CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 31, 2015, 11:10:00 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.
109349 Posts in 12660 Topics by 4866 Members
Latest Member: jamejia1967
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 [59]
871  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Help figuring 69 out on: February 06, 2006, 01:57:35 PM
Rebuild the 327 - great motor.
872  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Reproduction 1969 Camaro Coupe Shells on: February 06, 2006, 01:48:22 PM
Won't affect the price or desirability of an original 69 at all.  A reproduction is still a reproduction - doesn't matter what collector field (cars, antiques, etc) you're into.  Repos are just that - and will always command rero prices - not prices based on the real item. 

Problem will be those that try to decieve the uninformed by passing of the repro as original --- but that's already an old story that we deal with every day with the existing cloning / decieving issues that are already out there.
873  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: inspection marks on: December 23, 2005, 01:33:51 PM
When I had the front end of my 69 RS Coupe a part last year, I found a "2" or "R" on the left hand (driver) side of the firewall.  As you can see from the attached picture, it was not visible until the fender was removed.

To date, no one has been able to identify what this may have meant.

Not sure if this was common or not.  My car is an 01C Norwood built unit.
874  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Rally Sport on: December 10, 2005, 11:41:57 PM
To the best of my knowledge, headlight washers were a standard part of all Z22 Rally Sport cars for 1969.  It was the case with my '69 RS Coupe.

Looking at my car, the backup light cut outs in the tailpan valence appear to be flush.  However, I've never had them out so I'll defer to someone who knows for sure.

Tried to send you a pic of the backup lights in my car, but for some reason it wouldn't go through.
875  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: REAR END DATE on: December 09, 2005, 06:00:58 PM
Strange things can happen, though.

Besides my 69 RS coupe, the other car I have is a 66 Chevelle which has been in the family since it was first purchased on March 30,1966.  I have all of the original documentation including protect-o-plate and have verified all of the numbers when the car was restored between 1995 and 2000.  I even found a date code on the frame.  Point is that everything is within a couple of weeks of the mid March 1966 build date at the Flint, MI assembly plant, except for the rear axle which is date coded Oct 1965.  Axle date code, etc and POP totally agree.  The rear end was build at the Buffalo Gear and Axle Plant and obviously set around somewhere before it made the trip to final assembly.
876  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: VIN number matching trim tag on: December 09, 2005, 02:20:17 PM
The folllowing can be found on the old forum.  I have included JohnZ's reply to the second post.  The entire string, for both posts, are relevant to the topic here, FYI.

     FIRST POST                           VIN and Build Dates
                                                 Posted By: sdkar <>
                                                           Date: 8-March-05, 16:31

I have a 69 Camaro Pace Car with a build date of 04C and a VIN of 636XXX. I found another Pace Car for sale with a build date of 04C as well but with a VIN of 628065. I am under the belief that this VIN would have to be an early April car. Is it possible that this is perfectly okay? Is there someplace where the VIN's are broken down by month and week?

                SECOND POST                Final Assembly Build Date
                                                            Posted By: yock <>
                                                                 Date: 29-December-04, 17:06

I recently bought a 69 Z-28. I have two questions that I hope someone can help me with. the first question is,:
Is there a differance between the body build date ( on cowl tag) and the final assembly date for the complete vehicle. If there is a differance, where could a person locate the final assembly date for the complete vehicle.
The second question is,:
Were the partial VIN numbers near the small block oil filter gang stamped. The partial VIN numbers on my 69 302 engine has a few numbers that are very readable and a few that are sort of readable and a few that are not very readable. They appear to be in a straight line.
Thank you
                                                            re: Final Assembly Build Date
                                                    Posted By: JohnZ <>
                                                           Date: 30-December-04, 10:55

The final assembly build date can be estimated within about a week. The week shown on the trim tag is when the body was welded together; the final assembly date is generally 3-4 days after that. Since the tag build date could be any day of that particular week, the final assembly date could be as early as 3-4 days after the first day of the tag week, or it could be 3-4 days after the last day of the tag week.
877  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: polyurethane on: December 08, 2005, 12:40:18 PM
This time last winter, I had the sub frame out from the under the car and was going through the restoration process of everything from the front bumper to the end of the drive shaft.

