CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 02, 2015, 10:08:22 AM

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.
110397 Posts in 12751 Topics by 4890 Members
Latest Member: jay1970
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 148
1786  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Repro Delco R-59 Battery - Best Place to Buy?? on: February 05, 2007, 09:40:16 AM
I'm interested in what you guys work out... 
It only stands to reason that a present day battery will not fit inside the repo. case, as they have similar dimensions.  What we need is a way to get a good battery's "guts" in a repo case (or original). 
At this point I'm still swayed by John's idea above --especially for a driver. 
But I've got till April to decide.  Let us know what you decide!
1787  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: trim tag body #s? on: February 04, 2007, 02:48:10 PM
Was that because of the delayed introduction of the 1970 2nd Generation Camaro?  And did the numbers reset again when the 70 1/2 car came out or did they continue from August 69?

Whoops! I did mis-speak as Kurt mentions below... I meant to say 69 1/2, referring to the extended run of the 69.
1788  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Repro Delco R-59 Battery - Best Place to Buy?? on: February 04, 2007, 07:28:33 AM
In other words, when NPD (just got their new catalog) and others put "CALL" in the place of price, it means we may have a problem.  That's generally been my experience.  JohnZ is suggesting the present Delco battery as a substitute.  Does it look like an R-59 or is it "flat-topped" like most other present day batteries?  Also, would a topper fit almost any present day battery?
1789  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Clear Lake, IA on: February 02, 2007, 03:37:25 PM
Me, too.  I'd already dusted off my "Peggy Sue" 45  to remember Buddy.  But tonight, I'm going to search for "Sugar Shack" and "Bottle of Wine" --thanks to Jerry.
1790  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: finding original owner on: February 01, 2007, 02:56:53 PM
OK, here's what I got from the Florida DMV for my $15.00:
1 A computer print out of the info. they have on file (remember they only claim to keep 10 years of records), which tells: other vehicle info (I requested through the VIN), title info., previous owner (there was only one listed in that 10 yr. period and I already knew about him from the transfer of the title to here in NC, but read on), plate and registration info., and Lien holders.  That print out only took it back to 98 when a tag was issued.
2. A duplicate copy of the Florida title that takes it back to another owner and address in 95.  (I figure this guy either brought it into Florida in 95 or that is the extent of the Florida records.  In either case, I've got somewhere to go for more info.)

I guess my bigger point is that I followed Rich's advise (looking for original dealership, classic car research, etc.) and they did send me the info. hassle free.  This is in spite of the fact that they publish a strict privacy policy.

So, it's worth a try...

...And yesterday, I got back a $12.00 refund check from the State of Florida, because they determined the info. they sent me was worth just $3.00 --not a bad deal!

1791  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 302 hemi prototype with crossram on: February 01, 2007, 11:04:21 AM
It's an interesting thought, but Jerry and John are right in more ways than one.  In the five or so true years of the hemi muscle car era, they only sold about 11,000 of the big hemi engine cars.  Why would GM want to pay the big production costs for those results?  It's an interesting thought... But it's mostly hemi-hype.
1792  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
1793  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:
1794  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
1795  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Ceramic Coating on: January 29, 2007, 03:59:41 PM

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.

1796  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?
1797  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
1798  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...
1799  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.)

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...
1800  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...

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....
Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 148
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 0.098 seconds with 18 queries.