CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2015, 07:21:11 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Forum registration problems: Make sure you enter your email correctly and you check your spam box first. *Then* email KurtS2@gmail for help.
112305 Posts in 12901 Topics by 4939 Members
Latest Member: Lwilliams
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12
151  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: One more question about BJ on: February 18, 2007, 05:08:56 PM
I just saw the auction reports in OCW about the 2 '67 Z-28s at BJ. I think one was listed as No.2 condition and sold for $100K, the other was no. 1 selling at $125K.  Can anyone that was there that looked at them give a review?  How authentic were they? If you can believe a Hemi anything is worth $200K or $300K, my thoughts are these were a steal. Yea, I'd rather have a Chevy. Oh, and how about the Z-16 for $200K?

Here is a thread I posted at about the two Z28's I guess there were some issues with one or both of the

152  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 Camaro Z28 Underneath Sheetmetal on: February 17, 2007, 03:03:17 PM
True, I know what was in the wheel wells I have done is a heavy asphault type undercoating, sometimes up to 1/4" thick if they got carried away.
The 3M body shultz, sold in qt's, applied with a body shultz gun works good. It does have a differant texture to it. Need 2 qt's for a car, for 2 good coats.   
153  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 Camaro Z28 Underneath Sheetmetal on: February 17, 2007, 11:17:13 AM
Hi Mario
 First off I hope you enjoy your resoration work as much as I have, It is really cool when you finally get one finished.
Like what is mentioned in the other posts this topic of under carriage finish is a on going topic. I highly recommended you read all the posts that John Z has made on this subject, the threads are posted for you. And  the First generation Camaro assembly process is a must read for sure. I made a copy of it and refer to it often.
 I offer up a few shots of a 17K mi. 69 Camaro 04C Norwood car that was very solid with little corrosion. Basicely the undercarriage's of alot of these Norwood cars were a mess to look at.
As you can see by the before photos, I was able to get a good view as to how this car was built. It was decided at the time of restoration by the owner and me to try and replicate the overspray detail. See after shots. I personnely like the way it turned out, and believe it is a fairly acurate interpratation of what was there before I started.  And I will admit here it is probably way to neat and delibarate looking compared to what was there when I started.
I have also done several other cars with a nice satin black finish that is also very nice looking.
Anyway, no matter what you decide, ther will always be opinions and critics on what is correct. And I would never argue that this car is 100% correct. When it comes right down to it most all these high quality restorations are ovedone, and that is not a bad thing, after all we have alot more time to devote to these cars now compared to what actually happeded on the line. Not to mention the high quality primers and paint we have now.
At 59 I remember how just how average these cars were in terms of paint, fit, and overall quality.
                                                                   Good Luck Mike

154  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Another question for the pros.... Redline tires from Diamond Back Tire Company. on: February 17, 2007, 08:45:18 AM
I had Diamondback on my 67.
Was not so happy with the color of the redline.
They looked great for a few years, and then they turned dark.
Diamondback said i could sand them down, as it was red all the way through the bead.
But, even then - they just never looked right. (More Like a dark maroon)
I took them off and sold them with a this car pictured.
Now that being said - I bought them in 97, so maybe they are better now. Huh

I have had DB redlines on my 69 Camaro for more than five years now, 100% happy, especially if you drive alot. Lots of sizes aviallable because there made from off the shelf DOT tires, I think mine are Dayton Daytonas ??
As far as maintaining the Red stripe, I have also used this on white letters, take some mineral spirits based solvent on a damp rag and go over the red or white rubber a few times a year. Terry towl works good.
Tires oxidize and on the white letter tires the black seems to stain the white letters after awhile. The solvent seems to cut in and remove the top layer of crud, leaving freash rubber. I have even used enamal reducer. Also works to clean you wiper blades on you drivers, you will be suprised at the crud that caomes off on the rag.
155  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: stickers on core support and fan shroud 0f 69 z/28 on: February 16, 2007, 07:02:08 PM
Here is the original tune up sticker on the fan shroud, 04C Norwood COPO I restored last year.

