61
Originality / Re: 68 SS Hubcaps
« on: February 05, 2006, 08:45:53 PM »
The vintage part books show only one part number with no notation on color. I don't believe there was any cover difference by car color.
News:
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Classified ads are not allowed on the forum.
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.
62
Originality / Re: 68 SS Hubcaps
« on: February 05, 2006, 08:44:18 PM »
Your point about Hooper well taken, but I don't believe that was Steve's question. He was questioning what he was seeing in Hooper's printed photo. In my view there isn't any question about what I'm seeing in the photo. I see the same cover as your NOS cover being worn by a 68 Camaro. The traceability of the photo may be in question given the source, but the photo is what it is.
63
General Discussion / Re: New Guy looking at a '67, needing help reaching general value
« on: February 05, 2006, 01:24:39 PM »
arocars' advice is sound. No worry if it gets away. This is a L6 car without original motor, and in need a lot of work. From the description, unless you are equipped to do all work yourself and don't value your time, I'd guess you're at least $30K away from a class 2 car (looks real good, but not suitable for top show), and that's after the $18k up front.
64
Restoration / Re: L30/M20 firewall pic needed...
« on: February 05, 2006, 12:40:12 PM »
Finally looked at the photos Kevin posted. Painful. Now that would be a labor of love, an expensive one. And I thought mine was in rough shape when I got it. However, useful photos, perhaps. Any objection Kevin to me using any of them? Rich
65
Originality / Re: 68 SS Hubcaps
« on: February 05, 2006, 04:04:35 AM »
The 68 dealer book. Not saying what's definitive, just that the images I'm looking at aren't shadows. They are what they are, right or not.
66
Originality / Re: 68 SS Hubcaps
« on: February 05, 2006, 12:15:26 AM »
Not even sure we're seeing the same things in the same photos. The photo in the dealer book looks to me just like the NOS photo that Arno shows as his #2; inner black ring and outer black ring. And that is the same cover shown in Hooper's 1998 book taken on a supposedly original (but who knows) car. Rich
67
Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 SS350 Engine numbers
« on: February 04, 2006, 11:36:36 PM »
The most definitive list of known block applications is provided by Colvin, and this is what CRG uses as a baseline - Colvin researched back to original Chevrolet factory data - all other lists are frankly suspect. CRG takes some of Colvin's work a step further for 67-69 Camaro. In the CRG link header at the top of the forum pages select the 19xx Model ID and scroll down to find the info to ID your model (at least most of the V8 models).
The particular block you mention, 3858174, is primarily known as a 66 block and isn't known to have been applied to 1967 models, but I can't rule out a 67 application. That the block supposedly has a large journal crank with a Dec 66 date indicates that - if crank is original to the block - that this block would have been in a SS350. However, my statement above stands. You should still see a 67 Camaro partial VIN on the block stamp along with one of the 67 350 motor codes shown in the CRG link above. And CRG has yet to see one of these blocks in a documented original Camaro.
Rich
The particular block you mention, 3858174, is primarily known as a 66 block and isn't known to have been applied to 1967 models, but I can't rule out a 67 application. That the block supposedly has a large journal crank with a Dec 66 date indicates that - if crank is original to the block - that this block would have been in a SS350. However, my statement above stands. You should still see a 67 Camaro partial VIN on the block stamp along with one of the 67 350 motor codes shown in the CRG link above. And CRG has yet to see one of these blocks in a documented original Camaro.
Rich
68
Decoding/Numbers / Re: Anything on this VIN and Engine Code Question
« on: February 04, 2006, 03:49:52 AM »
VIN isn't in the database. Not sure what the casting year is, but not a good date match regardless. HN isn't a first-gen Camaro code. However, if you want a driver motor, don't worry about the date or code. (The 1 that looks like an I is an I that was substituted in place of a 1.)
69
Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 SS350 Engine numbers
« on: February 04, 2006, 02:27:51 AM »
It will have an authentic Camaro partial VIN on the stamp block with an engine code consistent with a SS350. See http://www.camaros.org/diffs67.shtml and http://www.camaros.org/numbers.shtml
70
General Discussion / Re: 1968 Z-28
« on: February 04, 2006, 01:40:24 AM »
Absolutely. Please see other threads on submitting data. Thanks, Rich
71
General Discussion / Re: 1968 Z-28
« on: February 01, 2006, 03:52:48 AM »
Document *all* the clues in existing state with detailed digital photos *now*; especially the glovebox sticker and the partial VIN on the Muncie tranny (that will be priceless if you have no other original document and the engine block was switched). Attempt a title search. Attempt to locate and get statements from people that knew that car when it was new. And look for (though don't expect) broadcast sheet info in the car as you restore it. You should be able to build a convincing story.
72
General Discussion / Re: 2657 block
« on: February 01, 2006, 02:47:29 AM »
This is a 67 only block. Colvin documents it. As a sanity check, the entire casting number clarifies it, 3892657. Drawing numbers this late - 389xxxx - weren't pulled prior to 67 model year.
73
Decoding/Numbers / Post content
« on: January 02, 2006, 09:09:58 PM »
waynechipman...
I have reviewed a significant number of your posts.
This free-to-you site is known for the ability to have polite and intelligent discussions.
I have concluded from your posts that you may be confused about what this means. If you are uncertain, please send me a private message and I will be happy to help you understand.
In the meantime, please be aware that this is not a democratic forum (in the dictionary sense of the word). You have no inherent right to post here - you post at the whim and discretion of the CRG, and we will revoke that right as we see fit. We have only done that once before in our many years. Please don't become number two. This is your first warning. You have only one more warning available.
Best wishes,
Rich Fields
Coordinator, CRG
I have reviewed a significant number of your posts.
This free-to-you site is known for the ability to have polite and intelligent discussions.
I have concluded from your posts that you may be confused about what this means. If you are uncertain, please send me a private message and I will be happy to help you understand.
In the meantime, please be aware that this is not a democratic forum (in the dictionary sense of the word). You have no inherent right to post here - you post at the whim and discretion of the CRG, and we will revoke that right as we see fit. We have only done that once before in our many years. Please don't become number two. This is your first warning. You have only one more warning available.
Best wishes,
Rich Fields
Coordinator, CRG
74
General Discussion / Re: Old forum available
« on: November 03, 2005, 10:53:34 PM »
I've re-adjusted the old forum parameters, removed the access list requirement (now it should be fully open - no login required), and changed the format from archive (didn't like the format) to what is essentially read-only (removes the ability to add new threads or reply to old ones).
Please let me know if all can now read it...
Thanks,
Rich
Please let me know if all can now read it...
Thanks,
Rich
75
Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1001HA paint code
« on: November 03, 2005, 10:13:48 PM »
Yes - black was dropped as standard color at end of calendar year 67.