CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2015, 04:49:14 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.
112283 Posts in 12899 Topics by 4936 Members
Latest Member: Rallyred
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Cool Pic on: July 10, 2009, 01:33:34 PM
Get rid of the two guys behind the '69 and the golf cart growing out of the '10's hood and it's a publishable, frameable photo.  Really cool.
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: My Favorite 1st gen Ad on: July 10, 2009, 01:27:30 PM
Would drive me nuts.  Couldn't go 2 sentences without a huge error.  

"Brand new at your Chevrolet dealer's, [...]"

At your dealer's what?  Your dealer's lot?  Your dealer's store?  Your dealer's house?  Your dealer's mistress's vacation home in Cancun?  Don't leave me hanging!!  Where can I find one of these cars?!!!  When Thursday, Sept. 29 arrives, where should I be in order to see and buy one of these things?
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: GM Heritage Center Info... on: June 03, 2009, 10:13:10 AM
I got it free a few years ago.  Worth having, in my opinion.  Not sure if the $50 price tag is justified.  Definitely not a bargain or a great value at that price, but still a good reference piece to complement your car.
4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: all original looking 67 pulling a boat pic ! on: May 12, 2009, 09:04:45 AM
There is a 67 Camaro that comes in here for parts. It has a trailer hitch on both the front and back. The rear there are actually two.
When I got my 67, it was in perfect condition with 34K original miles ... but there were two small holes in the dash right around where your right knee would line up.  Then, I noticed two other holes in the center console, back up under the dash ash tray.  When I asked, it was because the original owner had a CB radio installed.  The console holes mounted the radio.  The dash holes were for the mic.  So, yep, some very strange ideas with camaros.
5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Engine goes rough, dies, won't start -- spontaneously fixes itself?! (1st drive) on: May 07, 2009, 06:03:54 PM
Thanks.  I know that we do have EtOH in our gas here.  I'm in Colorado.  I had about 1/4 tank in the car as it sat.  And, no, I didn't put any fresh gas in it between when it died and when it started working again.  I did fill it up with fresh gas, though, to hopefully dilute any water or crud that may be in the old gas.

I'll update if anything else happens ...
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Engine goes rough, dies, won't start -- spontaneously fixes itself?! (1st drive) on: May 07, 2009, 11:15:24 AM
67 350 w/ powerglide.

Last summer, the engine was missing on ~3 cylinders and required new plug wires and a carb rebuild.  Everything worked great for the next 500 miles.  Put the car away for the winter.

Got the car out this past weekend.  Fired right up.  Let idle in the driveway for around 15 minutes.  Then went on a short ride.  Drove perfect for around 5 miles.  Stopped and shopped.  Came back out and took off.  Went another 2 miles and then the engine had a complete melt-down.  Felt like half the engine stopped firing.  It wanted to die.  Fortunately, I was going to a gas station at the time.  Didn't quite make it when the engine died.  Coasted into the station.

When I tried to start it, the starter would turn, but it didn't sound or feel like it was cranking the engine.  It was weird.

So, I had it towed to the shop.  That was Sunday afternoon.  Monday, when the shop opened, there apparently was no issue.  Started and ran fine.  They ran it periodically throughout the day and could detect nothing.  Everything was dialed in good.  The carb was clean and free from gunk.  Fuel and air were flowing fine.

I picked it up and drove it home.  Handled like a dream.  Happy to have a $0.00 issue, but not real confident in the car right now.

So, what happened?  I think I had stabilized fuel in the tank, but let's assume that I didn't.  Could some chunk of crap broken free and clogged a line or cylinder for a while ... and then get shaken and pumped through the system during the course of trying to start it and/or being towed across town?

Should I be freaking out ... waiting for it to die again, or should I feel confident that what I experienced was a one-time-only artifact of the first drive of the year after having sat for 5 months?

7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: WHY are 1967 book's and manual's priced higher than other year's ? on: May 07, 2009, 10:58:45 AM
I hadn't noticed the inflation that you mention.

