CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 01, 2014, 05:33:13 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.
105005 Posts in 12267 Topics by 4728 Members
Latest Member: MartySS
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 188 189 [190] 191 192 ... 216
2836  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Warranty Engines on: March 11, 2007, 01:51:50 AM
Fran,
Please eliminate the insults from your posts. We welcome your knowledge and information here, but just because everyone doesn't immediately agree does not mean we need a war of words.
This is a discussion board that holds itself to a higher standard. Stick to the facts and you will make you point much more effectively.

I have never seen a CE stamp and a production stamp (T1012xx) on the same block, but that's not to say it couldn't happen on a service block.
I've seen several CE8xxxx blocks, confiming it was implemented for 68 model year.

But, the data shows that they modified the CE stamp procedure.
Examples:
CE blocks have CE9B46015, CE0A965 0 9,  and CE72 502 stamped on them. Those do not follow the procedure that is outlined.

Here's a pic of that last stamp: http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b217/RamAirDave/YellowRSZ/100_3247.jpg
2837  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / New Decode pages on: March 10, 2007, 02:04:22 PM
The general Decode page received a major revision and I split apart the drivetrain info into a new Drivetrain page, with a lot of pictures and which includes all the 67-69 axle codes.
This change to the pages also changed the header links that are at the top of the pages.

Let us know if you find any errant links or errors in the pages.

Thanks!
2838  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Warranty Engines on: March 08, 2007, 11:07:38 AM
I take the GA law to mean that you couldn't have 20 service engines all stamped T1010EE, they had to be uniquely stamped. And that unique # was then traceable to being installed in xxx VIN car.
Don't quote out of context; "prohibit duplicating serial numbers of like components" is different than "prohibit duplicating serial numbers". Smiley

Federal law already made sure that all factory engines were uniquely stamped - with the VIN. This was only for service
2839  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Warranty Engines on: March 08, 2007, 02:26:12 AM
Fran was able to scan the docs to me (Yeah!) and here they are. I linked them since I left them a little large to be clearly legible.
http://www.camaros.org/kurt/68_letter_CE_engines.jpg
http://www.camaros.org/kurt/68_letter_CE_engines_ton.jpg

Thank you for sharing these docs with us Fran!

And I don't think any other government ever required this, hence why it faded away and the traceability between the CE engine and VIN was not maintained (or if it was, it wasn't a priority).
2840  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Warranty Engines on: March 07, 2007, 03:58:08 PM
I remember this GA state law. It's shown up in some other docs, IIRC. Seems like there was some efforts to comply with it, but it didn't go far.

It's hard to draw conclusions without seeing the context of those quotes.

Unfortunately, I don't think Fran has the capabilities of scanning documents and I don't live near enough to help. Smiley
2841  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 67 z28 on: March 06, 2007, 01:45:29 AM
Who was or is responsible for inspecting and verifing this informaton? Was there docurmentation that goes with the car when delivered to the dealer or customer? Is this the documentation you require to verify and enter a z28 into the registry?

dab67
That's an interesting question to which I would love to hear an answer.  Do cars that have an X code but lack all drive train components qaulify?  How about LA cars that may have a correct engine but no codes?  I realize there are a lot of things to look at that help determine the legitimacy of a car (Z/28 or SS or ??) but I'd be very curious to learn the criteria that the CRG uses to qualify a car's entry into the DB (Short of Jerry inspecting and vetting each entry).

Given the much larger number of '69 Z's produced I would expect to see more in the DB.

Please note, this is not to nit pick the CRG but rather to understand the process.
We are talking apples and oranges here.
dab67's question asked about how cars get into the registry. I assume Jerry was anwering for the 67 Z registry. I'm not sure what is required for the 68 Z registry.

