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 ... 124 125 [126] 127 128 ... 208
1876
Unknown and unknowable. Too many variables involved.

1877
12,650 sold; cost $42.15.

Multiple suppliers on a part is not at all unusual; usually up to the Tier 1 to manage their subs. I planned fasteners on my last career stop; the T1 supplier only cold-formed parts, another supplier plated them, another supplier applied a lock patch. When complete the parts were shipped in bulk to another supplier for packaging. Then shipped to the warehousing facility. Now you know why service parts cost so much.

They may not have been "made exact in every way" as the T1 supplier for a production part may not be the supplier for the service part. For example the molding house that set up to continuously produce 200 bumpers per week may not be interested 20 per month for service. They send the tooling back and you find a short-run molder to do it; the part will fit and work but may not look exactly the same. A supplier of CNC parts may run them on the latest machining center for production, when non-current they may use an older, slower machine for short runs. Same supplier, but parts may not be exactly the same as production.

1878
Chevrolet produced many chrome bumpers in-house but VE3 was nothing like those. There may have been more than one supplier involved anyway; one to produce the steel liner/bracket assembly; another to mold the urethane.

#3938643 is not listed in the May 1979 P & A manual. Exactly when it became no longer available would require searching through '70s P & A manuals and price books. A part that was scheduled for discontinuation was noted in the price book as no longer returnable. However it may have remained available. At the time GMPD may have had stock they could continue to sell or they may have scrapped the stock if there was little demand for it. In those days there was a crude locator system dealers could use to find a discontinued part so obtaining one a few years later may have been possible.

1879
General Discussion / Re: Time to buy a real deal ZL-1!
« on: April 22, 2015, 08:48:45 PM »
Wouldn't know. Never saw one.

1880
Restoration / Re: 1969 camaro upper control arms painting
« on: April 22, 2015, 01:43:42 AM »
This is a 21,000 mile survivor. Good pic of an upper control arm on page 5.

http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=12083.60

1881
General Discussion / Re: Time to buy a real deal ZL-1!
« on: April 16, 2015, 04:13:03 PM »
ZL1 #16 is a treasure in that it remains unrestored and with its original owner. He shows it regularly and if you should happen upon it be sure to check out the E78 x 14 tire label on the LH door. Built with F70 x 14 Firestones.

ZL1 #59 is Hugger Orange and was built with style trim group. Had white D96 stripes on one side; black on the other. Unfortunately was not restored that way.

No 'do over' @57 units per hour I guess.

1882
General Discussion / Re: Time to buy a real deal ZL-1!
« on: April 16, 2015, 03:30:25 PM »
The photo of the ZL1 engine on a stand is from the February 1995 issue of Chevy High Performance. It's the block from ZL1 #26 completely rebuilt to OE specs to see what it would do on the dyno. I doubt that is an OE air cleaner; we provided some parts for the build and were credited in the feature.

The dyno results are on this site: http://www.camaros.org/copo.shtml

Bill Porterfield owned the #26 engine and ZL1 #3 at the time; there may have been an ulterior motive for building the engine. The owner of #26 had the engine from #3. Despite offering this engine and $$ neither engine has returned to its original chassis.

The other photo is one I posted in the COPO article. The PHR test of #5 was re-visited in the June 1998 Hot Rod by Ro McGonegal. With only headers and wimpy 6.5" slicks it went 11.64. That's Hellcat territory, 46 years ago. Imagine what that car would do on today's tires.

1883
General Discussion / Re: Time to buy a real deal ZL-1!
« on: April 16, 2015, 12:31:07 PM »
First of all I’m not attacking anyone here personally. I’m presenting the reasons for my viewpoint on this topic.

