Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Jerry@CHP

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 98
61
General Discussion / Re: my 69 Z being restored
« on: April 16, 2013, 12:25:07 PM »
The car was an original silver car with stripe delete.  Bill Glowacki and I both inspected what was left of the original paint on the car.  We pulled off the door panels and checked the virgin paint with no UV damage.  It was not Evening Orchid,

Jerry 

62
General Discussion / Re: L89 Camaro At Mecum, Not So....
« on: January 27, 2013, 07:31:19 PM »
I have talked with Mark Manning this morning about the car.  He will post something here.  He restored the car, sold it to Rob Sitts and it was sold again.  Now it's at the Mecum auction.  The aluminum heads on the car are service replacements according to what Mark told me.  Car does not have its original engine.  The original owner and his wife are both deceased.  I have original photos of the car when it was new. 

63
General Discussion / L89 Camaro At Mecum, Not So....
« on: January 27, 2013, 02:24:26 AM »
Just found out that an original L78 car without the original engine was represented as an all original L89 Camaro certified by me.  The car was certified but it was missing its original L78 engine.  This car is not an original L89.  It was an original L78 car.  The original 840 heads were still with the car when I inspected it three years ago.

Jerry

64
General Discussion / Re: Sick of seeing this Z on ebay
« on: December 13, 2012, 02:17:51 PM »
Danny, I understand.  Some working conditions are better than others and I did not suspect any monkey business at the 2nd inspection.  I know that Joe Carroll always tries to buy nice cars as his reputation means everything in the world of marketing these cars.  He's been taken on a couple of occasions and that is why I do a lot of work for him now. 

In the case of this vin, it was hard to read and it was only from the use of equipment at RK that I was able to pick up some of the characters, not all but some.

Jerry

65
General Discussion / Re: Sick of seeing this Z on ebay
« on: December 12, 2012, 02:38:23 PM »
RK inspection.

66
General Discussion / Re: Sick of seeing this Z on ebay
« on: December 12, 2012, 02:34:18 PM »
Here is photo of that rack that we worked from when I did the inspection for Danny, hard to read vins with this kind of lift.

67
General Discussion / Re: Sick of seeing this Z on ebay
« on: December 12, 2012, 02:26:01 PM »
Danny, let me chime in here since you are concerned about the car.  Nothing has changed really since I inspected the car for you.  When I did your inspection, we worked on a lift that had two long ramps so it was hard and cumbersome to get under the car by the oil filter and get photos of the vin stamp by the oil filter.  Under varying working conditions the stamped vin by the oil filter can be hard to read.  I stated in your report that is was possible that the engine was original to the car.  The assembly stamp on the deck does match all original stampings in my data base during that time period. 

I remember calling B. Harris about this car too as he had owned it before you.  December is a month of transition and some cars have the vin on the deck from Norwood and some have it down by the oil filter.  When I inspected the car at RK, the working conditions were much better.  Twin post lift with plenty of light and access under the car at the oil filter boss.  RK's staff took the liberty to clean the engine block with a heavy wire brush and lacquer thinner.  I was able to get photos of the stamping at RK.  The stamping matches all of the other vin character stampings around that time period.  I did not bring lacquer thinner or a large wire brush to scrape the engine block oil filter area when I did your inspection.  In most cases with engines and vins by the oil filter, it is very hard to read most of them.  I rely more on the engine assembly stamp.  If I can pull three or four numbers off the oil filter pad then that's a bonus.   

I also stated in both reports that the trans assembly date was not typical for Muncie cases and that the characters were too far apart and not done in a gang stamp.  However, the vin stamping looked very original IMO.

Now if you think I have done a disservice to you just call me.  I'll be glad to go over anything about this car. 

Jerry     

68
General Discussion / Re: is this factory/heat shield
« on: November 18, 2012, 02:31:02 PM »
Steve, it's for any Holley, L78, Z28, L72.  I'll try and get the # for you.

Jerry

69
Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster on ebay
« on: November 14, 2012, 06:57:38 PM »
You are correct, my mistake.

70
General Discussion / Re: is this factory/heat shield
« on: November 14, 2012, 06:51:42 PM »
Another way to go which is better all the way around is use of the Fel Pro .300" thick carb insulator gasket.  We are allowed to use this in Stock Eliminator too.  There are prov-en hp gains on the dyno with this gasket and the added bonus is the fact that there are four hardened plastic sleeves for all four carb base holes so there is no risk of breaking your carb base.  It's also invisible when installed on the engine too.  I have many street engine 302 guys out there running these and the results are very good.

Jerry 

71
Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster on ebay
« on: November 13, 2012, 09:28:35 PM »
That's correct, 1/4" characters in '67, '68 and early '69 and then a change to the smaller 1/8" characters in mid 1969.  All '69 boosters should have the Delco in the 8:00 position when looking at the car from the front.

Jerry

72
General Discussion / Re: is this factory/heat shield
« on: November 13, 2012, 09:20:41 PM »
Heat shield was never factory installed.  Strickly over the counter service part.  I backed to back one of these back in the '70's at the race track, no difference in performance at all.  You are also prone to cracking your carb base plate with these too as the shield has a thicker gasket on one side and if you're not carefull, CRACK!

Jerry

73
Restoration / Re: 302 engine build piston recomendations
« on: October 01, 2012, 02:21:59 AM »
Yes, last year at the Cecil County points race, August 2011.  It's about 8600 rpm each gear and 8300 through the traps.

Jerry

74
Restoration / Re: 302 engine build piston recomendations
« on: September 28, 2012, 11:51:03 PM »
Using the Comp Cam springs.  About 115 on the seat, these are very forgiving and will last a life time.  I think $75.00.

Any late '60's 3/8 bolt connecting rod will work fine for the 302 application.  Just have them shot peened and magged with good ARP rod bolts and you're good to go.

Jerry

75
Restoration / Re: 302 engine build piston recomendations
« on: September 25, 2012, 01:08:31 AM »
You can use them.  We have in the past when cost is an issue with a customer.  Dome configuration is slightly different but very close to the NHRA Stocker pistons. 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 98