1981
General Discussion / Re: Caveat Emptor
« on: July 27, 2014, 05:08:37 PM »
Wow!
Great work getting it pulled guys!
Great work getting it pulled guys!
News:
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Classified ads are not allowed on the forum.
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.
1982
General Discussion / Caveat Emptor
« on: July 26, 2014, 04:01:55 PM »
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Camaro-Z28-VERY-RARE-HIGHLY-DOCUMENTED-PRISTINE-TOTALLY-RESTORED-SHOWROOM-CONIDITION-/151365002981?forcerrptr=true&hash=item233e0ea6e5&item=151365002981&pt=US_Cars_Trucks
This ebay ad prominently mentions documents and features several photos of them. The alleged ‘original’ documents have several inconsistencies with genuine original 1969 Camaro documentation.
Exception Control Letters [ECL] are the two-character alpha codes listed after the option; A01 is tinted glass, AA is the ECL for the specific build. ECLs are application-specific; there are at least 22 for Z22. 5 of the ECLs on the documents for this car are inconsistent with others in the database. In addition there are two spelling errors and an error in the listing of the options.
The ad states: “The window sticker and shipper sheet reflect…and the D80 rear [?] spoiler option” however air spoiler equipment is not listed on the paperwork, such as it is. The car has C08 Vinyl Roof Cover and Z21 Style Trim Group, also not listed on the purported original documents. The ad claims a stereo radio but the documents list the U69 monaural am/fm.
There are several incorrect or missing components evident in the photos: headers, no AIR system, master cylinder, trunk mat, stripe color, ducted hood.
The ad boasts “Send your inspector today!” I second that motion.
This ebay ad prominently mentions documents and features several photos of them. The alleged ‘original’ documents have several inconsistencies with genuine original 1969 Camaro documentation.
Exception Control Letters [ECL] are the two-character alpha codes listed after the option; A01 is tinted glass, AA is the ECL for the specific build. ECLs are application-specific; there are at least 22 for Z22. 5 of the ECLs on the documents for this car are inconsistent with others in the database. In addition there are two spelling errors and an error in the listing of the options.
The ad states: “The window sticker and shipper sheet reflect…and the D80 rear [?] spoiler option” however air spoiler equipment is not listed on the paperwork, such as it is. The car has C08 Vinyl Roof Cover and Z21 Style Trim Group, also not listed on the purported original documents. The ad claims a stereo radio but the documents list the U69 monaural am/fm.
There are several incorrect or missing components evident in the photos: headers, no AIR system, master cylinder, trunk mat, stripe color, ducted hood.
The ad boasts “Send your inspector today!” I second that motion.
1983
General Discussion / Re: Air cleaner Decal needed
« on: July 22, 2014, 11:57:04 PM »
Check out a more modern ZL1 dyno test on the engine from #26:
http://www.camaros.org/copo.shtml
With today's 0 weight racing oils and the latest piston ring technology Camaro Hi-Performance is seeing 550hp+ on their ZL1 rebuilds.
http://www.camaros.org/copo.shtml
With today's 0 weight racing oils and the latest piston ring technology Camaro Hi-Performance is seeing 550hp+ on their ZL1 rebuilds.
1984
General Discussion / Re: Air cleaner Decal needed
« on: July 21, 2014, 05:40:31 PM »The only 430 hp engine of the timeframe was the L88, only placed by Chevrolet in Corvettes, and it did not use an air cleaner decal.. as the 'hood itself' was the top cover for the Air cleaner..
The ZL1 was also rated at 430 hp. The few period engine bay photos of ZL1 Camaros show either no air cleaner lid decal or just the 427 crossed flags.
1985
Restoration / Re: NOS Rear shock absorber P1132
« on: July 06, 2014, 09:16:11 PM »
Camaro SS equipment did include different chassis components, mostly heavier-duty springs. I believe '69 was the 1st year spring selection in production was based on option content/weight. There was an optional F41 Special-Purpose suspension; Chevy was vague as to what that included. However service replacement shock listings mention 'Spec Perf Susp' so that may have been the difference.
Would be nice to have a CBC for an F41 car.
Would be nice to have a CBC for an F41 car.
1986
Restoration / Re: NOS Rear shock absorber P1132
« on: July 05, 2014, 05:45:11 PM »
Parts cars, ebay, swap meets. Very tough to find. Replacement shocks were heavily marketed in the '70s so many OE shocks were quickly replaced. Sometimes worn out but I believe they can be rebuilt. Corvette guys have been doing this for decades. You would not believe what a bud paid for a used set of '65 Corvette F41s dated to his car.