Also, you're going to wear out your apostrophe key ... which may be a good thing!  Make life easier on yourself and go ahead and use a simple "s" to make words plural.  Grin
8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Color Change? on: August 05, 2008, 01:05:51 PM
If you're reselling for a profit, you're going down the wrong road.  The audience for a nos matching, medium blue, 327/210 car is limited.

Though I personally hate them, you're much better off making an RS/SS clone.  Toss in a 454 or 502 engine with lots of chrome.  Paint it bright red.  Modernize the hell out the interior.  Done and done.  That's where you'll get your money.  It's a car that appeals to the masses, will win trophies at car shows, etc.  It's really that simple.
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Major announcement, ...Camaro reveal 7/21/08 on: August 05, 2008, 12:30:47 PM
I think GM missed the boat.
I agree, but for a different reason.  First of all, Ford launched it's low price point Mustang half way through the 1964 model year.  Took GM 3 years to respond with the Camaro.  Oops.  How many Mustangs sold in 1964, 65, and 66?

Then, Ford comes up with the old school styling and tests the market with the retro Thunderbird in 2002.  Chevy responds by ... oh, wait, they didn't respond.  The success of the Thunderbird could be debated, but it was a great marketing research project which paved the way for the 2005 launch of the retro-styled Mustang ... which was brilliant.  Chevy responds by doing nothing.  Heck, even Dodge was able to respond with a retro-reminiscent Charger in 2006.  About a year later, rumors begin about a relaunch of the Camaro brand, and eventually concepts are released from GM.

So, now we may finally see a launch of the Camaro in 2010?  How many Mustangs have been sold from 2005 to 20010?!  The Camaro design is already old, too.  They publicized the hell out of the concept -- there's a myriad toys, posters, shirts, etc. with the 2006 concept on it.  It's a 4+ year-old design that they'll be launching in an era where most vehicle designs only last 5-7 years.  Just bizarre marketing and product development.  I don't understand it at all.

Ford takes a niche brand with strong retro ties (Thunderbird) and tests the retro-style market in 2002.  Probably waits a good year to see the market response.  Two years later, Ford launches a completely redesigned Mustang with strong retro styling, taking the low price point sports car market by storm.  Dodge learns from the Thunderbird (and Mustang) trial and launches its Charger in 2006 and then it's supercar retro Challenger in 2008.  Not bad.  Both Ford and Dodge seem to be in the 1-3 year product development timeframe. GM "launches" a concept Camaro in 2006 and plans a commercial launch of that vehicle four years later in 2010?!  WTF?  So, assuming that it took GM at least 1 year (probably 2) to produce the Camaro concept, GM is somewhere in the 5-6 year development timeframe.  The first time around, it took GM 3 years to respond to an innovative, but probably obvious, product introduction by Ford.  The second time around, it will have taken GM 5 years to respond to the same innovative, but probably obvious, product introduction by Ford ... and Ford isn't exactly the model for automotive innovation these days!  Wow.  All I can say is, "Wow."

And one final note, aside from the styling, a car's color is the most visible marking.  Ford introduced at least one retro color -- the light green color.  I'm not a Ford guy or a Mustang guy, so I don't know the color names.  However, the light green is a taboo for modern-day for sports cars, but Ford launched it to support the retro market ... and it's done well.  Great, so for the retro Camaro color, what do we have?  Hugger Orange (synonomous with 69 Camaro performance)?  Nope.  OK, Daytona Yellow?  Nope.  Butternut Yellow?  Nope.  Anything at all that looks like what you'd find in a 1967-1969 showroom?  Only if you count the primaries.

Ford also built on the foundation by offering GT500 models, with retro-styled stripes and accents.  It's yet to be seen if GM goes down that road.  Something tells me that they haven't even considered an SS/RS model with hidden headlights.

In five years, this is going to be in HBR and studied in Business Schools all over the place on product marketing research and product development cycles.
10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Shocks -- What brand for a 67 350? on: July 15, 2008, 04:25:08 PM
I don't want anything that is visible.  I really like the looks of the Edelbrock classic shocks -- nice muted grey.  