The database has no such requirements. It was designed from the beginning as a database for research, not a registry.
The lack of criteria is its strength. You pour in a lot of data, some of it good and some bad, and with enough data and the right analysis, you can discover new things.
If you only put in what you know is true, then it only tells you what you know. Smiley
2842  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 67 z28 on: March 06, 2007, 01:28:48 AM
That's not many '68 Zs considering the size of the DB??
No, it isn't.
The db has some distortions in it. One of them is that 68's (all) are underrepresented.
2843  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Rallye green 69 Z on: March 06, 2007, 01:25:08 AM
Are there any production figure breakdowns based on color? Just wondering how rare the Rallye Green color was?
There's no production #'s, but this color data was generated (by me) using the CRG database:
http://www.camaros.org/exterior.shtml#ColorPercentages
2844  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Vins in database? on: March 06, 2007, 12:41:25 AM
Sorry, nothing.
2845  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Hidden VIN on: March 05, 2007, 01:50:17 AM
Guys, did you look on this site?
http://www.camaros.org/numbers.shtml#PartialVIN
2846  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1968 Yenko COPO Camaro's on: March 02, 2007, 12:46:57 AM
Fran,
All evidence (blocks and docs) points to all the 68 9737's being a 396, no evidence of a factory 427.
Early and late cars still have the MV block.
2847  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 67 z28 on: March 02, 2007, 12:43:44 AM
In the db:
275 68 Z's.
950 69 Z's.
2848  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Do these 302 DZ Block Numbers make Sense? on: March 02, 2007, 12:38:35 AM
Danny,
That VIN is not in the db. That's a big spread on the cast date, but possible.
Can I get a picture of the engine pad? Does the engine have it's original distributor?

Thanks!
Kurt
2849  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 Pace cars on: February 28, 2007, 06:20:45 PM
Tony, an interesting post, which begs some questions. Smiley

The 4K car that is in question, I believe, was one of the Display cars that could have been found at the Indy Museum or at the Murat Temple.
I have verified that at least two display cars were delivered to Indy. Just as today, the Museum always displays a mocked up Pace Car.
What leads you to believe that an L78 car would have been one of the display cars and not an L35 car?
Couldn't this L78 have had other potential uses at Indy?

Quote
It is the first time in Indy history that the Pace Cars were considered modified. Although, not much by today's standards,but nevertheless modified for the day.
 Do to Speedway rules for Pace Car qualification and Chevrolet's hasty effort to debut to "the Industry" the NEW L78 motors in the Pace Car,  these cars had to be changed into the hybrid animals that Charley and the Clarey's have today..or more like what just Charley has today.
I'm not familiar with any requirements that Indy puts on pace cars. Do you have any documentation on this?
Are you saying that due to Speedway rules, the L78 couldn't be used? This I find hard to believe, since the L78 was a widely available RPO by May.

Quote
The original third car was made into a test mule as stated by Phil. The fact that an L78 could not of had a automatic in 1967 is only true for public sales. The Chevrolet Proving ground Mechanics had the inherent problems that existed when mating a L78 up with a Turbo 400 worked out before the end of the first day of Pace Car trials. The only stated reason for the L78's being pulled is because they made a "Terrible racket" as described by one of the Indy Zone managers that I interviewed.
There is the practical issue of making the L78/M40 combo work, but on a higher level, Chevrolet may have chosen not to use a non-available powertrain in the pacers. If the issue was solely a noise issue, then why not use a L35/M20 combo? It would have only required swapping out the engine.

Quote
So when it comes to the car that Jeff is talking about, which I believe to be this car (or one just like it). The "System" had already had it scheduled to be a L78, not for Pace Car duties, but to show it off to the ever pressing crowds that visit the Indy Museum and the Murat Temple at this time of year, the NEW L78 motor available to the Camaro.   Smiley
This is stated as fact. Is it or is it the current working theory?

Thanks!
Kurt
2850  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 Pace cars on: February 28, 2007, 11:40:06 AM
Jeff,

This site welcomes polite and intelligent discussions.

I do not believe your recent posts involve either of those features. You are not adding anything constructive to this discussion. I would call it badgering instead.

Please discontinue posting on this thread.

We have only revoked someone's forum privileges once before.  Please don't become number two.  This is your first warning.  You have only one more warning available.
If any of this is unclear, please send myself or Rich a private message /email and we will be happy to clarify it.



Thank you,
Kurt Sonen




Pages: 1 ... 188 189 [190] 191 192 ... 216
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 0.101 seconds with 18 queries.