Don’t believe everything you read. I’m quite familiar with the COPO Connection book; my name is in it. It was and remains an excellent source of COPO information. But the statement “427 air cleaner sticker was absent on all ZL1s leaving the factory” is just plain foolish. The first ZL1 was final assembled December 30, 1968; the last June 3, 1969 a span of 156 days. No one saw every one of those cars as they left the factory so no one knows. The COPO 9560 Engineering docs that specify the 427 label came from an earlier edition of a COPO Connection book; I guess he didn’t read them. I’ve dug a bit more and found three more vintage photos of COPO 9561 cars. Two have the decal, one does not. As for the statement “The ones I've seen doesn't have the sticker on the lid....” the only vintage photo you could have seen is the one I mentioned. Only two ZL1s were photographed in the day; the #3 ZL1 is the other but the air cleaner lid is not present in the photos. I’d like to see photos of the other 98% before concluding none of them had the label. I’ll bet every restored ’69 Z/28 has a 302 label on the air cleaner but the January ’69 Hot Rod feature of an 09D LA Z/28 shows the factory did forget on occasion. Could they have just forgotten on some COPOs?

So what did I do when putting the finishing touches on ZL1 #4 27 years ago? No 427 label. But I have no problem with ZL1 #6 having the label. It is entirely possible it was built that way.


1884
General Discussion / Re: Time to buy a real deal ZL-1!
« on: April 15, 2015, 08:31:02 PM »
Chevrolet documentation indicates otherwise. Did COPO Connection personally inspect all 69 ZL1 Camaros?




1885
General Discussion / Re: Time to buy a real deal ZL-1!
« on: April 15, 2015, 07:33:11 PM »
Jeez,
At least put the air cleaner seal on right! AND, not suppost to have the 427 sticker on the lid. A high dollar car like this should be totally correct. JMHO.

That isn't necessarily true. The Engineering Parts List for COPO 9560 shows STICKER-ENGINE IDENT #3902414 was added; #3902410 [396] was deducted. STICKER ENG HP DESIGN #3916144 was deducted; nothing was added.

An engine photo in the July '69 SS&DI test of Yenko Camaro N579281 shows the crossed-flags 427 label only as specified in engineering documentation. Engine photos of ZL1 #5 N608381 in the July '69 PHR shows no label. Some had it; some didn't.

1886
Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro with 3-Speed Manual Trans and Console?
« on: April 10, 2015, 03:08:02 PM »
That's only true for a 4-speed. For the 3-speed there is no difference in the seal, retainer or hardware with or without a console. The knob is chrome with a console; standard is black with shift pattern.

1887
Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro with 3-Speed Manual Trans and Console?
« on: April 10, 2015, 03:19:11 AM »
Not true for '69. The AIM shows #3893853 is used with or with out a console.

For '67-'68 the console plate has the slider and the seal WAS different than the seal used without a console. For '69 the plastic tunnel replaced the slider. 

1888
Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro with 3-Speed Manual Trans and Console?
« on: April 09, 2015, 11:58:30 PM »
The #3974526 seal looks nothing like #3893853; isn't even close. That's why NOS is $275.

1889
Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro with 3-Speed Manual Trans and Console?
« on: April 09, 2015, 10:37:35 PM »
The D55 section of the AIM is vague for the 3-speed; the only real difference is the tunnel and emblem. The seal and retaining hardware are the same.

I was involved in Camaro parts business many years ago; we had many 3-speed tunnel & plate assemblies. I recall the tunnel was shorter and nearly round at the bottom compared to a 4-speed. I'll bet some old-time parts guys still have used ones.

1890
Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro with 3-Speed Manual Trans and Console?
« on: April 09, 2015, 08:26:10 PM »
The seal used with M11 is shown on page A1 of the M11 section: #3893853. It's the same seal used for the 67-68 Muncie 4-speed. Judging by the comments I see it either isn't reproduced or is poorly done. A CRG member is investigating having it reproduced.

For '69 MC1 was the new H-D Muncie 3-speed optional only with LM1. It was dropped as an option when LM1 was discontinued but remained the standard trans for SS cars. The shifter was Muncie also; same for M11 and MC1 with or without console. It mounted to the cross member. A console was not required.

Style points to you for keeping the 3-speed! Quite a few '69 Camaros were built with one.

Pages: 1 ... 124 125 [126] 127 128 ... 208