I concur with JohnZ.  I used poly bushing in my 69 RS and the car handles very well.  It is stiffer, which in my opinion is very desirable.  However, although stiffer, it is not harsh - just firmer and improves the handling quality of the car.

Good luck with your project.
878  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: VIN number matching trim tag on: December 08, 2005, 12:35:20 PM
Seems like I recal a previous post on the old forum which discussed this in some detail.  I I recall, the post stated that if a logistical or actual production problem occurred with the body after Fisher began building it, depending on how sever the issue was, the body would remain on the Fisher side of the fence until the problem was fixed - resulting in a more than standard variance between body build and final assembly build dates.
879  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 1969 Camaro Chevelle Chambered Ex GM Factory Bulletin on: November 30, 2005, 04:12:57 PM
Currently on eBay, item #Item number: 4594028327; is

"1969 Camaro Chevelle Chambered Ex GM Factory Bulletin

One 1969 Chevrolet Dealer Service Technical Bulletin covering the Chambered Exhaust System on 1969 Chevelle and Camaro SS. Covers the discontiuation of the chambered exhaust system on the Camaro and Chevelle, the interum design, and later replacement systems used. This bulletin could be very valuable in explaining differences on the way cars were equipped from the factory. 5 pages include part numbers, descriptions, and illustraions. Tech bulletin printed April 15, 1969."

Pictures are included.  If the CRG database doesn't have all of the chambered exhaust info. it might need, this might be worth acquiring.

rich69rs Smiley
880  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: '68 396 timing suggestions? on: October 30, 2005, 12:46:04 PM

Thank you very much for the info and the very insightful and helpful article.  I'm going to begin the process of coverting both my '66 Chevelle and the '69RS over to full manifold vaccuum.


1969 RS Coupe
881  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: '68 396 timing suggestions? on: October 28, 2005, 07:08:29 PM
I've been restling with the pros and cons of changing from the original carbureted ported vs direct manifold source for the vacuum advance for awhile now.  Haven't made any changes yet - still trying to appreciate all of the potential engineering implications. 

JohnZ, am I thinking clearly with the following???

Let's say that I go ahead and convert over to manifold vacuum as the source for the vacuum canister.  And then we go out on the highway and are cruising at 75 mph @ 3000 rpm.  For the specs you referenced in your previous post, centrifugal advance is all in.  We have initial (static) timing of 10-12 degrees, centrifugal advance of 20-24 degrees which would give us 30 - 36 degrees advance so far.  Iif I'm cruising, throttle partially openend, relatively high manifold vacuum, there is the potential for another 12-15 degrees of vacuum advance (depending on how much vacuum is required to fully stroke the vacuum canister) or 46-49 degrees of total advance. 

Not knowing any better, to me this seems a little too much total advance.  Do you have a suggestion for desirable total advance for the situation when you would be cruising at highway speed and you would have a combination of initial, centrifugal and at least some (if not all) the vacuum advance?

Clearly manifold vacuum to the distributor helps with idle and lower rpm ranges.  I don't want to create an uh-oh (detonation) at highway speeds.


69RS Base Coupe
882  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: New CRG Research Report Released on Emissions/Smog equipment on: October 26, 2005, 06:36:16 PM
Nice article, however since I have a base 327 with Powerglide, from my perspective, it would have been nice to see more on the '69 CCS / Thermac system. 

From what I've seen (and from what is shown in the 69 Assembly Manual, CCS/Thermac only applied to auto trans cars.

For example, if you look in the front section of the AIM, you won't see the Thermac system even shown.  One has to go to one of the auto trans sections in the RPO section of the AIM (M35 for example) to see the drawings that show the Thermac and associated hardware. 

One additional item relating to Thermac was the differences in the RH exhaust manifold.  For the manual transmission, the "typical" log style manifold was utilized.  However, for the auto trans applications, the RH exhaust manifold had the "heat stove" as an integral part of the assembly.  From there, a seperate stove pipe connected the exhaust manifold to the air cleaner.  It is not clear in the AIM where the vacuum connection from the Thermac was routed.  I assume to a port on the carb, but another possibility would have been directly to the manifold vacuum port at the back of the intake manifold.

Anyone know for sure?

1969 RS Coupe
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 [59]
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 0.102 seconds with 18 queries.