Messages

886

Originality / Question about gas gauge resistor

« on: February 14, 2013, 11:22:34 PM »

Hello everybody. I have had this nagging question for awhile and I hope someone here can answer this for me. First a little history...

The console fuel gauge on my 69 Z only registers to just over a 1/4 tank even when it is full. When the fuel level gets to that point driving the car the gauge starts working again. I know I may have a problem possibly with the sending unit and have gone thru all the test that have been recommended on CRG and TC. I've had the sending unit out of the tank testing and in the tank testing. When I test the gauge and the sending unit together out of the tank it works fine, but when I put everything back together it performs as it always has...just over 1/4 tank and stops. When I drive the car, making turns and all that and I know I'm getting close to that mark on the gauge the low fuel light comes on and I know the gauge is working. I can't tell you how many times I have pulled all this stuff out to fix this issue. Electrical has never been my strong suit but I am not a 'TOTAL' idiot.

The nagging question I have is the use of or not use of the resister. If the resister is installed the gas gauge gives me a totally different action then if it isn't installed. I fooled around with this all last summer with no clarifications on whether I needed this resister or not. Were there different gauge manufacturers, or is the resister for the standard fuel gauges on the 67-68-69's or for the gauge package for the 68 only console? I have 2 original console gauges, neither one has a resister on the back of it and I'm not sure why I even bought it.

Anybody have any thoughts on this? I'm still trying to fix this issue and currently in the market for a new fuel sending unit. Are NAPA's any good?

Thanks guys.

887

Originality / Re: Correct exhaust for 68 bb L89 car

« on: February 14, 2013, 09:34:00 PM »

 I know this is a few months old but I was reading this post and was compelled to respond to it. I had the same thing as Steve68 happen to me back in 1974.

 I was stationed at Dover AFB Delaware and one sunday morning I had the wife and my 1 year old son in my 69 Z. Coming back from church we stopped at a Dairy Queen to get some ice cream for my son and a Delaware State Trooper pulls in behind us. I got out of the car and he asked me to get back in and rev the engine. I did as Steve68 did and just lightly touched the throttle. The trooper said 'NO' stomp on it. I mashed my foot right down on the floor for about 5 seconds and let off. I asked him why he wanted me to do that and he said that he "observed me going up the rode with my foot into it and it was pretty loud". I told him he was nuts, plus my car had the factory exhaust system on it. I just got out of church with my family in the car do you think I would do that with a baby in the car? He asked for my drivers license, which was issued to me in Atlanta Georgia. He didn't like that until I showed him my military ID and he said never mind. He got back into his car and left. I know these cars are noisy but come on. Sometimes the carbs can be as load as the exhaust, too. By the way, I wasn't doing what the cop said I was doing. It was around 11:30 am and there was quite a bit of traffic and there were loads of hot cars going up and down the road at that time. Could have been anyone.

888

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Gas tank date question.

« on: September 26, 2010, 03:48:57 PM »

Would this be a good indicator for build week on all the 06A 69 cars since they were all dated 06A? I was told that my car is a true 06A built car, I suppose this 41 69 tank date would comfirm it. Kurt when you added my tank date you have it as 41 60 on the list.

889

General Discussion / Re: Car on the home page

« on: September 13, 2010, 08:31:50 PM »

Here's the information, also do an advanced search, many more hits. 


http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=6978.0

Thanks.Yeah, did a search and I saw that post but didn't want to ASSUME this person was associated with getting the pics for this site. There was no indication where the pics were going to be viewed. On this site or someone elses site.

890

Decoding/Numbers / Gas tank date question.

« on: September 12, 2010, 09:23:58 PM »

Has there been anything concrete yet about the date code on the gas tanks? Unless I missed it I haven't seen anything in print except for the main post where the 'list' is. What I understand from that is the first number/s is the week stamped and then the year. Mine says 41 69 so can I assume April 1st or the 41st week of the model year which turns out to be around April 1st, maybe.

Just curious.

891

General Discussion / Re: Car on the home page

« on: September 12, 2010, 09:16:04 PM »

Interested in sending pic for the home page. Where do I send mine? Did a search about pics for homepage but not familiar with who is who, so I wouldn't know for sure who is getting it.

Thanks.

892

General Discussion / Re: Gas tank cleaning - need help

« on: September 11, 2010, 05:15:03 AM »

Probably because my car is unrestored and I want to keep it that way...I guess. There isn't anything suspect about the tank really. Very clean inside. I'm familiar with roller welding. It's done where I work in the stainless steel food equipment manufacturing industry. So the solder is from the filler tube. Didn't think of that. I just dumped out the solder, fixed a couple of tiny, tiny hairline cracks on top of the tank where it was crushed to the bottom of the trunk well. It just has a bunch of undercoating on it that has to be removed now.

893

Research Topics & Reports / Re: Gas tank date codes

« on: September 09, 2010, 01:21:33 AM »

Found this post so I am adding my date code as well. Dropped tank this past weekend and found 41 69 on my 06A Z28.

894

General Discussion / Re: Gas tank cleaning - need help

« on: September 08, 2010, 08:09:43 PM »

I just pulled the tank from my 69 Z last weekend. It is covered with undercoating and needs to come off. What should I do here? Also, after I took out the sender I pic up the tank and shook it and heard something bouncing around, so I shook it out and it was a bunch of solder like material. Kind of flat and looked like it was sqeezed out when the tank was soldered together. Can't think of any other reason it would be there?

895

General Discussion / Re: Sorry the forum was down

« on: September 07, 2010, 03:44:30 PM »

WOW!! What a rush!! I needed my fix bad. I started reading the older posts and then I was cut off. All is good now.

896

General Discussion / Re: Car assembly question

« on: August 11, 2010, 02:31:56 AM »

Cars are built on what the demand is is from what I noticed then. The 69 Camaro was one wanted car if 203,000 or so were ordered and of course that was an extented year for them but still. Anybody make anymore cars than that in 69?

897

General Discussion / Re: Car assembly question

« on: August 09, 2010, 10:13:53 PM »

I was always curious about that. Thanks for the insight.

898

General Discussion / Re: Car assembly question

« on: August 08, 2010, 09:47:42 PM »

So all dealers, other than customer order cars, ordered every car they wanted, with what options they wanted. I always thought that the Camaros (and of course other makes) where built however GM wanted to build them. So what would be the difference if GM did it instead of the dealer, like Chrysler? Was the way Chrysler did it that bad?
It sounds like it wasn't a good thing for the manufactures to build there own cars that they themselves designed.

899

General Discussion / Car assembly question

« on: August 08, 2010, 03:15:08 PM »

I've had some questions banging around for a while. How was it desided how a car was to be built if it wasn't special ordered for a customer? Not all the Camaros built were customer ordered correct? Did the dealers order them the way they wanted or did Chevrolet have some kind of system?

Thanks

900

General Discussion / Re: 1969 Camaro RS/SS or Clone ?

« on: July 24, 2010, 07:40:16 PM »

C

What's wrong with the interior? 712 is black custom correct? Is it because it has houndstooth? or should have comfort weave?

Correct, it should have comfort weave (712) per the cowl tag, not houndstooth (713) which is what is in the car...   

Paul

Good to know. He probably went to houndstooth for lack of finding the correct comfort weave. Is anyone doing correct comfort weave these days? I noticed that the auction for the car has ended. I wonder if graycamaro got it.