CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 16, 2014, 08:28:14 AM

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.
97079 Posts in 11682 Topics by 4578 Members
Latest Member: ronhill
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 29
376  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Hershey AACA on: October 19, 2007, 07:26:23 PM
Was anyone else there? I talked to the owner of an excellant '67 red Z-28 on Sat. Pretty strange options, bench seat with fold down rear. I didn't take any pics, but there are several on AACA in the gallery.

I was there and spoke to the owner of the 67 Z/28, 68 and two 69's. The orig owner of the yellow 69 rs/z is a great guy. I was judging and then had to leave shortly after, but there were many outstanding cars. It is an amazing gathering of any type car from any period.
377  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Possible Yenko found in Michigan? on: October 03, 2007, 05:53:54 PM
All 69 camaro yenko's were sports car conversion cars 9737 as well as 9561(double copos). So all 69's yenko camaros had 140. In 68 most 427 converted cars were 9737 copo's as well, but not all. I believe 2-4 were not 9737copo's. Most copos ordered by other dealers were for the most part just 9561 copo's. Berger and Douglas and a few others who ordered the cars as yenko did as double copos.
378  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: decoding tires on: October 02, 2007, 04:10:26 PM
I believe they are reproduction tires, because i don't believe that plant existed in 1969 or1979.
379  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Correct '69 L-78 front springs? on: September 14, 2007, 11:37:52 AM
I have used this vendor, and they have been great. I have used him on BB pace cars & coupes. I switched because eaton sent me incorrect springs three times for the same car. I can tell you it gets old changing springs. Since they couldn't provide the correct ones, I found this supplier and they have been perfect on the 5 cars I used them on. I am only speaking from my personal experience. 

SUSPENSION coil springs, 1934-2007, standard, custom made. Coil Spring Specialties LLC, PO Box G, 632 W Bertrand, St Mary's, KS 66536, 785-437-2025 or coilsprings.com
380  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Gas tank straps on the 67 on: September 09, 2007, 03:15:26 PM
Were the tank straps painted black or left galvanized? Also was the insulator between the strap and tank felt or rubber?  Huh

All the original cars I have inspected have had the straps painted black with no insulators under the strap. The felt insulators go on top of the tank.
381  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: decoding tires on: August 22, 2007, 09:34:29 PM
I have a 1969 Camaro pace car.  I am trying to find out if the original tires are on the car.  It has been garaged the entire time and tires are in great shape.  Anyone know if there is a book out there that tells how to decode the tires or does anyone know how to do that??  Here is the info on the tire itself:

Firestone  Super Wide Oval Sports
F70x14
CYLD F2K5049
White letters
Thanks for the help...

I believe it decodes as follow, but I will try to confirm it with some documentation I have, tomorrow.
CYLD = Plant
 F2K5= Mold Type #
 04= Week in year produced
   9= Year produced 1969 or 1979
382  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Horn Relay on: August 19, 2007, 09:15:26 PM
I did some more cleaning on my horn relay, and found numbers 889 stamped into the metal part. Is this a familiar part number? 03 build Norwood car. It does have the embosed cover with Delco Remy and Made in US on it.

I have seen a couple of 03A&B built cars with 862's, and had black plastic, although most seem to be white/clear plastic.

Thanks!
383  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: COPO 9737 on: August 01, 2007, 09:59:43 PM
I am not aware of any 69 camaros that were 9737, but were not equipped 9560 or 9561  427 engines. However in 1968 all Yenko cars were in fact 9737 copo's and the 427's were installed by Yenko(427 conversion). Some of the cars were never converted and they were 9737 copo's with factory L78's.
384  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: N/66 option phase-out for 1969 Camaro production on: July 31, 2007, 07:44:39 AM
I'm not really concerned with judging for the 307 Coupe, but rather with preserving the historical integrity of a car that has not been messed with (the SS above was ridden hard and put away wet so I didn't mind adding a few items here and there)  and has low mileage.  I know that if I keep the dealer installed vinyl roof then every time the car shows up somewhere somebody will feel obliged to point out that it is not a correct roof...so to me the question sort of boils down to whether or not I want to listen to it....but it also had relevance to our discussion.



Regarding people pointing out the vinyl roof; just document the cars history with a story board explaining the cars unique and interesting history. This way you don't need to repeat and explain this issue over and over.
385  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: N/66 option phase-out for 1969 Camaro production on: July 31, 2007, 07:38:26 AM
I would not worry about adding the options if they were available and you installed them as the factory.
Now if your cars exterior or interior doesn't match your trim tag you would most likely receive a deduction. The only POSSIBLE exception would be if you indeed had dealer documentation, then you could at least plead your case with documentation ( not real keen on hypotheticals).

Unless you are going to have this car judged at the concours level, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Like I stated previously have it judge without the vinyl roof first and then install it as you please.

