Messages

2026

General Discussion / Re: 69 Z28 Engine Bay Pic's

« on: December 07, 2013, 04:22:41 PM »

Upper control arms were assembled to the shaft with the bushings, then dip painted black. Ball joint added afterwards. So the shafts were painted to begin with but it did not adhere well. If you look closely at the Hot Rod test car it is apparent.

Very well done engine bay David!

2027

Decoding/Numbers / Re: rear axel code chart

« on: November 25, 2013, 11:44:32 PM »

For '69 4.10 was the lowest RPO ratio. A very few cars have factory documents showing COPO 9511 with 4.56 & 4.88 ratios. The 4.88 was in a Z/28, the 4.56s are in L72 COPOs. The axle code for the L72s remains BE. DT was not an axle code; it is the ECL for that particular ratio. COPO Chevelles may have also used the same posi unit; don't know.

COPO 9560 was the ZL1, 9561 was the L72. Both received BE axles.

2028

Decoding/Numbers / Re: rear axel code chart

« on: November 25, 2013, 06:49:16 PM »

The BE posi unit is not the same as the GM H-D unit sold over the counter. Jerry MacNeish's 1969 Camaro book has an excellent technical analysis of how it differs from the production posi unit.

They do sell for that-when you can find a real one. Like everything else the re-stampers are at it, converting BL axles. Always take the cover off and pay attention to the date.

2029

Decoding/Numbers / Re: rear axel code chart

« on: November 22, 2013, 09:23:12 PM »

Nope; a BE axle has a different posi unit in addition to the HD ring & pinion.

2030

Originality / Re: Foil tape over conv pinch weld?

« on: November 18, 2013, 06:34:22 PM »

Speculating, I believe the foil is there to protect the paint when the molding is snapped into position.

2031

Originality / Re: Cowl hood and air cleaner

« on: November 17, 2013, 09:05:39 PM »

A car built with ZL2 will have a .75" hole just above the fuse box for the wiring harness. There is another small hole for the relay on the firewall above the RH rocker cover.

2032

Originality / Re: Trunk and header emblem.

« on: November 15, 2013, 11:19:30 PM »

Note that each emblem was serviced as a kit that included attachment hardware. 7752901 had nuts with sealant, 3916654 had standard nuts.

2033

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Camaro 396 Exhaust manifolds

« on: November 11, 2013, 06:28:03 PM »

The body tag date of the car isn't the determining factor. The manifolds were installed at the engine plant so the engine build date is the key. It would have to be a short time after the casting dates.

I would be more concerned with the quality of the manifolds. They are often badly pitted or cracked along the parting lines. Very common for the end bolt hole flanges to be broken off. AIR manifolds are worth more than non-AIR.

2034

Originality / Re: Original tires

« on: November 07, 2013, 04:20:36 AM »

Non-SS cars with F70 x 14 tires still received 6" wheels. SS equipment included PL5 tires so PL4 was an upgrade.

The 'standard' tire for COPOs 9560/9561 was technically the E78 x 14 black wall. One of the few unrestored ZL1s has an E78 x 14 tire label but was ordered and built with PL5 F70 x 14s. Most of the factory COPO docs I have seen list an optional tire: PL4, PL5 or COPO 9737. An optional tire could have been a requirement. Problem is I know of one that doesn't list an optional tire so it may have been built with E78s.

COPO 9737 was limited to cars also ordered with 9560 or 9561. There was no optional 15" tire; Z/28s and COPO 9737 cars were built with E70 x 15 Goodyear Wide Tread GT or Firestone Sport Car 200.

2035

Originality / Re: Original tires

« on: November 07, 2013, 02:52:25 AM »

None noted. The April 2, 1969 rev states:

(5) F70-14/B Fiberglass Belt White Lettered Blackwall….PL4

But it has two listings and prices. For Camaro SS PL4 replaced PL5 and listed for $26.25. For non-SS Camaros PL4 replaced the standard E78 x 14 tire and listed for $88.60. I have several docs for cars built with them and most are not SS.

The example that is known to exist is a COPO, price is $88.60.

2036

Originality / Re: Original tires

« on: November 06, 2013, 06:23:37 PM »

I believe that a very, very few 1969 Camaros were built with Goodyear Polyglas tires, none prior to April 1969. I would be more comfortable if those alleged existing cars had documents establishing they were ordered with PL4.
 
The statement that the Camaro hobby has progressed to the point where “hearsay does not get it” is correct. Hearsay is defined as “something heard from another person.” Abiding by that statement I have no use for what someone who has a vested interest in selling reproduction tires has to say on this matter. I doubt he was at either plant 44 years ago; the “tire shortage” yarn is more hearsay. This requires one to believe the THREE suppliers of RWL F70 x 14 tires used in daily production simultaneously ran out forcing the plant to use a far more expensive alternative. It’s a convenient way to explain a car that has an FG spare but docs that show it was not ordered with PL4. Very common for dealers to swap out tires in those days. I believe the Goodyear Polyglas tire was introduced in 1968, any tire dealer could have had them in stock.

While I do appreciate what the workers at Norwood had to say the memory of a rare option used over 4 decades past could be a bit fuzzy.

The few facts pertinent to this issue remain: the rev to the dealer ordering information showing the addition of FG belted F70 x 14 tires to the Camaro option listing as of April 1969; the existence of ONE documented PL4 car-with a Firestone spare.

2037

Originality / Re: Original tires

« on: November 04, 2013, 06:30:17 PM »

The tires became available for order as of April 1969. A car ordered that day would have been built 3-4 weeks afterwards.  This web site shows them as “5/69 intro”

While the explanation is mostly accurate it implies Goodyear was the only supplier of the optional FG Belted RWL F70 x 14 tire. The only known documented [dealer invoice] car built with them still has its original Firestone spare. Uniroyal was also a supplier; DeLorean’s book mentions this very issue.

Having bought cars back in the day it was very common to upgrade tires on a new car prior to delivery. All 5 were swapped out for something else so even a correctly dated spare does not necessarily mean the car was built with that tire.

No matter how you want to look at it PL4 was a very rare option; few cars were built with it. Not all of those few had Goodyears.

2038

General Discussion / Re: '69 Z28 Project Car Value

« on: November 03, 2013, 07:55:53 PM »

It's much rougher than you think and the decked engine is a problem. No block casting was unique to the Z/28 and a blank pad will be a deal breaker for many people. It probably had a trunk mat so check out the trunk floor, rear frame rails, roof areas around the glass. If it passes muster and the trans/shifter, axle, carb, alternator, distributor, wheels are OE it is worth probably a bit more than your current offer. If the parts in the deal are current available repro, nice but nothing special. If NOS, could be a gem or two in the pile so find out. Any paperwork with it?

2039

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 California trim tag code mo 44 ?

« on: October 25, 2013, 10:33:20 PM »

I also have an 01C with I120 , the production date on the build sheet is 1/15.

That's the day the Chevy paperwork was printed and final assembly started; body fab was complete. The car rolled off the line a day or two later.

2040

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1100837 9 F 17

« on: October 23, 2013, 11:23:46 PM »

Just checked my list. 06As commonly have 9E23 837s.