156  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Cowl Tags from the B-J on: February 15, 2007, 08:00:38 PM
I am pretty sure we talked at your car one day out under the tent at B-J. I also was way impressed at the quility of the paint on that car. If you remember I told you that I had restored four 69 Camaros along with a few others and that I had recently retired ,early, so I could play with cars and do a few restorations on the side. Were you the guy that told me you were more of a Mopar guy and had restored some of them too ?
 Anyway you have come to a great place to learn about Camaros.
157  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Cowl Tags from the B-J on: February 01, 2007, 08:11:30 PM
I'm certainly no expert...but how can you tell they are fake tags (other than the newer rivets)....if someone went to all the trouble to create a fake tag...why wouldn't they reproduce the correct rivet?

If this is the case that they are fake and not disclosed as fakes, there should be hell to pay.

It is accepted practice on this board and others not to openly talk about the specifics of repop tags.
Email me and I will talk with you there if your interested.
I am no expert on the law part of this, but I do not think messing with cowl tags carries them same weight as messing with Vin #'s.
Having said that most real car people do not like the repop tags at all. That's why we as a group keep reporting and posting them. Same goes for the real tags for sale on places like E Pay.
158  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Cowl Tags from the B-J on: February 01, 2007, 05:31:40 PM
Check out my post over at Tags w/pictures
159  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro battery on: January 24, 2007, 07:50:36 PM
Current research indicates that the side terminal battery started in late April, 1969.  I have an all original 69 Z28 survivor car that still has the original battery cables which are side terminal cables.  The B/D is 05A, 1969.  I should also point out the original side terminal cables have two different attaching bolt sizes, the positive has 3/8-16 threads and the ground is 5/16-18.  All of the repro cables are the same size making them incorrect. 

When I purchased a repro battery from the only remaining oem battery company (Ohio based), I found out that I could not use their battery.  Their incompetent answer was to install repro cables and throw the originals away.  I opted to drill out and install a heli coil in the battery terminal so I could use the original cables.

Wonder what the general feeling is for anyone who has dealt with the only remaining repro battery company.  We have found them less than courteous, and incompetent when trying to get good technical support.  They are also very expensive and offer very little discounts to other dealers.  New Castle Battery, the originator of reproduction batteries was a much better vendor to deal with but unfortunately, they are no longer in business.


They only hosed me once..... I will NEVER deal with them again !
160  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: No X code on: December 20, 2006, 04:22:41 PM
Turn you cap lock off
161  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Ralley Wheel Paint on: November 29, 2006, 10:52:11 PM
PPG 8568 or Omni MTK-8568, I just used the PPG in acrylic enamal and it worked and looked good. Also DuPont 42153 ,never used it.
162  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / another tag on the BAY on: July 13, 2006, 08:10:33 AM
Just saw this on EBAY X22 off of a 375hp car
163  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Information requested please.... on: June 29, 2006, 10:14:17 PM
Thank You for the picture. Most pictures I have seen aren't taken fron this angle and don't show the detail. I see your metering valve is painted black. I was wondering what the finish would be on the front hex fitting if it was umpainted? Maybe just bare steel. Thanks again four help.

The 69's I have restored were silver cad plated.
164  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: LATE BREAKING NEWS - CAMARO NATIONALS on: May 02, 2006, 12:06:14 PM
We have just received confirmation.  The Silver Camaro Concept Car will be at the Camaro Nationals.

I invite everyone to come see the car.  It looks a whole different in person.

Bud Scolastico
American Camaro Association
I had a chance to view the Red one at the Detroit Autorama, not to impressed ! Ford hit the homerun ball with the stang, the concept Camaro is a sacrifice bunt !
165  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / YH wheel dates on: May 02, 2006, 11:12:52 AM
I have seen several YH wheels on Ebay that have date codes that stretch into 1970. How long did they produce the YH wheel ? The set I see now is k 1 0  6 22. When were the last 69's built ? I guess I am alittle confused about this.  Tongue
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.099 seconds with 18 queries.