I'm not worried about my  wife's car, we built to make us happy...it has a matching drive train and all the right pieces but we cahnged the interior color and added the spoilers and the gauges (way back in '97)..it's real clean and real pretty but not a concourse job for sure...I mention it to illustrate the point.  It is a legit SS and has bolt ons that are consistant with SS models  (the gauges and spoilers)...how - hypothetically - would it be judged?  Can only cars with a paper trail be fully judged?  will all cars without a paper trail receive deductions?  I am simply curious to hear how the judges deal with what I see as a very sticky situation.  BTW, the car has N66 wheels on it and is an early January build - of course they will fool no one here as they are 15" rims from wheel vintiques...look real cool though

I can only speak to the survivor class program I'm involved with regarding points and judging. We don't deduct points for not having paperwork, but do provide bonus points for cars that do. In our class the cars themselves are the documentation. Having an  owners manual is a requirement however.


SEE.  PRETTY!  Just not as delivered (entirely)
Grin Cheesy

Unless you are going to have this car judged at the concours level, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Like I stated previously have it judge without the vinyl roof first and then install it as you please.

386  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: N/66 option phase-out for 1969 Camaro production on: July 30, 2007, 07:36:29 PM


In the case above with the N66 wheels, the car would have to be built in the time period the option was available first. Also the installation of the option would have to be identical to factory. In the case of cowl induction hood the relay, hole above fuse box and accelerator linkage would be check proper location and originality of components.

That sort of thing is a no brainer...if the car's build date predates or antidates the availability if the option then the judge's decision is clear.  That was not the thrust of my question.  Options that were readily available over a longer period of time (i.e. spoilers, gauges, bumperettes,etc) were more of my concern.  Are the judges comfortable saying that, for example, an 11A '69 LA built Z/28 that currently has spoilers and gauges but has no documentation did not leave the factory that way and mark it down accordingly?  Which amounts to calling the owner a liar without much evidence...I have a '69 SS350 (my wife's, LA built, no paper work) that currently has a full gauge package..which I added (because she wanted it that way) and spoilers (also added for the same reason).  I would divulge that I added those items but others might not....but if I didn't say, how are the judges to know?


I would not worry about adding the options if they were available and you installed them as the factory.
Now if your cars exterior or interior doesn't match your trim tag you would most likely receive a deduction. The only POSSIBLE exception would be if you indeed had dealer documentation, then you could at least plead your case with documentation ( not real keen on hypotheticals).

Unless you are going to have this car judged at the concours level, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Like I stated previously have it judge without the vinyl roof first and then install it as you please.
387  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: N/66 option phase-out for 1969 Camaro production on: July 30, 2007, 03:27:09 PM
John's answer about Corvette judging is the same as Camaro.  The cars have to be restored to the way they left the plant.  No add ons, if you add them, there are points taken off.  Many like to install that engine mount recall kit.  If we see one on a car, there is a point deduction.  If you add spoilers and they were not factory installed, there will be a point deduction.

If you have the window sticker to the vehicle or dealer invoice, the car must match in every option.

Jerry

Just so I understand.  how do judges deal with cars that do not have documentation?  For example, does a car have to have a D-80 on the trim tag to have spoilers even though not every car equipped with a spoiler had the D-80 on the trim tag (like LA cars)?   I'm a realist, many more cars now exist with spoilers and cowl hoods than ever left the factory (very popular add on through the ages) but, just as grounded in reality, that doesn't mean that every car that has a spoiler and lacks documentation didn't leave the factory that way...so how do judges cope with such items when judging?

In the case above with the N66 wheels, the car would have to be built in the time period the option was available first. Also the installation of the option would have to be identical to factory. In the case of cowl induction hood the relay, hole above fuse box and accelerator linkage would be check proper location and originality of components.

Regarding the dealer installed items. That opens up a can of worms itself, for instance was this item an RPO or over the counter. My take is that over the counter items were NOT a factory item ( RPO) and shouldn't be considered in a" Original Judged Class/Factory Born Class".  If the option that was added was an available option during that cars build period, and  they have real verifiable documentation that the deal installed it fron new,then I feel some consideration should be given.

If I owned a car with over the counter items and accessories, I would have it judged without first and then add the option or accessory as I see fit. This is only my opinion, and also feel the more exceptions made,  the more diluted judging becomes.
388  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Underhood photos of 69 L78 RSSS on: July 22, 2007, 09:00:15 AM
That looks like the L89 that was judged in Legends class @ Carlisle. Ken P., Frank A. and the Supecar Workshop guys restored that car.
389  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Paint for Hockey Stick Stripe and Rear of S.S. on: July 19, 2007, 09:18:21 PM
Kurt, there is no helping Charley, as he is a full gloss advocate Smiley
390  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: oval floor pan plugs on: July 19, 2007, 09:48:28 AM
I have observed on most original car that have been certified through the Vintage Camaro  (survivor class at Carlisle) to have some degree of exterior color overspray on the underside floors pans. This overspray has been found on both the sealant and plugs. I have never seen primer on the plug or sealant just body color. Another item to note is that the adhesion property of the plated plugs is very poor and in many cases some of the paint has come off. Also the degree of body overspray on the floor boards themselve varies quite a bit, therefore varying the amount on the plugs/sealant. Remember this is not a black and white issue as I stated some cars will have alot of overspray and some may have very little if any left after 38 + years.

I will review my photo files and look for very clear examples, one that comes to mind is Don S.'s 69 HO Yenko. That car had an amazing underside, that was very well preserved and showed the overspray very well.
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 29
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.106 seconds with 18 queries.