Messages

1801

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.

1802

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.

1803

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.

1804

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.

1805

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.

1806

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.

1807

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Nice paper work collection on this 1968

« on: September 20, 2015, 07:09:05 PM »

The date on the body tag is not the build date for the car; it is the week Fisher Body released the order to production. Released orders can remain in queue if a material shortage or capacity constraints dictate.

01D likely spanned January 27-February 2, possibly longer as there were no 02A or 02B tags from Fisher body. 

1808

Originality / Re: Tailpipes

« on: September 20, 2015, 03:14:50 AM »

Yes 69 only.

1809

Originality / Re: Tailpipes

« on: September 20, 2015, 01:16:51 AM »

If they are stainless they are not OE. Standard dual exhaust [N10] '69s built through May 17, 1969 had one-piece aluminized steel tailpipes configured as you described. As of May 19 they were revised to a "bright metal" finish which is basically chrome. However the tailpipes differed in design. The RH pipe was 2-pc construction with the tip nickel/chrome plated and welded to the rear half. It was then welded to the muffler. The LH pipe was unchanged, just polished and flash-chromed. It was clamped to the muffler. Several OE exhaust '69s built May through September still exist in this configuration. Chevy serviced chromed tailpipes well into the '80s but both were the 2-pc design. Not known if the 2 pc LH pipe was ever used in production. NC8 chambered exhaust used aluminized tailpipes only.

67-68 used short tailpipes that exited behind the rear wheels.

1810

General Discussion / Re: Found and talked to the original owner of my 69Z today, need opinions!!

« on: September 14, 2015, 02:00:16 PM »

I researched a ZL1 in Alabama many years ago. In '69 they registered cars by county; the state had nothing. If there is any info remaining that's where it would be.

Go for it!

1811

General Discussion / Re: Caveat Emptor..another

« on: September 11, 2015, 07:46:42 PM »

4-F is more appropriate.

1812

General Discussion / Caveat Emptor..another

« on: September 10, 2015, 10:32:29 PM »

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Camaro-X22-FOUR-SPD-/221881530571?forcerrptr=true&hash=item33a92b78cb&item=221881530571

Repro tag. I really appreciate it when they make it so easy.

1813

General Discussion / Re: NBR in trim tag on a 69 convertible

« on: September 09, 2015, 02:19:56 PM »

The error actually occurred early September 1968. The tag date should be 09A but is stamped 0A.

1814

General Discussion / Re: NBR in trim tag on a 69 convertible

« on: September 08, 2015, 10:56:00 PM »

It's nothing more than an error. Several have been noted 1st week of October 1968.

1815

Restoration / Re: 1969 Dash Carrier Restoration Source

« on: September 08, 2015, 07:08:15 PM »

For what you're willing to pay I'll bet you could find an NOS carrier. There are two versions, with or without tach. Neither was punched for a clock as that was done at the plants. Either will do as the standard carrier is marked where it needs to be trimmed for the tach. Some later versions will not have the chrome applique.

Look around. They are out there.