CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 22, 2014, 10:36:46 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.
106485 Posts in 12420 Topics by 4787 Members
Latest Member: Oilron14
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 116 117 [118] 119 120 ... 145
1756  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Yenko Turbo Z/28? on: February 01, 2007, 10:55:54 AM
They really don't tell what the turbo added... 175 bhp was the rating for V-8 350 4.00 x 3.48 (bore x stroke) 1981 Z28.  What would make the Yenko vauable now is rarity, not horsepower.

But come on, guys!  We're talking the 80s...  There was no such thing as a muscle car --as we know it.  If you wanted a sports car, it came from Japan or Germany --except for a vette (and the improvement for that year was 100 lbs less weight thanks to more plastic and thinner glass).  One of the "performace cars" that Chevy touted that year was the X-11 Citation.  You heard me right, the Citation!  It had what was described as "a potent 2.8 liter V-6 with 135 horsepower".  They offered a 660 Turbo option for it.  As of last year, it would be a "classic".   Roll Eyes
1757  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Yenko Turbo Z/28? on: January 31, 2007, 04:55:26 PM
You bet!  Take a look at this link from the Yenko site:
http://www.yenko.net/dealers/yenko.htm#81Camaros
1758  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Barrett-Jackson lawsuit on: January 30, 2007, 04:25:51 PM
I've never been to a BJ auction in person.  I have been to a few RM auctions.  Sometimes, all those events look a little suspicious  --not just the prices, but also how cars move.  When you are talking that kind of money, it seems like "mystery" often surrounds it.
For what it's worth, I searched the recent articles of the Scottsdale Examiner and found nothing.  Surely, they would have an article on it, if there was anything known.
I'd love to know what Jerry and others who were there felt about how the auction was conducted.  It's hard to tell from TV.
The really sad thing is this cannot help but hurt the hobby for car lovers "big and small"...  Cry  Cry  Cry
1759  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Ceramic Coating on: January 29, 2007, 03:59:41 PM
Dave,

Thanks for emailing me those pictures.  Your thread kind of wandered to exhaust and back to intake, but it was worth seeing what Jerry does to exhaust manifolds. There are shops with powder coating springing up all over the place.  One of my Chevelle buddies just had a lot of black powder coating done to various parts under his hood.  Looks brand new and shiny.  Do you think your powder coating will chip or scratch much?  I understand the heat resistance.

Thanks, again.

Phillip
1760  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Seat Belt Tag on: January 29, 2007, 03:42:23 PM
Thanks! Kurt.  That's very helpful info.  Is the article coming out soon?
1761  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Dynacorn title question on: January 28, 2007, 12:43:03 PM
Exactly!  And we've all lamented that issue...  Those who know about the car will do fine, but many will be deceived.  Sadly, if the donor car (and its VIN) is a classic, then any sort of kit car can claim to be a "classic"  Many kit sites point out that title perk when they describe their car.  That's a big part of keeping aware through CRG!  Practically all the classic Euorpean cars have a kit... then there is the Cobra... and clones... Buyer beware and be aware!  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes
1762  Site Comments / Discussion / Site Comments/Discussion / Re: Pictures in Messages? on: January 28, 2007, 08:13:35 AM
Ed taught me that the best way is through a third-party hosting sight...
1763  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: How do I title a Camaro without one? on: January 24, 2007, 10:17:49 AM
In NC, the short answer is the seller is supposed to supply a title. 

I asked the guys at Old Muscle in Winston-Salem, and they said no title is a "big red flag".  The most obvious thing is it might be stolen --even if you trust the present owner...  So, get the VIN (and they said no VIN buy it just for parts) and have a check run on it.

Beyond that, to get a title on an untitled vehicle in NC requires what is called Supporting Documentation.  That's going to require a trip to the local DMV office, a form and the gathering of those documents; then another trip (or two) to DMV.  If the last title on the car is from out of state, you will have to go through the process with that state.  The good news is that NC does have some info. more than 10 years old on microfilm.

