CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2014, 10:12:50 PM

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.
106635 Posts in 12432 Topics by 4790 Members
Latest Member: gmein
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 79
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Air cleaner base on: November 26, 2014, 06:15:15 PM
Applications for the 6423907 low-restriction air cleaner are 1968 302 & 396; all 1969 396 [exc ZL2] and Z/28s produced through the end of October 1968. At that time the AIM and P & A manual shows the super-to std Z/28 air cleaner as 6423272. The '69 Body Broadcast Copy lists the production air cleaner in box # 86 as a 2-digit code. I have BBCs from Z/28s built Nov '68 and May '69 at Norwood and March '69 at Van Nuys; all show the air cleaner as '07'. '68s are '07' also.

It is possible the change to 6423272 never took place in production.
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Original ball joint amd tie rod numbers on: November 25, 2014, 06:30:06 PM
We had boxes of NOS service suspension parts for our '67 Z/28 project of many years ago and none of the ball joints or tie rods looked same as production. Two different worlds, different suppliers.
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 RS Headlight Problems on: November 20, 2014, 01:20:29 PM
Had exactly the same problem last summer after replacing all the hoses. Replace the switch on the reserve tank if it isn't shiny new. The OE style repro is a dead ringer for OE. Took a few cycles to adjust and the doors worked fine. The switch has a rubber piston inside. It was deteriorated, rubber dust all over.
4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Shipping Data Report vs Trim Tag on: November 05, 2014, 11:12:15 PM
Gary,
That's not correct. Orders were placed sometimes months in advance.
The tag was made for the build, not for the order.

'Months in advance' may be true for larger volume orders, or for dealers orders leading into a new model year, but in cases of a 'customer order' (which receives higher priority for build scheduling), it is generally 2-4 weeks.   I 'special ordered' a handful of cars (Chevrolet and Chrysler) during the early 70's, and the fastest a car came in was 2-3 weeks, and the longest was around 4 weeks prior to the cars' build.   I know from my own engirneering/manufacturing background (not the automobile industry), that when an order was received, it was 'estimated' when the order could be filled (for feedback to the customer).   Since all the other information on the cowl tag (model/options/etc) is KNOWN, or generated (bdy nbr), at the time of order acceptance  I'm curious just exactly how long after order acceptance did it take Chevrolet to provide the information to Fisher and and when did Fisher 'fix' the data that would go on the cowl tag?   I'd think this would happen in a few days to a week at most.

The fact that some cars cowl tag date and actual build date differ significantly suggests that there was sufficient time between the "cowl tag data generation" (that could be well before the cowl tag actually being made) that temporary unforeseen parts shortages etc could affect the time difference.   If the cowl tag data (production week) was generated at the time the car was actually beginning the build, then we should not be seeing the significant difference in the dates as we do.  We've already been informed by JohnZ and others that once the body began the process, hardly nothing affected the build sequence, and the production rate was 'fixed'...

The body tag could remain in queue if a sudden material shortage arose. Our '67 Z/28 project of many years ago had an 06E tag, V0706MO engine-no question it was OE. Car was final-assembled the second week in July. What happened? Who knows. Car had a blue custom interior, all it takes is one missing part to put the order on hold. Material-assuring orders must have been an error-prone manual process in those days.

Don't forget Fisher occasionally punched out tags well in advance. All June '69s are 06A, all July are 07A.




William
Interesting!  Would the part shortage have been on the Fisher or the Chevrolet side?
I am itrigued as my 69 06A - for what it is worth  - has a 0526 built motor and all the engine accessories date to the same time, but the NCRS puts the shipping date as June 18th

Fisher released per Chevy's schedule so in this case it was likely a Fisher shortage. If Chevy had a known shortage they would not schedule the unit.


5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Shipping Data Report vs Trim Tag on: November 05, 2014, 01:23:34 PM
Gary,
That's not correct. Orders were placed sometimes months in advance.
The tag was made for the build, not for the order.