However, I'm not wild about the $85+ per shock pricetag.  Any dos and don'ts on getting new shocks for a 67?  Thanks.
11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Now the spark plugs are fouling -- carb overhaul? on: June 20, 2008, 09:03:10 AM
OK.  Carb was rebuilt and is running great.  Apparently, the guy in the shop is the Charlie Daniels of the carb -- a wizard.  Picked up my car at 3:30 PM yesterday and man was it great to have it back.  Runs better than it has in 4 years.  One of the members here wrote me this in an email:
Quadrajet carburetors are subject to leakage/seepage around lead plugs found at the base of the jet wells.  These plugs are visible from the bottom of the carburetor.  When they’re over the hill and begin to leak, they allow gasoline to drain out of the bowl and into the intake manifold.  They will do it every time the car is shut off and that dumps at least 1/3 of a cup of raw gasoline that has to evaporate or be expelled from the cylinders upon restart.  Plus, before the car can run again, the bowl has to refill with gasoline, a process that requires spinning over the motor with the starter unless you have an electric fuel pump.  It sounds as if the lead plugs are doing a little more than seeping in your carburetor.  They are probably dripping rather than seeping.
I think this is spot-on as to what was happening.  The mech rebuilt the carb, tuned it, and voila, car runs great.  I'm happy.
12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Now the spark plugs are fouling -- carb overhaul? on: June 18, 2008, 05:08:57 PM
I did some checking online and it seems to pass the sniff test.  People with fouling plugs apparently do go to the carb settings to eliminate fuel drip/leak -- when the settings fail, they rebuild.  I gave the green light to the shop.  Will have parts tomorrow AM and hopefully the odyssey will come to a conclusion.  It hurts, but at the same time, I'm really excited to get my car running great again.  For years it ran perfect.  But the past few years, it's been about 2/3 the car that I was used to.  Part of that was due to moving from sea level to 5,000 ft.  Part of it, I believe, was the crap I'm now dealing with.  Will post back when I have more info.
13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Now the spark plugs are fouling -- carb overhaul? on: June 18, 2008, 03:14:52 PM
Started a new thread that better describes the symptom I'm now dealing with ...

Bad news.  Installed all the new parts and the car ran great.  Took a 5 mile drive and went back to the garage.  After sitting, the car had a hard time starting and emitted quite a bit of smoke on the restart.  So, the mechanic pulled the plugs and found that they were already starting to foul.  The thought is that carb is leaking fuel through the internals and that it needs a complete overhaul, as he's done all he can do to tune the carb.  They want $425 for the carb overhaul, P&L (beyond what I'm already into it for). 

Does this sound correct?  Thoughts?
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Recommended Shop in Northern Colorado? Electrical on: June 18, 2008, 03:05:28 PM
BTW, I just called that number and it's no good anymore.  Camaros Plus is no longer owned by Larry C.  It's owned by a guy named Steve Pelletier and the number is 303-420-6229.  When I called the number above, I believe I reached the Christianson's residence and spoke to a woman.  I couldn't get a recommendation from her for the new owner and it sounds like the shop is more of a parts store than a service garage.

I actually picked up a business card at a car show, not realizing it was Larry's old business.  Big red flag is that the card reads:  "Camaro's Plus"  Um, why the apostrophe?!  You don't use apostrophes to pluralize words, for crying out loud.  Not the kind of first impression that fills me with confidence.
15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Cylinder Not Firing - Car in the Shop - What to Expect? on: June 18, 2008, 02:42:43 PM
Bad news.  Installed all the new parts and the car ran great.  Took a 5 mile drive and went back to the garage.  After sitting, the car had a hard time starting.  So, the mechanic pulled the plugs and found that they were already starting to foul.  The thought is that carb is leaking fuel through the internals and that it needs a complete overhaul.  I'm into it $700 (which included a new fuel line to replace the one I damaged).  They want $425 for the carb overhaul, P&L.  Thoughts?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
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 0.095 seconds with 18 queries.