Messages

1846

Originality / Re: 69 SS/396 with F41 Suspension and N44 Steering

« on: June 30, 2015, 07:16:32 PM »

SS included fast-ratio steering if power steering was ordered. Manual N44 was accomplished via different steering linkage, same as Z/28.

UN is the standard 12 bolt rear shock for manual transmissions; automatics typically received TN rear shocks. F41 used different springs.

http://www.camaros.org/images/pages/chassis/69_spring_chart.pdf

1847

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Can X66 be ordered with Z21?

« on: June 30, 2015, 11:23:11 AM »

It was smart to order tinted glass with A/C but was not a requirement.

1848

General Discussion / Re: Question on hoods

« on: June 29, 2015, 07:41:48 PM »

There is a 12C Van Nuys Z/28 claimed to be the first ZL2 car but it is not possible to know that. The car was final assembled on or about December 26, 1968. At Norwood the earliest known ZL2 car is ZL1 #1 final assembled on or about December 30, 1968.

There may have been earlier cars but not by much. The system has numerous parts and they all had to be present. Broadcast copies exist for both cars and neither is noted "Pilot ZL2 build" as one might expect. 

1849

Originality / Re: G31 special heavy suspension

« on: June 27, 2015, 02:40:56 PM »

V32 was also an option so either is ok.

1850

Originality / Re: G31 special heavy suspension

« on: June 27, 2015, 02:30:22 AM »

No but it was optional.

1851

General Discussion / Re: zl1 motor

« on: June 24, 2015, 03:33:00 PM »

I did not need to question the source for the information on the original block for the #3 ZL1. He would know. I'm sure other production ZL1s used it.

Why would an 053 block be "stronger" than an 052?

1852

General Discussion / Re: zl1 motor

« on: June 24, 2015, 03:09:35 PM »

The 3946053 block was used in a few production ZL1 Camaros. One of the first cars built had one. The ZL1 castings done in the late '80s are 053s.

ZL1 casting dates are on the LH side of the block near the motor mount tabs.

'0-' casting numbers were Chevrolet R & D part numbers, not marketed. Some ended up in race cars that were later sold.

1853

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Original stamp or not?

« on: June 24, 2015, 12:00:06 PM »

Another thing which affects scheduling which wasn't mentioned here in this thread, is that 'sold cars' (ie. customer ordered) got priority on scheduling (when parts are available) over 'standard internal production orders'.

Appears to be correct. In this string of confirmation #s [by VIN] 231653 241249 226652 241250 243528 the one in the middle was a customer car but it was a Z/28. Engine availability was likely the primary factor; then production slot due to the time required for striping. 'Fleet' was another scheduling consideration.

At Norwood the earliest known ZL2 car is ZL1 #1 N569358 built Dec 30. The ZL1 engine and BE axle were in stock prior so component availability for the hood may have held up the build.

1854

Restoration / Re: Leaf Springs

« on: June 24, 2015, 01:33:29 AM »

The trim height chart is on page A10 of the Assembly Instruction Manual.

1855

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Original stamp or not?

« on: June 24, 2015, 01:27:23 AM »

It is not on the w/s.

1856

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Original stamp or not?

« on: June 23, 2015, 09:48:15 PM »

The shipper copies mentioned came from the same dealer, Martz Chevrolet. I have copies of all the paperwork for the 99 cars Martz ordered and even they were not built in body number order. Here's a sample for the VIN range N554xxx-N559xxx: 183170 187782 183171 187781 141394 195834 202838 195835. The Z/28s you mentioned were ordered together with a standard Camaro NOR 307026. It was built 8 days prior to the Z/28s.

So in general, yes body numbers do increase over time. But as stated cars built the same day can have body numbers miles apart. There really isn't a direct correlation even at the same dealer.

1857

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Original stamp or not?

« on: June 23, 2015, 07:57:59 PM »

There is NO direct relationship between VIN and body numbers.

The best examples are the Gibb ZL1 Camaros. All 50 were ordered on or about December 6, 1968. The orders were assigned confirmations #222001-222049; 1 order was messed up and later re-issued. The first Gibb ZL1 was N569358 / NOR222002 built December 30, 1968. N609238 / NOR222001 is the 14th ZL1, built March 5, 1969. Gibb needed the #1 car quickly and his contacts at Chevrolet moved it up the schedule.

The first ZL1 Camaro ordered [different dealer] was N608193 / NOR211785. Despite being ordered almost two weeks prior to Gibbs cars it was built much later. Why? The body number had nothing to do with production scheduling. Chevrolet scheduled production based on a number of factors: equipment availability, dealer location, paint color. How much clout the dealer had also came into play.

There is nothing unusual about cars built within minutes of each other having body numbers thousands apart.

1858

Originality / Re: L89 at Local Car Show

« on: June 16, 2015, 10:18:22 PM »

The counterfeiters sure can make aged looking doc's, water stains, faded text, rips, you name it. Sure glad the CRG'er keep track.

The CRG mission has not changed: Primary Research and Restoration Data for First-Generation Camaros. The CRG is not the 1st Gen Camaro Police and does not pass judgment on anything or anybody.

When my BS meter goes off and I comment on something that's a personal observation. It's a free country and others are free to agree/disagree. I expect other CRG Core Members feel the same way.

1859

Originality / Re: L89 at Local Car Show

« on: June 14, 2015, 01:26:12 AM »

All the "paperwork" is fake-that's the form for an A body build sheet. Camaros used two forms: a Body Broadcast Copy and a Chassis Broadcast Copy.

The window sticker has so many errors I don't know where to start. L89 was not an engine option it was a cylinder head option that required the L78 engine; both are listed on real paperwork. The ducted hood wasn't in production when this car was built; wrong ECL. 5Z27AB is the ECL for an SS350.

Looks like the tag has been off the car.

Makes me wonder what else is fake.

1860

Decoding/Numbers / Re: DZ Engine Pad Stamp

« on: June 10, 2015, 08:46:01 PM »

In my opinion it is real. It compares favorably with other DZ stamps in that time frame.