Messages

1456

General Discussion / Re: 302 hemi prototype with crossram

« on: January 27, 2007, 08:58:11 PM »

You should have seen the mutt at Russo Steele that had a pair of these heads installed on the engine.  Also had an extra pair displayed with the car.  I think this Z28 did stupid money there.

Jerry

1457

General Discussion / Re: 1967 Camaro LA VIN number 16 Body #1

« on: January 27, 2007, 08:57:16 PM »

I was there too.  Was an average restoration.  Nothing special.  Lots of little things wrong with this car.  Upper doors were painted in candy apple red paint instead of the correct red color.

Jerry

1458

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 68 with 67 vin ?

« on: January 27, 2007, 03:24:26 PM »

Bruce Shaw is one of the better collector car lawyers in the country.  I have worked with him and he's excellent.  In the Philadelphia area. 

1459

Originality / Re: 69 ss/rs rag top

« on: January 26, 2007, 09:30:01 PM »

People at BJ don't seem to care about a car being technically correct.  They just buy and ask questions later.  Lots of junk out there for sale, and many with fake paperwork.  I am already on two cases for cars bought that were misrepresented.  Imagine that.

All the 69 Z28s that I saw for sale had a crossram.  I suspect they were built that way?  The 1 4-bbl Z28s are very rare.

Jerry

1460

General Discussion / Re: Ceramic Coating

« on: January 26, 2007, 04:11:39 AM »

Our exhaust manifold reskinning process cost $215 small block and $265 big block.

Our aluminum initake restoration is still $120, shipping is extra.  Check out our web site, www.z28camaro.com and read some of the customer feedback.

Jerry

1461

Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro battery

« on: January 24, 2007, 10:30:31 PM »

John,

I agree 100%.  At least when New Castle was around, they did a better job with their customers.  Not the case with the remaniing battery company.  Plus New Castle batteries were under $200 retail.  Need I say more?

Jerry

1462

Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro battery

« on: January 24, 2007, 02:45:10 PM »

Just wanted to make sure I made this clear.  The current reproduction side terminal batteries do not come with the correct cable mounting hole sizes.  Both attaching bolt holes on these batteries is 3/8-16.  Not technically correct.

Jerry

1463

Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro battery

« on: January 24, 2007, 02:13:47 PM »

Current research indicates that the side terminal battery started in late April, 1969.  I have an all original 69 Z28 survivor car that still has the original battery cables which are side terminal cables.  The B/D is 05A, 1969.  I should also point out the original side terminal cables have two different attaching bolt sizes, the positive has 3/8-16 threads and the ground is 5/16-18.  All of the repro cables are the same size making them incorrect. 

When I purchased a repro battery from the only remaining oem battery company (Ohio based), I found out that I could not use their battery.  Their incompetent answer was to install repro cables and throw the originals away.  I opted to drill out and install a heli coil in the battery terminal so I could use the original cables.

Wonder what the general feeling is for anyone who has dealt with the only remaining repro battery company.  We have found them less than courteous, and incompetent when trying to get good technical support.  They are also very expensive and offer very little discounts to other dealers.  New Castle Battery, the originator of reproduction batteries was a much better vendor to deal with but unfortunately, they are no longer in business.

Jerry

1464

General Discussion / Re: How to find your old car

« on: January 24, 2007, 01:52:07 PM »

If you have the vin number on the invoice, you have a good shot at finding the car if it's still around.  A friend who is a police officer would be the best help.  Someone like this could run the vin in many states to see if the vin is still active.  If it is, then you can contact the current owner and see if he'd like to sell the car back to the original owner.  This is how I tracked down the Dave Strickler Old Reliable Z28.  Good luck,

Jerry

1465

Originality / Re: Spoiler AND Rear Antenna

« on: January 23, 2007, 09:36:50 PM »

If you install it where the rear factory hole position is, the antenna will hit.

Jerry

1466

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 3919803 Intake (327/275 HP and 350/295 HP???)

« on: January 23, 2007, 08:49:57 PM »

We also plug all of the cast iron intakes here at Camaro Hi-Performance when we rebuild an engine.

Jerry

1467

Decoding/Numbers / Re: IS my car a real Z???

« on: January 23, 2007, 01:54:11 PM »

Also check for the tail pipe adapter plate on the rear left side frame rail.

Jerry

1468

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Could this be the original distributor in my 1968 Z/28?

« on: January 22, 2007, 07:51:46 PM »

Randy,

The 7A25 is the more common dist for the 67 Z28.  Others have been documented, and yes they were made in big batches as needed.

Jerry

1469

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Could this be the original distributor in my 1968 Z/28?

« on: January 22, 2007, 07:49:29 PM »

Yes, I would.  These distributors were made in big batches.  I try to document all that I know about and all that come into us for restoration and rebuild.  There were about 4-5 known dates that are real for the 266 unit.......two in Dec 66, Jan 67, Apr 67 and July 67 just to name a few. 

Jerry

1470

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Could this be the original distributor in my 1968 Z/28?

« on: January 22, 2007, 03:08:04 PM »

There was actually a memo from Chevrolet that stated 1111266 distributors would be used in 1968 Z28 engines until the supply ran out.  My 11E built 68 Z28 has a 266 dated July 67.  Although the 266's were used pretty much through the end of the 1967 year, the 467's don't start showing up until about Jan, 8A3 and 8B8 to be exact.  However, I have documented an original 1111467 distributor that was made in Oct 1967.  Very rare and have only seen one.

While we're on this subject, there has been talk about an 1112003 distributor being used in late 1969 Z28 production but there has never been any paperwork from GM to back up this theory.  Our belief is that the 003's were issued as warrantee replacements.  I have one original owner in the area and another customer who had their distributors replaced under warrantee and the unit installed was an 1112003 dated July 1969. 

Jerry