1987
Restoration / Re: NOS Rear shock absorber P1132
« on: July 05, 2014, 04:58:31 PM »
Service replacement parts are often more generic than OE to cover a broader range of application.
For '69 model year production 2 rear shock absorber codes have been seen on cars built with 12 bolt axles; TN for automatics [3192832] UN for manual transmissions [3192851]. We have seen one anomaly for each code. If GMPD serviced those numbers it wasn't for long; they are not listed in the October '69 P & A manual. The generic service 12 bolt rear shock at that time appears to be 3182033.
For '69 model year production 2 rear shock absorber codes have been seen on cars built with 12 bolt axles; TN for automatics [3192832] UN for manual transmissions [3192851]. We have seen one anomaly for each code. If GMPD serviced those numbers it wasn't for long; they are not listed in the October '69 P & A manual. The generic service 12 bolt rear shock at that time appears to be 3182033.
1988
General Discussion / Re: Another 99K 69 Z/28
« on: June 21, 2014, 04:42:50 PM »was welded in 68 also, why was that ? Noticed it when I pulled my exhaust out of storage for pics. ( sloppy weld job BTY)
Beautiful car
Don't know why I was thinking wide ovals ,no coffee in me at the time.
Welded because in production it establishes positioning and it's one less part that needs to be fastened. Might not sound like much but at 57 units per hour it adds up.
On the N10 standard system the head pipes were also welded to the resonators but I believe that was an MVSS requirement. Something else that recently came to light is the original production configuration of the "bright metal" tailpipes. The LH tailpipe was the standard 1-pc pipe; the end of it polished raw steel/flash chromed. The RH pipe was 2 pc welded construction with the tip nickel/chrome. Several original systems still exist in this form.
Remember all this if you see a complete NOS exhaust system for big $. Might be NOS but service replacement components were not identical to parts used in production.
1989
General Discussion / Re: Another 99K 69 Z/28
« on: June 21, 2014, 01:54:16 PM »
The tailpipes are not adjusted properly. The factory spec was 0.64" from the top of the pipe to the base of the rear body panel. The system used in production had the RH tail pipe welded to the muffler. It was not welded on service replacement systems. Also, should have resonators and too early for chromed tailpipes.
Production E70 x 15 tires for Z/28 and COPO 9737 were Goodyear Wide Tread GT or Firestone Sport Car 200.
Production E70 x 15 tires for Z/28 and COPO 9737 were Goodyear Wide Tread GT or Firestone Sport Car 200.
1990
General Discussion / Re: July 1969 Norwood shutdown
« on: May 25, 2014, 09:10:42 PM »
The Norwood plant shutdown at the close of business Friday July 11 and resumed production Monday August 11. VINs after approximately N669119 were final-assembled in August.
The NCRS dates I'm seeing don't exactly match up to the last VIN produced for the month records from Chevrolet. Depends on how it was defined for shipping/invoicing purposes.
The NCRS dates I'm seeing don't exactly match up to the last VIN produced for the month records from Chevrolet. Depends on how it was defined for shipping/invoicing purposes.
1991
General Discussion / Re: WHAT IS THE CRGS OPINION ON THIS COPO
« on: May 25, 2014, 06:43:40 PM »http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Camaro-COPO-CAMARO-VERY-DOCUMENTED-LOW-MILE-955-POINT-1969-COPO-CAMARO-HIGHLY-OPTIONED-NO-/161312531277?forcerrptr=true&hash=item258ef9e34d&item=161312531277&pt=US_Cars_Trucks#ht_49490wt_1238
As an organization the CRG does not render opinions on specific cars. Our members may voice an opinion as individuals, still a free country last I checked.
1992
Decoding/Numbers / Re: late 69 VIN tag
« on: May 23, 2014, 12:56:03 AM »
It's there under many layers of paint.
1993
Originality / Re: 69 z/28 JL8 Camaro?
« on: May 19, 2014, 01:09:23 AM »
No one has a VIN listing of factory JL-8 cars. Since conversion parts were sold by Chevrolet for years it isn't all that difficult to build one and several have been done. So you really need paperwork to claim originality.
