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 4 ... 123
16
Originality / Re: 1968 non-RS wheel well moldings
« on: December 08, 2017, 01:29:20 PM »
The P & A Manual is a no way to determine what was used in production. I worked for a Camaro business for 15 years. There are many examples of GMPD messing up applications. In production, a non-RS '68 Camaro with style trim used the same full-length wheel well moldings as a '67. All you had to do for a non-RS style trim '68 Camaro was order '67 moldings. That's how they were built.

17
Originality / Re: 1968 non-RS wheel well moldings
« on: December 08, 2017, 01:57:41 AM »
Side view, same car.


18
Originality / Re: 1968 non-RS wheel well moldings
« on: December 08, 2017, 01:45:14 AM »
Absolutely NOT.

All vintage road tests show the same thing-all 4 wheel well moldings terminate at the RS side molding. This is the PHR Feb '68 test of an L78 SS-RS.


19
Originality / Re: 1968 non-RS wheel well moldings
« on: December 07, 2017, 11:25:08 PM »
Bill, this is a picture of my car (SS/RS) and as you stated, it goes all the way down. However, I always thought it was "supposed" to end at the "spear",

That is not what I stated. On a '68 RS, all 4 wheel well moldings terminate at the RS side trim. Here's a photo of a '68 RS at the Tech Center. '68 RS cars did not use the rocker spears.

20
Originality / Re: 1968 non-RS wheel well moldings
« on: December 07, 2017, 10:14:42 PM »
I have to disagree.

I have a number of vintage magazine road tests of different '68 Camaro RS and they clearly show both front and rear wheel well moldings terminating at the RS lower body trim. They were also serviced that way.

21
Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Z28 help before purchase
« on: December 05, 2017, 09:19:10 PM »
The main problem is the car is neither fish nor fowl. It is not a correct, original drivetrain restoration. It is not a resto-mod. Not much appeal to either potential audience when you want to move it along.

If the car is done to near-perfection [paint, interior, drivability] it would probably auction in the mid-40s.

22
General Discussion / Re: Defogger switch
« on: December 05, 2017, 02:43:33 AM »
Not pre-cut. The woodgrain trim was pre-punched for the switch if the car was ordered with a defogger. Dimensions for the dash are shown in Section C50 page A1 of the Assembly Instruction Manual.


23
Decoding/Numbers / Re: Caveat Emptor...huh?
« on: December 01, 2017, 05:29:16 PM »
The seller thought it significant enough to mention.

It's a misrepresentation. What else is misrepresented?

24
Decoding/Numbers / Caveat Emptor...huh?
« on: December 01, 2017, 03:17:56 PM »

25
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/

 

26
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.

27
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.

28
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.

29
General Discussion / Re: X77 dates
« on: November 13, 2017, 04:38:06 PM »
Re-stamp.

30
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.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 123