CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 27, 2015, 10:51:05 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.
111308 Posts in 12818 Topics by 4913 Members
Latest Member: devodave
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 81
46  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.


47  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.


48  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.
49  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.
50  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.
51  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.
52  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.
53  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.
54  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.
55  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: march built z28 wheel on: August 17, 2014, 04:16:53 PM
YH wheels entered production January 1969.
56  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.
57  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.
58  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Caveat Emptor..another on: August 05, 2014, 05:53:29 PM
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Camaro-Z-28-X33-REAL-DEAL-Z-28-ALL-MATCHING-S-DZ-302-4SPD-/141368527122?forcerrptr=true&hash=item20ea388912&item=141368527122&pt=US_Cars_Trucks
59  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Caveat Emptor on: July 27, 2014, 12:08:37 PM
Wow!

Great work getting it pulled guys!
60  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Caveat Emptor on: July 26, 2014, 11:01:55 AM
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Camaro-Z28-VERY-RARE-HIGHLY-DOCUMENTED-PRISTINE-TOTALLY-RESTORED-SHOWROOM-CONIDITION-/151365002981?forcerrptr=true&hash=item233e0ea6e5&item=151365002981&pt=US_Cars_Trucks

This ebay ad prominently mentions documents and features several photos of them. The alleged ‘original’ documents have several inconsistencies with genuine original 1969 Camaro documentation.

Exception Control Letters [ECL] are the two-character alpha codes listed after the option; A01 is tinted glass, AA is the ECL for the specific build. ECLs are application-specific; there are at least 22 for Z22. 5 of the ECLs on the documents for this car are inconsistent with others in the database. In addition there are two spelling errors and an error in the listing of the options.

The ad states: “The window sticker and shipper sheet reflect…and the D80 rear [?] spoiler option” however air spoiler equipment is not listed on the paperwork, such as it is. The car has C08 Vinyl Roof Cover and Z21 Style Trim Group, also not listed on the purported original documents. The ad claims a stereo radio but the documents list the U69 monaural am/fm.

There are several incorrect or missing components evident in the photos: headers, no AIR system, master cylinder, trunk mat, stripe color, ducted hood.

The ad boasts “Send your inspector today!” I second that motion.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 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 0.737 seconds with 18 queries.