Messages

1

Originality / Re: DZ block bona fides

« on: October 08, 2016, 04:48:47 PM »

Thanks guys.

2

Originality / DZ block bona fides

« on: October 07, 2016, 08:04:12 AM »

Real?

Thanks for input

3

Mild Modifications / 4053 Holley carb replacement

« on: February 14, 2016, 05:27:17 AM »

Hi

I have a stock 69Z with the original 4053 DZ carb.  I wouldn't mind something a little more street-able (smaller).  Several years ago, JohnZ had recommended the 600 Holley #0-80145 as a great bolt-on replacement.  That carb is no longer made, however, and the tech guys at Holley must be 19-year olds or something cause they don't know either.  What's the current replacement?  The HP series 650 (PN 0-80541-1) has also been recommended to me.  Thoughts?  Bear in mind I ain't a tech guy.  Thanks!

4

Originality / Re: Speedometer Gear Reduction Units

« on: November 03, 2015, 05:21:28 PM »

Thanks John!

5

Originality / Speedometer Gear Reduction Units

« on: November 03, 2015, 08:30:28 AM »

I was looking up the threads on speedo gear reduction units and I had trouble interpreting what I found.  I have a 69Z with its original M21 and original 3.73 posi axle.  My question is, 'Do I need the reducer shown on UPC G80 sheet A2?  I'm thinking that I don't, but the guy putting my car back together says it's missing.  There was a question in an earlier thread as to whether hi-performance care with 15" wheels got the reducer.  I didn't see an answer to that. 

Thanks for any help. 

6

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Alternator dates

« on: September 24, 2015, 03:16:41 AM »

Great thanks guys

7

Decoding/Numbers / Alternator dates

« on: September 21, 2015, 06:06:11 AM »

I know this subject has been discussed before, but I wasn't able to get confirmation.  What is the usual 837 alternator date for a 5C 69Z car?  I gather alternators are batch-dated so not any date in the month is fair game.  The car currently has a 9D3 '837.  Is this date 'normative' or is it a bit early?  Are there later known dates in April, like 9D24?   Thanks!

8

Restoration / Re: 1969 Dash Carrier Restoration Source

« on: September 05, 2015, 09:02:16 PM »

Want to clarify my comments since my intent wasn't to slag HBC. They do a good job of restoring the dash carrier - the edges are evenly chromed and broken tabs are cleanly repaired. Given the work involved, a $1000 may not be out of line.  It's just that you're still dealing with a tired 50-year old piece of plastic that still looks tired regardless of the brand of lipstick.

9

Restoration / Re: 1969 Dash Carrier Restoration Source

« on: September 05, 2015, 06:34:32 PM »

Lloyd

There was a place is Mission that did great work, but they have changed their business and they are now referring work to Instrument Specialties.  IS sub-contracts it to a place in Texas, I believe.  I had my 67 dash carrier re-chromed and repaired, and they did a good job.  I would think they could do a 69 dash restore/repair just as well.  I did NOT have a great experience with IS' instrument work, however.  It took nearly 10 months to restore my tach and speedo, and I ended sending them back because the speed minder no longer worked and the tach had epilepsy.  Ultimately, I ended up throwing the tach away since it never looked or worked right after I got it back.  Further, because they had cut the tach hub and glued it to the needle I couldn't even salvage the dial face.  Rant.. rant.

I wouldn't bother with the HBC restored 69 carriers - I bought one for my 69 for $1100 and promptly sent it back.  Compared to a good repro, it looked pretty crappy, frankly.  I'm a purist too, but this is one area I would consider using a repro piece.  My repro is almost indistinguishable from either my original or the restored HBC one.   

Grant

10

Restoration / dash replacement VIN

« on: December 03, 2014, 06:09:47 AM »

I have a Canadian-documented 69Z.  There is no question about the VIN - the dash VIN has not been messed with, nor have the matching cowl and firewall VIN stamps been altered.  However, the dash has serious rust damage and was covered in bondo and paint.  I'm debating replacing the dash panel, which means I'll have to remove the current VIN tag and fasten it onto to a new dash. 

Should I do this, or should I work very hard at keeping the original dash?  Am I forever going to be plagued with questions as to the VIN?

Thanks

11

Decoding/Numbers / 480 distributor

« on: November 22, 2014, 07:58:32 PM »

Is this real or a re-stamp?  Thanks

12

Originality / 772 fans and unstamped fans

« on: October 10, 2014, 12:57:02 AM »

According to what I have read, there were two types of fans produced in 69 - the 772 stamped fan and the unstamped variety.  According to Jerry's 69Z book, the unstamped was far more common, while Kurt's CRG report states:

•There were two versions of an 'unstamped' fan made by Hayes-Albion. 3947838 was the earlier 2" pitch version and 3956684 was the later 2.25" pitch version.

I interpret these comments to mean that the unstamped fan was available throughout the 69 production year such that a 69Z could have had either - and would most likely have an unstamped fan.  Is this correct?  The reason I ask is that I hear again and again from restorers (and HBC included) that the unstamped fan was an 'early' fan and that the dated 772 was used almost exclusively later in the production year.

OK, to be even more specific, would a 5C car have an unstamped 2.25" pitch fan?! 

Thanks!

13

Decoding/Numbers / DZ stamp

« on: June 17, 2014, 04:20:19 AM »

Stamp or re-stamp?  

Thanks

14

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Z - number bona fides

« on: October 02, 2012, 08:26:00 PM »

Hi Kurt

By 'yikes' I assume you mean likely a restamp, and a poor one at that?   

15

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Z - number bona fides

« on: October 01, 2012, 06:13:00 PM »

Car was in NY, but is now in Canada
Car is dusk blue with blue deluxe interior.  I'm not 100% certain, but the trim tag appears to me to be OK.  I'm more concerned with the block and transmission stamps.