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 - william

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 121
1
General Discussion / Re: Can-am Engine Blocks
« on: November 14, 2017, 01:13:20 AM »
A complete engine built from a 6272785 block was recently sold:

http://www.yenko.net/forum/showthread.php?t=143254

Best market for it is probably vintage racing.

https://svra.com/

 

2
General Discussion / Re: X77 dates
« on: November 13, 2017, 09:43:31 PM »
The problem with CDN docs is cars that are virtually junk are being located, pieced back together. Nothing original remains.

CDN docs used to be an asset. Now they can be a red flag.

3
General Discussion / Re: X77 dates
« on: November 13, 2017, 07:18:22 PM »
Was built with a green interior, now black.

Tag does look real but the non-original rivet is a concern.

4
General Discussion / Re: X77 dates
« on: November 13, 2017, 05:42:44 PM »
Bad photo; too much paint.

Who cares? Pad stamp is all you need to know.

5
General Discussion / Re: X77 dates
« on: November 13, 2017, 04:38:06 PM »
Re-stamp.

6
General Discussion / Re: X77 dates
« on: November 13, 2017, 04:27:07 AM »
1969 Camaro production spanned 16 months: August 1968 - November 1969. X codes entered production December 1968 at the Norwood, Ohio assembly plant.

7
Decoding/Numbers / Re: New to this site!
« on: November 12, 2017, 08:38:37 PM »
Just trying to learn...

I have been involved with '69s for over 42 years. Still learning...

8
Decoding/Numbers / Re: New to this site!
« on: November 11, 2017, 06:59:34 PM »
Best data suggests mid-December 1968. May have been phased-in.

10
Originality / Re: 1969 clock usage
« on: November 09, 2017, 02:59:58 PM »
Thanks for confirming. Knew the '69 hole was flame-cut, but thought maybe there was some other visible difference in the floorpan that I hadn't learned yet.... so many quirks to these cars!

Actually there is a difference in '67s. The driveshaft tunnel is about 1" shorter in the rear seat area.

11
Originality / Re: 1969 clock usage
« on: November 09, 2017, 03:56:17 AM »
'67 & '68 manual trans floor shift pans had a die-punched hole for the shifter. The hole had a rectangular reinforcement spot-welded around the circumference.

'69s ordered with a 4-speed trans were built with the standard floor pan. The hole for the shifter was cut with a torch, probably using a template to properly locate the hole. Looks cobbled and people new to '69s often question it. Perhaps the upgrade to a Hurst shifter mandated the change. A much simpler solution than tooling up for another floor pan stamping by Fisher.

'69s with a 3-speed floor shift [M11 & MC1] continued to use the '67-'68 style floor pan. Both still used the infamous Inland shifter.


12
Originality / Re: 1969 clock usage
« on: November 08, 2017, 07:01:55 PM »
Car in picture is an Automatic ?? Danny

Yes. What's your point?

13
Originality / Re: 1969 clock usage
« on: November 08, 2017, 02:36:50 AM »
A few years ago I got to spend some time examining N500003, probably the 1st '69 Z/28. The dash cluster was hand-made. Never had a body tag; has a '68 style floor pan. Hope to see it again with a lot more lighting.

Obviously a Pilot Car, hard to believe Chevy sold it.

14
Originality / Re: 1969 clock usage
« on: November 07, 2017, 04:39:04 PM »
Very early press release photos show a '69 SS convert with U17 but no clock. Typically those were Pilot builds, not production cars. Early '69 Communication kits depicted a '69 Camaro dash with tach but no clock so a clock may have been a late addition to the option.

15
Originality / Re: Wiper switch
« on: November 07, 2017, 04:19:23 PM »
That wiper switch was never used on a '69 Camaro. Depressing the wiper lever button activated the windshield and headlamp washers.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 121