Here's a link to that DMV info.  (It's 10MB, so it will take a minute to download.)
http://www.ncdot.org/dmv/vehicle_services/registrationtitling/titlemanual/download/NCTitleManual.pdf

Good luck!  And BTW, if you are from NC like me, then surely you know to go to a DMV office in a smaller county --much shorter lines and generally better dispositions...
1764  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 woodgrain ash tray+dlx hubcaps on: January 23, 2007, 01:07:10 PM
Thanks Cfar for this thread!
I'm putting an "amen" to Ed's appeal to anyone who might know the difference between the two early (black) 68 ashtrays!

I'm still pursuing the original documentation on my 68 12D (so I cannot prove anything), but the interior appears to be all original.  It has the woodgrain, console; but with a smooth black ashtray, which I have always assumed was correct.  But now you guys have raised some interesting questions.  So, Dan, it is supposed to be black, but which one?  Good question...

Ed,
I looked in the Oct. 1, 1967 P&A 34 hoping it might clarify the difference between the two 68 black ashtrays (since it predates the woodgrain), but it does not even refer to either as "(black)".  In fact, it has a discrepancy, describing the 3919123 as "w/console, w/intr. decor. pack" --That's right "with" not "exe."  (I've checked it a dozen times making sure my eyes aren't deceiving me.  That's gotta be a typo, right?)  The 3927460 is "w/console".  There is only one 67 ashtray listed: 3891667, which must have been used with any interior in 67.  So, there has to be some reason for two early 68s --logical or not...

So, somebody with a documented 68 please help answer Dan's question....
1765  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Astro Ventilation decals on: January 22, 2007, 10:49:18 AM
Thanks for that information!  You even answered my "yet to be asked" question about the feel of the etching.
1766  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: ABOUT TO BUY: camaro convertible 1968 trying to confirm 327/275 hp engine on: January 21, 2007, 08:26:18 AM
At least it hasn't been cloned to death!
If the numbers match and it's in decent shape, you'll probably have to pay about 25K to get any sort of decent car nowadays...
1767  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Kerosene washing??? on: January 21, 2007, 08:23:04 AM
Speaking of that, when you take inflation into consideration, tires have actually kept their price about even...
Remember "price wars" for gas stations?  When gas was .259, one station would drop it a nickle and bring them all down.
1768  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Seat Belt Tag on: January 21, 2007, 08:18:52 AM
Of course Kurt saying they were OK was enough for me...
But I did find enough in Hooper's Conclusive book to figure out the date decoding.  Nothing about models...
I didn't find a decoding chart at that site either, so I emailed them...
1769  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: ABOUT TO BUY: camaro convertible 1968 trying to confirm 327/275 hp engine on: January 20, 2007, 01:03:13 PM
Ed (the new CRG --congratulations!) is steering you right...
If you were hoping for a L30/M20, the suffix should be EA in 68.
EE points to exactly what he described: a 68 L30/M35

Look here:
http://www.camaros.org/suspen.shtml#MonoVsMultiSprings
http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#L30M20
http://www.camaros.org/diffs68.shtml --footnote 9

Also, if you're really shopping, you need a copy of Colvin's Chevrolet By the Numbers, 1965-69 to check the numbers.

But if you are looking for a good driver -- cruiser, a L30/M35 is a fine Camaro.  I love mine!
Do post an answer about Ed's last question...
1770  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Kerosene washing??? on: January 17, 2007, 04:09:21 PM
Dutch,

My grandfather used a litttle kerosene to wash his cars back in the 50s and early 60s, as well.  But he used it as a "cutting agent" to clean road grime, etc. off his car.  (Sort of like some folks use WD40 today.) He also would rinse it well to make sure none of the kerosene was left on the car.  I really don't remember him waxing his car either.  But he did wash it regularly year-round.  So, waxing would have been a waste of time, since the kerosene would have "cut" the wax.

Everything you read about clear coating and plastic parts on newer cars says that even stuff like washing powder will dull the shine and eventually cut into the paint.  I doubt if it would be a good idea. 

On the other hand, the gas station/garage my father used (and paid 19 cents to the gallon as late as 1969) would throw a couple of tablespoons of baking soda into their wash water.  That actually makes a little more sense chemically, since the soda would reduce any acids.

At any rate, your question takes me back to some fond memories.  Thanks!
Pages: 1 ... 116 117 [118] 119 120 ... 145
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 0.094 seconds with 18 queries.