'Months in advance' may be true for larger volume orders, or for dealers orders leading into a new model year, but in cases of a 'customer order' (which receives higher priority for build scheduling), it is generally 2-4 weeks.   I 'special ordered' a handful of cars (Chevrolet and Chrysler) during the early 70's, and the fastest a car came in was 2-3 weeks, and the longest was around 4 weeks prior to the cars' build.   I know from my own engirneering/manufacturing background (not the automobile industry), that when an order was received, it was 'estimated' when the order could be filled (for feedback to the customer).   Since all the other information on the cowl tag (model/options/etc) is KNOWN, or generated (bdy nbr), at the time of order acceptance  I'm curious just exactly how long after order acceptance did it take Chevrolet to provide the information to Fisher and and when did Fisher 'fix' the data that would go on the cowl tag?   I'd think this would happen in a few days to a week at most.

The fact that some cars cowl tag date and actual build date differ significantly suggests that there was sufficient time between the "cowl tag data generation" (that could be well before the cowl tag actually being made) that temporary unforeseen parts shortages etc could affect the time difference.   If the cowl tag data (production week) was generated at the time the car was actually beginning the build, then we should not be seeing the significant difference in the dates as we do.  We've already been informed by JohnZ and others that once the body began the process, hardly nothing affected the build sequence, and the production rate was 'fixed'...

The body tag could remain in queue if a sudden material shortage arose. Our '67 Z/28 project of many years ago had an 06E tag, V0706MO engine-no question it was OE. Car was final-assembled the second week in July. What happened? Who knows. Car had a blue custom interior, all it takes is one missing part to put the order on hold. Material-assuring orders must have been an error-prone manual process in those days.

Don't forget Fisher occasionally punched out tags well in advance. All June '69s are 06A, all July are 07A.


6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Drum Brake Steering Arms vs Discs on: October 13, 2014, 12:50:37 PM
The upper control arm was positioned in a fixture; the bushings, cross bar, washers and bolts were assembled to it and torqued. The fixture established the position of the bar relative to the arm for assembly to the frame in production. The assembly was then dipped in a black coating. The ball joint was installed afterwards and was not coated. The coating was not intended to last 40+ years; none of the parts had any prep. Don't draw conclusions based on how a part looks today; I have seen plenty of rusty Camaro subframes in my days that were known to have been coated. 44 years is a long time.

Painted upper control arm assemblies are visible in engine bay photos in vintage road tests. Washers were coated.
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Took the Day Off.... on: August 30, 2014, 03:39:06 PM
The gloss/satin BB rear body panel debate was thoroughly vetted elsewhere a few years back. Gloss and satin OE paint survivors exist so it looks like both is the answer.

Gloss black was used for Z/28 striping. Not a stretch to envision it being used on rear body panels.
8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Ebay DZ motor... on: August 30, 2014, 11:19:01 AM
The DZ block stamping does not fit with what would be expected from a B 14 9 / 618 casting.
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Help determining 67 4P scenario on: August 25, 2014, 05:29:23 PM
Tag is not coded for A/C.
10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Help determining 67 4P scenario on: August 25, 2014, 12:10:41 PM
I didn't state there were none. At this time, none are known.
11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Help determining 67 4P scenario on: August 24, 2014, 03:53:33 PM
An L35 396 would be 4N; too early for L78. No known 4P Z/28s out of Van Nuys.
12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Help determining 67 4P scenario on: August 24, 2014, 02:16:09 PM
All 1st gens had the cowl punched for the standard speedo cable routing. It was plugged for Muncie applications.
13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: march built z28 wheel on: August 17, 2014, 04:16:53 PM
YH wheels entered production January 1969.
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Broadcast sheets, VIN sequence and build dates on: August 17, 2014, 12:56:58 PM
I have one for a '69 Camaro and it looks like new. Also have other paperwork from the same dealer.

Last fall I saw an original Gutenberg bible, 558 years old. Probably wasn't always well stored but still looked pretty good. Kept dry and indoors, paper does just fine.
15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Broadcast sheets, VIN sequence and build dates on: August 17, 2014, 10:44:30 AM
Body and chassis broadcast copies often remained in completed cars shipped from the plant. They were usually discarded during new car prep. However a few dealers put them in the glove box or in the folder of paperwork retained by the dealer. That may be what occurred here as yours looks genuine.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 79
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 0.081 seconds with 18 queries.