CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 26, 2014, 11:26:55 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.
106619 Posts in 12428 Topics by 4790 Members
Latest Member: gmein
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 79
1036  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Help decoding my 69 vin on: December 04, 2006, 08:43:34 PM
And a bad one at that.

A39 & A85 did not exist. Many of the ECLs are incorrect; "5ZJ7AG" indicates 14 x 6 rally wheels.

The form is incorrect and the body number is missing.
1037  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: sandblasting? on: December 04, 2006, 08:31:06 PM
Having done my share of sandblasting I strongly recommend that you have a professional shop do the work. Sandblasting of this magnitude [entire floorpan] requires a large compressor and sanblasting equipment, all of which can be rented. The car will need to be suspended; don't even consider lying under it. It will take a lot of sand and is incredibly noisy & messy. You will also need personal protective equipment. Inhaling sand is hazardous and it can easily end up in your nose, ears and eyes.

Sandblasting can warp and work-harden metal so you do not want to do any exterior sheet metal. If you get careless it will instantly ruin glass. There will be sand in the car forever.

Were I to do a car again I would first remove all panels due to be replaced and would seriously consider having the remainder of the paint/rust chemically stripped. There are rust-neutralizing solutions now available that are far more thorough than sandblasting. Hot Rod did a feature on this topic in the June 2006 issue.
1038  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Camaro disc brake rearend on: December 03, 2006, 07:03:08 PM
It could be a conversion using late '70s Cadillac Seville rear discs. They were built off a Nova platform and I understand the discs bolt-on.
1039  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Help decoding my 69 vin on: December 02, 2006, 12:25:41 PM
The U73 Manual Rear Antenna option was not available with spoilers. The dealer should have noted the error and requested new documents. Errors like this aren't all that unusual. When a Camaro window label has the VIN entirely printed rather than stamped that is usually the reason.

AM front masts were telescopic, FM was fixed-height.

124679N637627

1=Chevrolet
2467=8 cylinder convertible
9=1969 model year
N=Norwood, Ohio final assembly plant
637627=137,627 unit built at Norwood

NOR 319187=unit # assigned at time of dealer order
TR 720=Orange Houndstooth interior
50=Dover white lower body color
A=white convertible top
05A=body assembly started 1st week May 1969
Z11=Indianapolis 500 Pace Car accents



1040  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 Cowl Induction Air Cleaner Question on: December 01, 2006, 11:22:00 PM
It is likely the insulation was not cut correctly. There was only one flange & seal for all applications.

Original equipment ducted hood air cleaners did not have chrome lids. For some time in the '80s GM service replacement units were supplied with chrome lids.
1041  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Cowl/Vin Match on: November 13, 2006, 08:57:10 PM
Tag looks fine.

It is in the db.
1042  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69Z orig goodyear tires on: November 11, 2006, 02:23:48 PM
Yup; E70 x 15 Wide Tread GT with "NYLON" molded into the side wall.

I believe repros are "POLYESTER"
1043  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: were there any 68s with headrest on: November 02, 2006, 09:26:36 PM
Yes head rests were optional for 1968.
1044  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 350 SS EXHAUST BRACKET on: October 31, 2006, 08:07:27 PM
All 1969 dual exhaust coupes received the reinforcement plate on the LH frame rail only. Convertibles did not need it due to heavier gauge frame rails.
1045  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: TACH ON THE DASH on: October 31, 2006, 01:24:52 PM
That was a dealer accessory; not factory installed.
1046  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Correct locaton of proportionong valve on sub frame on: October 06, 2006, 06:59:57 PM
I did not consider it the prop valve because the explanation in the November 1969 Chevrolet Service News refers to it as a "pressure regulating valve" 5 times in the short article.

Not all disc/drum Camaros had it; some drum brake cars have it.

What I consider the prop valve is the one under the master, Chevy calls it a "pressure metering valve" and also a "pressure regulating valve", point being disc/drum cars have to have it.

I checked the Assembly and Chassis Service Manuals-no mention of "proportioning valve".
1047  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Turbo 400 and column shifter on: October 06, 2006, 12:09:36 PM
Of the 50 '69 ZL1s ordered by Fred Gibb Chev 20 were T400 and all had column shifts.
1048  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: power team orders/axel ratio's on: October 03, 2006, 12:36:43 PM
You could specify anything on the power teams chart. I do not have the info with me but 4.56 & 4.88 were RPO ratios with certain engine/trans combos for 1968.

Things changed a bit for 1969; 4.56 & 4.88 were no longer RPO. However you could get either via the COPO process. I have copies of docs for a '69 Z/28 built with '88s and a COPO 9561 built with '56s.

That means a triple COPO is a possibility: 9511, 9561, 9737.
1049  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Correct locaton of proportionong valve on sub frame on: October 02, 2006, 12:03:32 PM
That is not the prop valve.
1050  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: X Codes on: September 24, 2006, 06:38:32 PM
Hugger orange convertible with black top, black standard interior. Body started in production the 4th week of May 1969 at the Norwood Ohio assembly plant.

For reasons unknown there were a number of convertibles built at that time with no X code on the tag.

You are free to do as you please with your car. If you wish to build the car as an SS with all the proper componentry and call it a clone, tribute, re-creation, go right ahead.
Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 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 0.086 seconds with 18 queries.