CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 26, 2015, 02:24:47 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.
111273 Posts in 12817 Topics by 4913 Members
Latest Member: devodave
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 81
31  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Survivor / OE correct engine pics - Copo Camaro on: February 10, 2015, 01:27:53 PM
It's old school these days but there were several COPO Camaros reviewed in period magazines. Super Stock & Drag Illustrated [I think] had an Olympic Gold Yenko Camaro; #3 and #5 ZL1s were also tested. Also a Yenko Chevelle in there. May take some searching and you will have to pay up for those issues but they are well worth it.

The #3 ZL1 feature is of particular interest as it has undercarriage photos showing it was built with the production N10 dual resonator/single muffler exhaust system. There was an interim system w/o resonators but it was Z/28 only. Most COPOs are incorrectly restored without resonators.
32  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: GM Big Block Aluminum Water Pump on: February 09, 2015, 01:34:23 PM
Well not entirely true. When Bill Porterfield acquired ZL1 #1 many years ago he was provided photos of the car being prepped at Dick Harrell's shop. One of the engine photos shows an aluminum water pump. At least #1 and possibly the #2 ZL1 had pilot engines [V prefix] built at Flint. His contacts at Chevy engineering stated the aluminum pump later failed durability testing and was not released for production. The remainder of ZL1 Camaro production had iron pumps painted black as stated.
33  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: New article - Water pumps on: January 03, 2015, 06:26:13 PM
Great job Bryon!
34  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Willow Run plant about to see the wrecking ball...? on: January 02, 2015, 06:55:03 PM
I bought an '81 Citation new and had Ziebart undercoating put on it. All that did was delay the inevitable; by the time I unloaded it in '87 even the hood had rust holes. Went from bad to worse as I then bought a used '85 Pontiac 6000 STE, the worst POS I ever owned. In two years I replaced the steering rack twice, fuel pump, oil pump, coil, ignition module, rear calipers. I never did fix the power antenna or power locks. Even the radio blew out. Had the A/C recharged several times. I'd like to think they have improved the quality but my BIL's 2003 Impala isn't much better.

GM chased away a lot of customers with the junk they built in those days.
35  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Vin info on: December 28, 2014, 02:27:37 PM
Not in the db.
36  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Engine Pad Check on: December 22, 2014, 10:20:32 PM
Paint or not, real deal.
37  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Bracket on Driver's Side Trunk Floor on: December 14, 2014, 11:23:01 AM
It was likely the factory hanger for the standard single exhaust system; all '69 Camaros had it. Shown in the AIM in section 8 page A4.
38  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: owner history? on: December 13, 2014, 04:12:00 PM
Len glad you brought that up. Title and registration are not the same thing. In WI at one time you could title a car but not register it, handy for a parts car stored on your property. If you are certain of the state a car is in ask for both. I missed a Yenko that was titled here but had not been registered in many years.
39  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: owner history? on: December 13, 2014, 10:35:36 AM
When the ZL1 and Yenko Camaro VINs became known in the Ď80s I and several others spent much time and money trying to locate the cars. Learned a lot about the title/registration process; the fundamental problem was each state was free to do it as they pleased. Several states didnít even issue titles; some southern states registered cars by county. Some states kept perpetual records; some only went back 10 years or so. If an owner stops registering the car it will drop off the file after a period of time. Also, it is not uncommon for cars to be repeatedly sold on an open title. You may locate the owner of record who will have no idea where the car is. Hard to believe but even the feds couldnít necessarily locate a vehicle in those days. Back then the records, such as they were, were mostly open to anyone. If you knew what state the car was in you sent in a few bucks and they mailed a copy of the last registration. If you didnít know the state, a friendly peace office could run the VIN on NCIC and maybe find the car.

Well that was then. Remember 40+ years ago was the Stone Age of computer technology; the records were on mag tape no one can access any longer. There was a stalking incident in CA that involved the use of DMV records. As a result CA and other states closed the records to private individuals. ĎCasualí NCIC inquiry is no longer possible so that door is closed. And there is little reason to maintain vehicle registration data for 10 years so states most donít. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. No harm in asking.
But, good news. Today most cars are mobile hot spots. If the battery is hooked up someone always knows where a car is. And thanks to GPS tracking, where it has been. Isnít technology great? 
40  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: pad stamp? on: December 08, 2014, 04:49:08 PM
Can't speak for '68s but '69 DZ block stamps had several subtle changes over the 14 month production run. That means there are overlapping dates for August, September, October. And guess what? A DZ block stamped in '68 won't necessarily match the same date in '69. DZ engines weren't built every day and there are 3 block casting numbers to deal with. Tonawanda blocks are not identical to Flint even for the same casting number. For the most part all blocks built on the same day have the same stamp.

We are amassing a library of stampings for comparative purposes. Anyone that wants to help out, send a clear photo of your block stamp to Kurt or myself.
41  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: is ths vin in the database on: December 07, 2014, 01:09:07 PM
124377N115548 is not in the CRG db.
42  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.
43  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.
44  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.
45  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Shipping Data Report vs Trim Tag on: November 05, 2014, 11:12:15 PM
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.

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.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 81
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 0.331 seconds with 18 queries.