dependant regardless of engnine type.  so, I was really intrigued by the reference to a special BB crossmember  (the existence of which I was previously unaware).  can anyone enlighten me?

356
General Discussion / Re: 69 z/28 what to with it?
« on: August 17, 2006, 04:36:10 PM »
Keep the car what it is - A Z/28 ! :o   Low optioned Z/28's are still Z/28's.

The other post about a cloned Yenko or COPO is correct.  You need 5-leaf rear springs, special BB cross member, BB front springs, BB heater box cover, complete
BB radiator assembly, BB Z-bar assembly, BB 2-1/2" exhaust system, the complete engine with correct bracketry, etc., BB wiring harness, on and on and on...... ::)

There are way too many cloned Supercars these days for my taste.  Keep your eyes open for the correct DZ block.  One will show up one day, hopefully in a price
range that suits you.  You can always restore it with another small block and go for the correct engine accessory items found on the Z/28.  Then, as time & money
permit, look for the DZ block, build the long block and then transplant it into your restored Z/28. :P

The 396 is probably worth the cost of a DZ block and some internals of you're lucky.

Steve
I've never heard of a special BB cross member.    What is this piece?  And to go with your BB heater box cover you'd need a BB heater core:-)...I may be mistaken but  I think the only diference between BB and SB radiators is the number of rows.

Of course none of this answers the question...what's it worth.  Check Ebay..there is a '69 pile that has bid up to $9K already. 

It looks as if Gflac is not intimated by the project.

357
General Discussion / Re: '70 Camaro question for JohnZ
« on: June 13, 2006, 08:42:57 PM »
Thanks for the response John.  I knew that 2nd gens were not your bag but also knew that you know GM procedures from the era and are fairly well versed in Canadian cars due to your own car.   If you are interested the auction # is 4647990701 (the link did not work from the CRG site for me either...curious).

When I postulated that it might be a pilot car, some one on the 2nd gen site stated that only Norwood had pilot cars (17 according to this person who sites GM records)...does that seem likely?    for the sake of argument I am assuming that the car is not a fake (It is not being represented as an SS or Z/28 - just a V-8 RS)...Some one else on the 2nd gen site has stated, again, that GM records state that L500001 was produced  in the first week of January.  Do therse records exisit for public access?  Or near public access?  I had assumed that 1970 Chevrolet production info was just as "lost" as '67-69 info.  Any thoughts?

As always, thanks for your input.


 
The link doesn't work for me, and I'm not that familiar with the 2nd-gen info, but 02D doesn't make sense to me for an L500001 VIN. Pilot cars were serialized beginning with 001, and were built 12-16 weeks prior to start of regular production. There were no Canadian-built 2nd-gen Camaros - all were built at Norwood and Van Nuys, just like the first-gen cars.



358
General Discussion / '70 Camaro question for JohnZ
« on: June 12, 2006, 04:19:06 PM »
Hey john, I need to call upon your experience once again.  There is a car for sale on Ebay that came up in a discussion on the 2nd gen forum.  Here is the link.  http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...RK%3AMEWA%3AIT  .  It has a VIN of L500001 and a build date of  02D which is theoretically  too late to have the 001 VIN.  So my questions are these:

1) If it were a pilot car would that explain the anomaly  of build date and VIN? 
2) If it were originally sold in Canada (which is where the car is now) would '70s era GM Canada have done final assembly as did GM Europe?  If so would that account for the anomaly?  Did '70s era GM Canada issue its own VIN?  (I figure you are rpetty well versed in GM Canada practices for the period ;))

Thanks for you input....no one I know is looking to buy the car...it just came up as a curiosity to which no one had an answer.

359
Decoding/Numbers / Re: Muncie codes
« on: May 12, 2006, 09:22:20 PM »
LMK what you come up with...I would be very curious to know.

360
Decoding/Numbers / Re: Muncie codes
« on: May 11, 2006, 08:26:26 PM »
Hey John, thanks for the response. 
What you say would make sense but I raised the question because of the information contained on the CRG.  Reference http://www.camaros.org/engine.shtml#ReplacementEngines within this site...based on the info there the "8" would indicate model year (perhaps I misread it).  Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to pick an argument wiht you (you have been a wealth of info over the years and I respect your opinion a great deal) I'm just trying to ascertain the correct decoding of this particular transmission and by doing so deepen my understanding of Chevrolet coding practices.

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25
anything