Messages

1786

Decoding/Numbers / Re: XT wheels date codes?

« on: October 03, 2015, 05:55:11 PM »

Yes XT wheels can be forged. The standard 14" x 7" wheel GM used on millions of '78-'87 G & X bodies is a dead ringer. Someone was stamping them many years ago. Not sure but I heard the later wheels have 4 mounting bosses to retain the hub cap. Real XTs have 3. A known XT date for early cars is K18 10 9.

Pontiac also used a 14" x 7" XT wheel '69-'70. I believe the font was smaller.

1787

Originality / Re: 69 cowl air cleaner flat bottom/grooved

« on: October 02, 2015, 10:44:45 PM »

This 09D survivor Z/28 has the later air cleaner with the bead in the base. Best guess, late August or so.

http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=12083.0

1788

General Discussion / Caveat Emptor..again

« on: September 28, 2015, 06:06:52 PM »

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Camaro-SS-/371444549018?forcerrptr=true&hash=item567bd2059a&item=371444549018

Ad states "...everything on this car is brand new..." unfortunately including the X22 body tag.

1789

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Carb. date code

« on: September 27, 2015, 09:51:38 PM »

Thanks, 1968RSZ28 and William, that helps to clarify the acronym and what can and does go on in the assembly process. I have another hobby regarding electrical equipment in which sometimes components are date coded two years prior to production. This typical of a company outsourcing and buying large volumes of inventory at a reduced or better pricing. Of course this showing older stock in a newer finished product.

Thanks guys,

I was a production planner for a company that built electronic drive panels for a large HVAC customer. They would order some panels for quality audits; tear them down for 100% inspection. They wanted to know why we were using components that were several months old. Obviously they knew nothing about global sourcing. 90-120 day lead times are the norm so you better have stock to cover. When the parts arrive they are 2-3 months old. You can't afford to fly everything in so it ships ocean; sits in the port for weeks waiting to unload. They weren't happy but we did not get dinged for it. Two year old inventory would never be acceptable in that industry.

1790

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Carb. date code

« on: September 27, 2015, 06:23:40 PM »

First In First Out [FIFO] has two meanings.

It is a common supply chain practice in industries that stock perishable raw or semi-finished materials; material has to be used in order of arrival to avoid spoilage or expiration dates.

In cost accounting it indicates the use of the latest material cost for cost roll and inventory valuation. Might not seem significant but many industries use precious metals that can vary greatly in cost in a short period of time.

While FIFO was not specifically practiced in auto assembly plants in the '60s, it was somewhat effectively accomplished as there was little space to pile up inventory. I have monitored Z/28 engine dates for some time. Not unusual, for example, to see a 10B built Z/28 with an earlier engine than a 10A build. Wasn't important so there was no need to do it.

1791

General Discussion / Re: earliest 69 copo??

« on: September 27, 2015, 03:36:24 PM »

It's 01B.

1792

Originality / Re: M22 Rockcrusher applications / percentages of usage

« on: September 26, 2015, 11:43:16 PM »

M22 was optional for both Corvette and Chevelle. The 2,117 total is only for Camaro.

1793

General Discussion / Re: earliest 69 copo??

« on: September 26, 2015, 11:40:35 PM »

It is not a COPO. Way too early.

The first COPO built is the very well documented ZL1 #1 N569358 final-assembled December 30, 1968. It and a Z/28 at Van Nuys are the first known ducted hood '69s.

1794

Originality / Re: M22 Rockcrusher applications / percentages of usage

« on: September 26, 2015, 02:50:59 PM »

The only way to do this accurately for 1969 would be to pick through all 243,085 build records. Not currently available. But since there is a database of sorts [CRG] a SWAG is possible.

There were 2,117 M22 installations in 1969 Camaros. It was only available with mechanical lifter engines. Just for the record L89 is often listed as an engine option. It was a cylinder head option that required ordering the L78 engine; both L78 and L89 are listed on documents. Therefore the 4,889 L78 build total includes cars also ordered with L89.

I reviewed the db for M22. We have a number of M22s listed with a '69 Camaro VIN but no way of knowing the application. Those were not included as were questionable data. The result is about 5% of the total reported M22 installations: 41% Z/28, 23% L78, 36% COPO.

A problem with working with the resulting data is that COPOs were not built for the first 5 months of production.
   

1795

General Discussion / Re: electrical problems 69 camaro

« on: September 24, 2015, 11:41:01 PM »

There needs to be a lead from the + battery cable to the junction block on the core support behind the battery. If you have an Assembly Manual it is shown in section 12 pages A10 & A11.

1796

Originality / Re: cowl hood factory order

« on: September 23, 2015, 12:20:09 PM »

COPO orders were typically for a fleet of cars with specific equipment that existed but not for that particular body style or model. For example many years ago an acquaintance located a '69 Chevelle 4-door sedan with L34 396 automatic and A/C. Paperwork with the car listed only the COPO #; it was a former police vehicle. Other little known '69 Camaro COPOs are 4.56 rear axle and a special hood stripe.

Any COPO proposal had to be reviewed by engineering to ensure it was viable. A base Camaro did not have a 4 barrel carburetor so there would not have been a compatible ZL2 air cleaner assembly. Engineering would have rejected it.

The 67-68 plenum air cleaner was not listed as a '69 Camaro option. Probably a few were ordered as a service part and retrofitted.

1797

Originality / Re: cowl hood factory order

« on: September 22, 2015, 04:11:24 PM »

It was actually a required option on Z10 & Z11 and is listed on factory paperwork. It is not listed on paperwork for COPOs 9560 & 9561. Hard to believe but most Z/28s did not have it.

1798

General Discussion / Re: Fair Market Value

« on: September 21, 2015, 05:25:23 PM »

Several other factors affected the ECL for a 4.10 axle; at this time I have 9.

1799

General Discussion / Re: Fair Market Value

« on: September 21, 2015, 04:46:56 PM »

Chevy continually revised Camaro ordering information, options and prices. The April 1, 1969 listing has this notation:

Axle, Positration Rear G80: Ratios 3.73 or 4.10...also includes HD radiator.....$56.90.

The manner in which it is listed is confusing as it includes 'Special Performance Equipment' and mentions '396 engine' without mentioning L34, L35, L78.

The Canadian Price Schedule is more succinct:

Axle, Positration Rear with 3.73 or 4.10 less C60 (includes V01).

So at some point after April 1 ordering a 396 with 3.73 or 4.10 positration axle (posi required with those ratios) included HD cooling at extra cost. Must have even confused Chevy as some later COPOs list G80 @ $56.90 on documents, some do not list G80 at all.

1800

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Alternator dates

« on: September 21, 2015, 03:41:57 PM »

9D3 is not out of line for an 05C car. My small db has 05A & 05D cars with that date. There was no 'first-in-first-out' requirement on the assembly floor.