CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 02, 2015, 12:03:08 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.
110396 Posts in 12750 Topics by 4888 Members
Latest Member: gchase67
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 148
1906  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: headlamp lost power on: November 02, 2006, 10:15:12 AM
Dave,

Did the halogens work out OK???
1907  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: TACH ON THE DASH on: November 02, 2006, 10:05:12 AM
Thanks for the compliment.  It's actually a mutt, but a great driver. 

That site actually has several other interesting peices of information on it. 

Tell us a little about your car...

1908  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: TACH ON THE DASH on: October 31, 2006, 05:10:36 PM
Take a look:

http://www.gvtc.com/~rlaa/Images/Dealertach.jpg?
1909  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: headlamp lost power on: October 29, 2006, 03:13:43 PM
I figured I would change the lamp this morning.

Dave,

When I changed out to halogen about a year ago, it was hard to tell how bright the halogen headlamps were until I got out on the road at night.  I did have an old lamp and a halogen in at the same time (when I was first checking on the replacement of the burned out old lamp) and they do look different.

I'd change them both and see what happens.  In my case, it was easy to tell the difference.

I don't think it would be the harness (That's the one you changed out a while back, right?), because the headlights are wired in series driver's side to passenger's.  If there is something wrong, I'd check the driver's side ground wire first (There is a ground wire for each.); and then, the socket connection.  I do recall having to work the connection a bit to get the first new lamp to connect period.

BTW, I asked one of the guys at Classic Muscle the other day about a dustcover for your powerglide (Did notice you were thinking about upgrading there, too.), and he said they hadn't been able to get those for several years, so they discontinued it from their catalogue.  Sorry!
1910  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Letters B & T stenciled on Cowl on: October 29, 2006, 08:19:53 AM
Take a look:
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=1118.0
1911  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Rear Shoulder Belts for 1969 Convert. on: October 26, 2006, 05:04:18 PM
Is she in a car seat or a booster seat?  Some car seats work with a lap belt (and tether).
At any rate, you might check with these guys for help:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/childps/contacts/
I've just been through the car seat restraint question with my granddaughter.  We bought a seat that has a harness and holds the seat in with a center lap belt.

Don't feel too bad about the question.  The one person I'd give up my Camaro for is that little girl!
1912  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: AD or YH wheels on: October 24, 2006, 06:59:40 PM
So, if you are showing it, it may depend on how knowledgeable the judges are...
Jim,
I certainly yield to Kurt!  But I guess that proves my point on the Colvin reference and how stuff gets judged.  BTW, I was quoting from page 321, footnote 4.
1913  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.)
1914  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
1915  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
1916  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.
1917  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...
1918  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.
1919  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.
1920  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).
Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 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 0.084 seconds with 18 queries.