CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 31, 2015, 05:37:39 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.
109343 Posts in 12659 Topics by 4866 Members
Latest Member: jamejia1967
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34
481  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1968 Diverter Valves on: February 23, 2006, 08:04:00 PM

Would you mind checking the location of that number for us and reporting back.  The reason I ask is because there is the diverter valve (with a #) and attached to it is an extension (with a #).  The valve number is right next to where the extension and valve bolt together and the extension number is at the other end of where they bolt together.  Please recheck the number "2" in the 702 part also to see if it could be a "3".  Thanks!

482  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Please see picture of my 327 - question on originality on: February 11, 2006, 03:51:25 PM

When you say you want to "bring it back to original" that probably means different things to many of us.  Can you be a little more specific in what you're wanting to accomplish?  Did you say what year the car is?  I may have missed that but some basic info would help.  Manual or automatic?  3/4 speed?  Power steering?  For instance, you no doubt already know the rad cap and plug wires are not original just from their appearance but we are not able to help you with thing like the carb without numbers.  Are you going to add smog equipment if 67-69?  Take more pictures from different angles and post them.

483  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 SS350 Waterpump and Distrib on: February 09, 2006, 08:00:24 PM

My source shows part number 3890017 (Colvin cast number ='s 3782608) as the original water pump part number for you.  The distributor as 168.

484  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1968 Diverter Valves on: February 08, 2006, 07:54:55 PM
Yes it helps ccargo Smiley  The more info the better!!  Dean, do you mean 28469 instead?  The 24765 is the # given in the 68 AM.  I think it is a valid valve for the 68 Z.  By the way, I am not saying that the CRG table is not correct in any way.

485  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 1968 Diverter Valves on: February 07, 2006, 08:31:03 PM
With regard to the report.  I have been looking into the question of just how valid the 68 part numbers are that are provided in the assembly manual (AM).  I want to say up front that I think Kurt did a nice job on the his (CRG) Report and I mean no disrespect to him or the work with what I've put in the attached table for folks to review.  While there are typo's in the AM part numbers I think that we can generally accept them as accurate until proven otherwise.  I've put together a table of valves that I could find in the 68 manual and some support info found in the AM for each where I found it.  Even though I can't find supportive info for each, as is the case for the Z28, I think that the fact it is in the manual is good enough for us to use for the hobby and think it's not unreasonable to utilize it in a list of numbers when "checking" valves.
486  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 SS Hubcaps on: February 06, 2006, 07:31:40 PM
Only problem Arno is that I ordered wheel covers (P01) and have Argent Silver on my car.  In my case I didn't order anything "post delivery" from the dealer so I don't think that explains it.
487  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 SS Hubcaps on: February 06, 2006, 05:29:17 PM
Ok, let me see if I have this right.  A SS car that was not ordered with P01 came to the dealership with dog dish caps.  A SS ordered with P01 had the SS wheel covers put on at the factory.  The SS that was not ordered with P01 and came with dog dish had the dog dish taken off and replaced with SS wheel covers at the dealership (from their stock) because it was a SS.  Is all that correct?
488  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 SS Hubcaps on: February 05, 2006, 06:11:45 PM

Just to make sure, we are talking about the same photo (black & white) of page 170 in the 1998 "The Conclusive Camaro Recognition Guide" ....right?  Rich, you are right, I do question what I'm seeing in the photo but I don't want to get hung up on that picture so I'm going to just say (and then I'm done with this photo forever now that I'm cross-eyed from looking at it so long Smiley) that the one I'm looking at, given the possibilities of differences (quality) in printing and whatever, just doesn't look black to me in that inner ring but I'm old and I'm probably wrong  Sad.  Arno, my car is British Green with white stripes, black vinyl hard top, with SS blackout paint trim.  Questions: John Z, who made the covers for GM and where did they come from (mfg plant locations)?  Rich do you see any indication in the part books that there may have been a cover that was "set aside" for a SS ordered vehicle?  By that I mean, if I ordered a SS with regular dog dish caps would it have come with SS covers because I ordered the there anything that would lend itself to conclude that from the books?  One more question for you Rich, how many original SS owners do we have in the CRG data base?  Am I the only original owner that kept his original SS covers on his Baby all these years Huh (Please treat that as a rhetorical Q if you like Rich  Wink)

