CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 28, 2014, 07:21:58 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.
106641 Posts in 12432 Topics by 4791 Members
Latest Member: DEL
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 202 203 [204] 205 206 ... 220
3046  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Research Topics & Reports / Re: 68 RS center grille on: October 24, 2006, 08:12:26 PM
If I'm thinking of the right car, Kevin's car is 04C.
3047  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: AD or YH wheels on: October 24, 2006, 07:58:51 PM
CBTN has a few errors in it, not many. And this isn't really an error but a wheel documentation issue.


3048  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: AD or YH wheels on: October 24, 2006, 02:05:43 PM
That's incorrect.
YH started at the end of Dec.
Those wheels are out there, I have a set for my car.....
3049  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Z database on: October 24, 2006, 01:58:46 PM
You mean the rear bulkhead crayon marking?
And lots of details (see 69 ID table).
3050  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Z database on: October 24, 2006, 01:15:10 AM
I agree the rivets add a question mark to the car, but it does not mean it isn't "the real deal".
3051  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: STANDARD INT WITH DELUXE SEAT BELTS on: October 23, 2006, 01:48:59 PM
And to even confuse things more, some interior colors (like red) had black std belts, but the dlx belts were colored to match the interior.
3052  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Z database on: October 23, 2006, 01:17:02 PM
Why do you say that?
Do you personally know the car?
3053  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 spoiler question on: October 20, 2006, 01:47:29 AM
Me. Smiley
3054  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 307/327/350 on: October 19, 2006, 02:36:01 AM
What's the axle code?
3055  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: original big block heads on: October 18, 2006, 10:36:59 PM
I thought this was discussed on one of the other forums too....

Have you confirmed the different valve sizes and spark plug seats?

John can confirm this: If the 291 had the same fit and function as the 840, the engine plant would use either.
cc volume probably isn't different enough to be an issue. Different valve size and spark plug design would not be the same funtion, but I'd like that confirmed on this engine first since I've heard different valve sizes and plug designs on the 291 head. 
3056  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Starter part number on: October 18, 2006, 10:03:48 PM
I don't think that's correct. Starter motors were superceded for service so those listings are often incorrect.

Try 1108338, 350 4bbl w/ manual.

3057  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Z database on: October 18, 2006, 10:20:36 AM
Nothing on that car.
Tag is supposed to be attached with rivets, just not that type. Smiley

3058  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Originally a 6 cyl, now a SS 396 Clone on: October 10, 2006, 11:43:12 PM
To answer your question, other than the fuel line, the base car is the same.
So it all depends on how good of job they did.
Did they: change axle, change front and rear springs, add disc brakes(assuming it was a drum brake car), etc? If they did it right, it can be hard to tell a clone from a real one.
They could have just installed a BB and drove on. That's just a hillbilly hack then.....
3059  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 Dates on: October 10, 2006, 01:15:42 AM
I'll just repost what I posted yesterday:
It should be in a couple of places on the site, but from http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#HowMany:
"....and build week dates did not always align exactly with calendar weeks."
It was for Fisher's internal useage, so it didn't have to be exact.

Specifically, sometimes the week would have started on Monday, sometimes on Tuesday, sometimes on the following Monday.
3060  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 Calendar question, when is the first week of a month? on: October 09, 2006, 01:18:44 AM
It should be in a couple of places on the site, but from http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#HowMany:
"....and build week dates did not always align exactly with calendar weeks."
It was for Fisher's internal useage, so it didn't have to be exact.
Pages: 1 ... 202 203 [204] 205 206 ... 220
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 0.092 seconds with 18 queries.