CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 27, 2015, 12:23:38 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.
111311 Posts in 12818 Topics by 4913 Members
Latest Member: devodave
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 81
61  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Caveat Emptor on: July 26, 2014, 11:01:55 AM

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.
62  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Air cleaner Decal needed on: July 22, 2014, 06:57:04 PM
Check out a more modern ZL1 dyno test on the engine from #26:

With today's 0 weight racing oils and the latest piston ring technology Camaro Hi-Performance is seeing 550hp+ on their ZL1 rebuilds.

63  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Air cleaner Decal needed on: July 21, 2014, 12:40:31 PM
The only 430 hp engine of the timeframe was the L88, only placed by Chevrolet in Corvettes, and it did not use an air cleaner decal.. as the 'hood itself' was the top cover for the Air cleaner.. Smiley

The ZL1 was also rated at 430 hp. The few period engine bay photos of ZL1 Camaros show either no air cleaner lid decal or just the 427 crossed flags.
64  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: NOS Rear shock absorber P1132 on: July 06, 2014, 04:16:11 PM
Camaro SS equipment did include different chassis components, mostly heavier-duty springs. I believe '69 was the 1st year spring selection in production was based on option content/weight. There was an optional F41 Special-Purpose suspension; Chevy was vague as to what that included. However service replacement shock listings mention 'Spec Perf Susp' so that may have been the difference.

Would be nice to have a CBC for an F41 car.
65  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: NOS Rear shock absorber P1132 on: July 05, 2014, 12:45:11 PM
Parts cars, ebay, swap meets. Very tough to find. Replacement shocks were heavily marketed in the '70s so many OE shocks were quickly replaced. Sometimes worn out but I believe they can be rebuilt. Corvette guys have been doing this for decades. You would not believe what a bud paid for a used set of '65 Corvette F41s dated to his car.

66  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: NOS Rear shock absorber P1132 on: July 05, 2014, 11:58:31 AM
Service replacement parts are often more generic than OE to cover a broader range of application.

For '69 model year production 2 rear shock absorber codes have been seen on cars built with 12 bolt axles; TN for automatics [3192832] UN for manual transmissions [3192851]. We have seen one anomaly for each code. If GMPD serviced those numbers it wasn't for long; they are not listed in the October '69 P & A manual. The generic service 12 bolt rear shock at that time appears to be 3182033.
67  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Another 99K 69 Z/28 on: June 21, 2014, 11:42:50 AM
was welded in 68 also, why was that ?  Noticed it when I pulled my exhaust out of storage for pics. ( sloppy weld job BTY)

Beautiful car

Don't know why I was thinking wide ovals ,no coffee in me at the time.

Welded because in production it establishes positioning and it's one less part that needs to be fastened. Might not sound like much but at 57 units per hour it adds up.

On the N10 standard system the head pipes were also welded to the resonators but I believe that was an MVSS requirement. Something else that recently came to light is the original production configuration of the "bright metal" tailpipes. The LH tailpipe was the standard 1-pc pipe; the end of it polished raw steel/flash chromed. The RH pipe was 2 pc welded construction with the tip nickel/chrome. Several original systems still exist in this form.

Remember all this if you see a complete NOS exhaust system for big $. Might be NOS but service replacement components were not identical to parts used in production.
68  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Another 99K 69 Z/28 on: June 21, 2014, 08:54:16 AM
The tailpipes are not adjusted properly. The factory spec was 0.64" from the top of the pipe to the base of the rear body panel. The system used in production had the RH tail pipe welded to the muffler. It was not welded on service replacement systems. Also, should have resonators and too early for chromed tailpipes.

Production E70 x 15 tires for Z/28 and COPO 9737 were Goodyear Wide Tread GT or Firestone Sport Car 200.
69  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: July 1969 Norwood shutdown on: May 25, 2014, 04:10:42 PM
The Norwood plant shutdown at the close of business Friday July 11 and resumed production Monday August 11. VINs after approximately N669119 were final-assembled in August.

The NCRS dates I'm seeing don't exactly match up to the last VIN produced for the month records from Chevrolet. Depends on how it was defined for shipping/invoicing purposes.
70  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: WHAT IS THE CRGS OPINION ON THIS COPO on: May 25, 2014, 01:43:40 PM

As an organization the CRG does not render opinions on specific cars. Our members may voice an opinion as individuals, still a free country last I checked.
71  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: late 69 VIN tag on: May 22, 2014, 07:56:03 PM
It's there under many layers of paint.
72  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 z/28 JL8 Camaro? on: May 18, 2014, 08:09:23 PM
No one has a VIN listing of factory JL-8 cars. Since conversion parts were sold by Chevrolet for years it isn't all that difficult to build one and several have been done. So you really need paperwork to claim originality.

Wayne doesn't seem too involved these days but you should get a copy of his book Camaro Untold Secrets. It's the best source for detailed engineering info on all the racing equipment Chevy developed for the cars. Another JL8 wizard was Larry Hooten out of Louisiana. Haven't spoken with him in years, don't know if he is still involved.

I briefly had a JL8 Z/28 in the '70s. It was Hugger Orange, Orange Houndstooth. Sold new out of Dale Chev here in WI. No idea what happened to it. Dale also had a Daytona Yellow Yellow Houndstooth Z/28-RS that a bud owned.
73  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Dealer versus Customer Order on: May 18, 2014, 04:24:59 PM
Emmert Chev in Detroit ordered 20 COPO 9561 Camaros for stock; 10 of them were special paint.

So it wasn't all of them but few dealers probably wanted to bother with it.

74  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Dealer versus Customer Order on: May 18, 2014, 12:07:31 PM
I worked for a former Chevrolet dealer for several years and heard many an interesting story about dealing with Chevrolet from the perspective of a dealer.

Fundamentally the factory can’t ‘stock’ finished goods although some had sales banks. So the dealerships had to hold the inventory. Also, you can’t sell from an empty cart so you have to have something for the pre-sold buyer that wanders in one day. Even in those days the composition of a dealer’s inventory was statistically driven by many factors: geographical location, average income, color preferences and so on. If Chevrolet found it had excessive inventory of slow-moving options dealers would be encouraged to order them.

I have copies of much of the paperwork from that dealership; they sold 99 1969 Camaros. The order form has a field for the customer’s name for ‘sold’ orders. Of the 99 28 were noted as sold, a bit over 28%. The remainder were ordered for stock and included Z/28s, SS and one Z11. To me anyway it is obvious why many of the 28 were special ordered-4 were Z/28s. Here are some of the others:

•   A67 GT1 L22 VE3
•   loaded SS $4413 list
•   C05 D55 D90 F41 G80 J52 L65 M20 N40 N65 PL5
•   A01 D33 D55 J52 N10 N40 U17 U63 ZJ7 Z22 Z87  
•   69 69 727  D55 M40 N40 PK8 U63 Z22 Z23
•   72 72 720 C60 D55 D90 J50 L65 M40 N40 PY4 U63 ZJ7 ZJ9 Z21 Z87
•   A01 C50 D33 D55 D96 PW7 T60 U35

For the most part they had unusual or many options and/or non-mainstream paint & trim.

75  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 Z28, One Owner Carolina Blue Crossram JL8 on: May 16, 2014, 07:18:07 PM
Probably had his wing man bid it just short of reserve. Yawn...
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 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 0.351 seconds with 18 queries.