CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2014, 12:28:37 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.
97529 Posts in 11718 Topics by 4581 Members
Latest Member: Cooper48
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 117 118 [119] 120 121 ... 138
1771  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Best source for resto parts on: October 24, 2006, 05:05:59 PM
And if you luck up and get Bill at Classic Muscle, he knows his stuff. (Of course, he's a Chevelle man...)

Here's their site: http://www.oldmusclecars.com/

(And no, we NC tarheels doen't get a kickback, but it is nice to have them around.)
1772  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: AC Delco AM Radio (differences for 68 vs 69) on: October 23, 2006, 08:28:06 AM
Well, they did --as you can see from the pictures Mark posted.
That was my point
Sorry, Don! I was actually posting when you did.  I would have never posted that first sentence, if I had seen your second post. 

Here's that other thread: http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=1119.msg6606#msg6606
1773  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 spoiler question on: October 22, 2006, 08:41:07 PM
The spoiler provisions/holes started showing up on the later 67 deck lids. There were at least 3 different decklid designs during the 1967 model year.

Learn something new every day!  So, when did the lid first change on 67?  And according to JohnZ's answer was that just for dealer installed?   Huh
1774  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: AC Delco AM Radio (differences for 68 vs 69) on: October 22, 2006, 08:33:50 PM
Well, they did --as you can see from the pictures Mark posted.  We had a nice little thread about a month ago on radios.
Mark, you do realize the $450 radio is not a Camaro radio.  They sold the 68 AM/FM they had a couple of weeks ago for $875.
1775  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: AD or YH wheels on: October 21, 2006, 04:56:05 PM
Colvin lists AD for "early model" 69s.  YH replaced AD, and he dates YH through a manufacter's document (Kesley - Hayes) as of 02/20/69.  But then says he has never documented it through an orignal car.  So, if you are showing it, it may depend on how knowledgeable the judges are...
1776  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 spoiler question on: October 20, 2006, 08:12:11 AM
Me, three!  Originality...  Grin  Grin  Grin

Hang in there, Bob, on restoring your car.  Before it is all over I will have spent almost as much correcting what the previous owner "modified" than I paid for the car.  But that's a big part of restoration and originality now.
1777  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 spoiler question on: October 19, 2006, 03:10:21 PM
The 67 trunk lid wasn't designed for a spoiler.  When the 68 came out, provision had been made in the design for one.
1778  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 307/327/350 on: October 19, 2006, 08:53:30 AM
The engine code (what Hooper calls "Engine Identification") is the code that should be stamped on the engine pad.  And I quote, "1965 through 1969 engine codes consisted of seven alpha-numeric characters." (Colvin, page 39)  The engine suffix is the last two characters.  The other five tell you assembly plant, month and day.  The reason that Rick can say it is probably a 67 is because VINs were not consistently stamped on the pad until 68.  So if it is missing the VIN, probably a 67.

Of course this doesn't help much with your original question about original motor.  But it will make a difference if you are interested in replacing the motor for "matching numbers".

The casting date should confirm about the present motor and the axle code (rear springs, etc.) will start you in the right dirrection about original motor (assuming that wasn't changed, too).
1779  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 307/327/350 on: October 18, 2006, 05:54:02 PM
There is more to the engine code than the suffix.  You need this:
Alan L. Colvin's Chevrolet By The Numbers, The Essential Chevrolet Parts Reference, 1965-69, Robert Bentley, Inc., 1994. ISBN 0-876-0956-9
1780  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Vinyl or Not? on: October 18, 2006, 08:53:55 AM
Love to get a few more votes and opinions.  Otherwise going to shut this one down soon.
1781  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 307/327/350 on: October 18, 2006, 08:51:43 AM
In a Camaro, yes, October would be too early for a 307.  I've never seen the data that Richard mentioned, but it certainly sounds accurate.  But general reference, like Hooper, lists the changeover as 1/69.

You mention the present ME suffix, but no VIN on the pad.  I assume the present motor is a 327.  What transmission and what numbers on that?  Is there an engine code with that ME?  Richard is right: It is hard to "back into" what a car originally was without documentation.  Post all the numbers you can find, trim tag and all.
1782  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Pics of Rally Green Camaro's on: October 15, 2006, 07:27:54 AM
There are a couple of rally green 69s posted here:

http://www.chevy-camaro.com/chevy-camaro-thumbnail-pictures.asp?viewgen=first
1783  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 fold down rear seat back partition - back side color on: October 13, 2006, 12:19:12 PM
You need to talk to Ed:

http://home.pcmagic.net/bertfam/folddown.htm
1784  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Parking lights on: October 12, 2006, 10:54:04 AM
Prior to 68 "Parking lights" in a legal sense were for parking. But in 68 the law now required better night visability so side marker lights were added and parking lights in essence became "driving lights". 
1785  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Sticky speedo on: October 12, 2006, 08:50:56 AM
Are you sure you just don't need to lubricate the speedo cable.  A year or so ago, the speedometer on my 68 buzzed and jumped around.  A little lubrication and it's worked fine since.  Your local parts store should have the lubricant (It's got graphite in it... although some folks swear by white grease and a low viscosity oil combination.)  The point is you will have the cable out as it is, so if it looks dry, try the cheap fix first. 

Pages: 1 ... 117 118 [119] 120 121 ... 138
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.103 seconds with 18 queries.