CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2015, 06:57:11 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Forum registration problems: Make sure you enter your email correctly and you check your spam box first. *Then* email KurtS2@gmail for help.
112383 Posts in 12912 Topics by 4944 Members
Latest Member: 68RS/SS
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 83
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Special Front Bumper VE3 differences between OEM & aftermarket on: April 27, 2015, 07:39:53 AM
While there may be slight detail differences between production and service parts the parts still had to be per print. The extreme differences noted in the repro would not have been acceptable.
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: info:1969 302 engine for sale ? on: April 26, 2015, 08:55:04 PM
Really? An 010 block stamped V0127DZ?
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Special Front Bumper VE3 differences between OEM & aftermarket on: April 26, 2015, 12:33:01 PM
Unknown and unknowable. Too many variables involved.
4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Special Front Bumper VE3 differences between OEM & aftermarket on: April 25, 2015, 02:56:30 PM
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.
5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Special Front Bumper VE3 differences between OEM & aftermarket on: April 25, 2015, 12:42:21 PM
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.
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Time to buy a real deal ZL-1! on: April 22, 2015, 03:48:45 PM
Wouldn't know. Never saw one.
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 camaro upper control arms painting on: April 21, 2015, 08:43:42 PM
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
8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Time to buy a real deal ZL-1! on: April 16, 2015, 11:13:03 AM
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.
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Time to buy a real deal ZL-1! on: April 16, 2015, 10:30:25 AM
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.
10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Time to buy a real deal ZL-1! on: April 16, 2015, 07:31:07 AM
First of all Iím not attacking anyone here personally. Iím presenting the reasons for my viewpoint on this topic.

Donít believe everything you read. Iím 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 ď427 air cleaner sticker was absent on all ZL1s leaving the factoryĒ 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 didnít read them. Iíve 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 ďThe ones I've seen doesn't have the sticker on the lid....Ē 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. Iíd like to see photos of the other 98% before concluding none of them had the label. Iíll bet every restored í69 Z/28 has a 302 label on the air cleaner but the January í69 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.

11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Time to buy a real deal ZL-1! on: April 15, 2015, 03:31:02 PM
Chevrolet documentation indicates otherwise. Did COPO Connection personally inspect all 69 ZL1 Camaros?



12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Time to buy a real deal ZL-1! on: April 15, 2015, 02:33:11 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.
13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro with 3-Speed Manual Trans and Console? on: April 10, 2015, 10:08:02 AM
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.
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro with 3-Speed Manual Trans and Console? on: April 09, 2015, 10:19:11 PM
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. 
15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro with 3-Speed Manual Trans and Console? on: April 09, 2015, 06:58:30 PM
The #3974526 seal looks nothing like #3893853; isn't even close. That's why NOS is $275.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 83
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.088 seconds with 18 queries.