489  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 SS Hubcaps on: February 05, 2006, 10:14:28 AM
Thanks for the clarification.  With regard to the shadows...I was referring to the picture in Hooper's book and not the dealer book.
490  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 SS Hubcaps on: February 04, 2006, 08:51:06 PM

What dealer book are you refering to?  Publication year?  I've looked at the photo in Hooper's book too and I think shadows are in play.  If you look real close you can see that the "black" of the center area around the SS is black and when you compare it to the inner ring area it is, at a minimum, several shades lighter.  Looking closer, light is reflecting off the rib and shinning on the inner ring area and it looks more gray (silver) than black in my picture.  The outer ring in my photo looks even lighter than the inner ring.  With all respect, I will put my original covers up against Hooper's photo any day, if you know what I mean Smiley  Wink  I have started to look back through some of my original paperwork to see what, if anything, I can find that might help on this.  So far the only thing I see on the original order form is "wheel covers" and the price.  Will keep looking.

491  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 SS Hubcaps on: February 04, 2006, 05:01:37 PM

Now that WOULD be a mystery in my case.  That would mean that 4 NEW Argent Silver 1964 Impala SS covers were put on my spanking new 1968 Camaro right there at the dealership. Additionally, and as I relayed to you in an earlier post, the ones I saw on the showroom Camaro, that was almost identical to mine and that had the same covers as mine, would have had to have been switched too!!  Smiley Shocked  Where would they get new 64 covers to start with and why would they do that?  He may not be 100% sure but I have tell you that I am 100% sure that since the argent came on my car it's going to take some powerful proof to convince me that they are not correct and that somehow, someway, my new car had new 4 year old Impala covers put on it.  Smiley

492  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Identify 12 bolt on: January 29, 2006, 01:49:29 PM
With all respect, some CRG members may not frequent the other board and would learn from the post here. Smiley
493  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 SS Hubcaps on: January 29, 2006, 12:17:37 PM

I don't think we can go by the 1983 covers for verification as there is enough difference between the 1965 Chevy II 3871174 and the 1968-69 Camaro 3871174 pictures in the parts book alone.  To use covers 14-15 years later than what we are interested (68) in would be way out there IMO.  I am afraid any stamp is long gone from my covers but will pull the other 3 to look anyway.  You do realize my car is a SS/RS.......right? Smiley

494  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 SS Hubcaps on: January 28, 2006, 10:24:02 PM
Can't find any numbers on a quick look at the back side.  Does anyone have any idea if there are numbers on wheel covers to start with and if so where?
495  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 SS Hubcaps on: January 28, 2006, 11:37:09 AM
Keeping what John said in mind, if you look in the parts book you will notice that the covers change appearance but have the same part number for different years.  For instance, the 1965 Chevy II cover has the same number as the 68-69 Camaro cover.  We stated the thread with 68 covers being the topic and that is what is on my car.  I can't really speak to what other years may look like with any certainty though beyond what is in the parts book and it is really hard to tell what one is looking at (again keeping in mind what John has said).  By that I mean, the page is white but given the shape and the voids in the cover and looking at it on the page I see black areas on the wheel cover.  I know for instance, from real world observation that an area is "open" on a particular cover but it "appears" in the picture as black. Is it really black (painted) or is it the artist trying to show the opening.  Tell you what Arno.....I am going to go and pull one of the covers from my car and see if I can find any numbers.  Will let you know what I find if anything.
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34
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 0.101 seconds with 18 queries.