Wayne doesn't seem too involved these days but you should get a copy of his book Camaro Untold Secrets. It's the best source for detailed engineering info on all the racing equipment Chevy developed for the cars. Another JL8 wizard was Larry Hooten out of Louisiana. Haven't spoken with him in years, don't know if he is still involved.
I briefly had a JL8 Z/28 in the '70s. It was Hugger Orange, Orange Houndstooth. Sold new out of Dale Chev here in WI. No idea what happened to it. Dale also had a Daytona Yellow Yellow Houndstooth Z/28-RS that a bud owned.
Wayne doesn't seem too involved these days but you should get a copy of his book Camaro Untold Secrets. It's the best source for detailed engineering info on all the racing equipment Chevy developed for the cars. Another JL8 wizard was Larry Hooten out of Louisiana. Haven't spoken with him in years, don't know if he is still involved.
I briefly had a JL8 Z/28 in the '70s. It was Hugger Orange, Orange Houndstooth. Sold new out of Dale Chev here in WI. No idea what happened to it. Dale also had a Daytona Yellow Yellow Houndstooth Z/28-RS that a bud owned.
1994
General Discussion / Re: Dealer versus Customer Order
« on: May 18, 2014, 09:24:59 PM »
Emmert Chev in Detroit ordered 20 COPO 9561 Camaros for stock; 10 of them were special paint.
So it wasn't all of them but few dealers probably wanted to bother with it.
So it wasn't all of them but few dealers probably wanted to bother with it.
1995
General Discussion / Re: Dealer versus Customer Order
« on: May 18, 2014, 05:07:31 PM »
I worked for a former Chevrolet dealer for several years and heard many an interesting story about dealing with Chevrolet from the perspective of a dealer.
Fundamentally the factory can’t ‘stock’ finished goods although some had sales banks. So the dealerships had to hold the inventory. Also, you can’t sell from an empty cart so you have to have something for the pre-sold buyer that wanders in one day. Even in those days the composition of a dealer’s inventory was statistically driven by many factors: geographical location, average income, color preferences and so on. If Chevrolet found it had excessive inventory of slow-moving options dealers would be encouraged to order them.
I have copies of much of the paperwork from that dealership; they sold 99 1969 Camaros. The order form has a field for the customer’s name for ‘sold’ orders. Of the 99 28 were noted as sold, a bit over 28%. The remainder were ordered for stock and included Z/28s, SS and one Z11. To me anyway it is obvious why many of the 28 were special ordered-4 were Z/28s. Here are some of the others:
• A67 GT1 L22 VE3
• loaded SS $4413 list
• C05 D55 D90 F41 G80 J52 L65 M20 N40 N65 PL5
• A01 D33 D55 J52 N10 N40 U17 U63 ZJ7 Z22 Z87
• 69 69 727 D55 M40 N40 PK8 U63 Z22 Z23
• 72 72 720 C60 D55 D90 J50 L65 M40 N40 PY4 U63 ZJ7 ZJ9 Z21 Z87
• A01 C50 D33 D55 D96 PW7 T60 U35
For the most part they had unusual or many options and/or non-mainstream paint & trim.
Fundamentally the factory can’t ‘stock’ finished goods although some had sales banks. So the dealerships had to hold the inventory. Also, you can’t sell from an empty cart so you have to have something for the pre-sold buyer that wanders in one day. Even in those days the composition of a dealer’s inventory was statistically driven by many factors: geographical location, average income, color preferences and so on. If Chevrolet found it had excessive inventory of slow-moving options dealers would be encouraged to order them.
I have copies of much of the paperwork from that dealership; they sold 99 1969 Camaros. The order form has a field for the customer’s name for ‘sold’ orders. Of the 99 28 were noted as sold, a bit over 28%. The remainder were ordered for stock and included Z/28s, SS and one Z11. To me anyway it is obvious why many of the 28 were special ordered-4 were Z/28s. Here are some of the others:
• A67 GT1 L22 VE3
• loaded SS $4413 list
• C05 D55 D90 F41 G80 J52 L65 M20 N40 N65 PL5
• A01 D33 D55 J52 N10 N40 U17 U63 ZJ7 Z22 Z87
• 69 69 727 D55 M40 N40 PK8 U63 Z22 Z23
• 72 72 720 C60 D55 D90 J50 L65 M40 N40 PY4 U63 ZJ7 ZJ9 Z21 Z87
• A01 C50 D33 D55 D96 PW7 T60 U35
For the most part they had unusual or many options and/or non-mainstream paint & trim.