Messages

1906

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.

1907

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. 

1908

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.

1909

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.

1910

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.

1911

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Stamps

« on: April 08, 2015, 07:27:48 PM »

Some parts like alternators received an ink stamp in addition to the hard stamp part number for fast ID @ 57 units per hour. However I doubt it was done on a machine like that. Probably they were tested at the end of the line and were hand-stamped when they passed.

1912

Originality / Re: ZL1 timing cover and oil pan bolts

« on: April 06, 2015, 03:40:41 PM »

There are plenty of ZL1 engine photos in vintage magazines but those are likely engineering builds. The only reliable production ZL1 engine photos are of the #3 ZL1 in the August '69 High-Performance Cars. Intake fasteners appear to be zinc; the oil pan fasteners are clearly visible in one of the undercarriage photos; probably zinc. Timing cover isn't in the photos.

1913

Restoration / Re: 69 camaro dash pad peeling

« on: April 06, 2015, 12:40:39 PM »

If it is the original pad the plastic liner is probably warped and the vinyl has shrunk. I used Weldwood; it works for a while but will lift again shortly.

1914

General Discussion / Re: Air Cleaner Stud '69 ?

« on: April 06, 2015, 12:23:59 PM »

Don't have engineering drawings so I can't ID it.

1915

General Discussion / Re: Air Cleaner Stud '69 ?

« on: April 05, 2015, 08:19:02 PM »

Air cleaner studs are application-specific; 7 different part numbers for '69.

1916

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Stamps

« on: April 04, 2015, 03:18:55 PM »

The process worked well for parts made of soft material; ours roll-stamped copper fuse caps. Place the part in the fixture hit the buttons; the fixture rolled the part over the stamp set under light pressure. Took a few seconds.

Roll-stampers were common and relatively inexpensive. Way back when I was involved with the Camaro business new distributor housings were still available from GM so we acquired 10 or so for someone. They weren't stamped of course but I'll bet they are now. New 1111480 distributors were also still available and we had a few of those.

1917

General Discussion / Re: Vin/Trim number help 69 RS/SS 396

« on: April 03, 2015, 10:53:22 PM »

Thanks guys it seemed too nice and made up to me. The guy has it all mocked up to look really nice but that's it, doesn't run or even have front springs installed. He claimed it was all original sheet metal, but could tell it had qtrs, trunk and even a tail panel installed. I asked him if I could remove the back up lights to see the original tail panel cut outs but he would let me. Here is the link http://cleveland.craigslist.org/ctd/4949767386.html. I searched google last night and all he does it mock up the cars to look good them sell them. He was a really nice guy but I'm looking for a few really nice 67-69 Z28's or RS/SS 396 cars.

Non-original RS backup light holes do not indicate it wasn't an RS. My real Z/28-RS had the rear body panel replaced as did many real RS cars.

1918

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Stamps

« on: April 03, 2015, 09:08:22 PM »

The hard-stampers I worked with in my Industrial Engineering days were fixed; the part was rolled over the stamp set.

Off-set ink stampers transferred an image to a fixed part.

1919

General Discussion / Re: Vin/Trim number help 69 RS/SS 396

« on: April 03, 2015, 07:20:45 PM »

Tag looks repro to me. I'd keep looking.

1920

General Discussion / Re: Is it a 1969 Z/28?

« on: March 28, 2015, 12:01:52 AM »

That would be all 1969 Camaros ordered with U16.