CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 23, 2014, 11:33:36 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.
104747 Posts in 12247 Topics by 4719 Members
Latest Member: Baconcks
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 210 211 [212] 213 214 215
3166  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: VIN number matching trim tag on: December 08, 2005, 03:52:45 PM
Seems like I recal a previous post on the old forum which discussed this in some detail. I I recall, the post stated that if a logistical or actual production problem occurred with the body after Fisher began building it, depending on how sever the issue was, the body would remain on the Fisher side of the fence until the problem was fixed - resulting in a more than standard variance between body build and final assembly build dates.
That very rarely happened. Only if there was an issue that had to be reworked and most were fixed on the same shift.
3167  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Why are 69s worth more than 67s on: December 07, 2005, 11:41:59 PM
What about production numbers though, there were a lot more 69s made than 67s, and 67s can't be changed to Zs or any thing like that, whereas on 69s, the cowl tag isn't very specific and lets you get away with more. Just a thought
220,906 for 67 vs 243,085 for 69. So not much difference.
Both could have cowl tag modifications to 'change' the car. So that's not it.

Just a more popular body style.
3168  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Z28 Database on: December 05, 2005, 04:57:35 PM
The database (which includes all 67-9 models, not just Z's) is not public.
Just post the VIN here or send it via email.
Thanks!
3169  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: X-11 on: December 05, 2005, 01:12:33 AM
Here's what I reponded to your post on camaros.net:

I'm confused. The Muncie 3 speed was cast iron case. What's the trans code stamped on the case?

No discs and no return line means it wasn't an SS.

It's a late 69 car.
3170  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: REAR END DATE on: December 02, 2005, 02:30:49 AM
Close enough for what? To be reasonable, yes.
To be original, no. Not for that build date.
3171  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: REAR END DATE on: November 30, 2005, 05:50:24 PM
Depends on the year and the model.....
Normally pretty close.
3172  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 302 Block ? on: November 30, 2005, 12:59:48 AM
BG isn't a good 69 axle code. BS? But that axle isn't original to either the tag or the VIN. Is it a 10 or 12 bolt?

The picture of the pad will help. And the VIN by the oil filter is the key evidence that's missing. It is hard to see in the car.....

The N in the trans code should be a number. No VIN stamped near that code?
3173  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 302 Block ? on: November 29, 2005, 04:41:46 PM
At least it appears the VIN is on the original car.
VIN is from Sept 69, tag is Dec 68. The trim tag came off of a different car.

Now here's the twist. That engine could be original to the VIN.
Harder to prove without the trim tag, but....
Three things first: get me a pic of the pad and I'll take a look at it.
Is there a VIN by the oil filter?
What's the axle code? http://www.camaros.org/numbers.shtml#RearAxleNumbers
3174  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 302 Block ? on: November 29, 2005, 03:03:13 AM
Ruh-roh.
Block doesn't match the tag which doesn't match the VIN.
That's not good. One of the tags has been swapped. Can you find the partial VIN (see http://www.camaros.org/numbers.shtml#PartialVIN)?
Major red flag..... Sad
3175  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Buick nut needs help with newly purchased 69 camaro on: November 26, 2005, 10:37:16 PM
No, this is an early car. Nov of 68. Still had another month left of 327 production.
Yup, FL is the correct code.

Pretty unusual to find the broadcast sheet inside the car. Congrats!

Thanks!
Kurt
3176  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: 69 Z/28 Front disc brake upgrade on: November 26, 2005, 08:16:00 PM
Just swap in new calipers and put in some good pads and you'll be set.
Unless you change the swept surface significantly, an aftermarket setup will just cost $$ and not brake any better than the factory setup.
3177  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: 700R4 conversion in a '68 on: November 26, 2005, 08:12:48 PM
To answer Kevin's question, the ratios are different:
Trans       1st    2nd  3rd  4th
TH350    2.52   1.52   1   N/A
TH400    2.48   1.48   1   N/A
2004R     2.74   1.57   1   0.67
700R4     3.06   1.63   1   0.7

2004R has a better 1-2 (and 2-3) ratio change. That's a big 1-2 drop with the 700R4.

I'd go with the 2004R personally.....
3178  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Buick nut needs help with newly purchased 69 camaro on: November 26, 2005, 08:00:53 PM
With the axle date of Dec 7 (casting date is not relevant to this question), it's too late for that car. Really close, but not close enough. Smiley
What's the VIN and the engine and trans codes?

There's also likely to be a broadcast sheet on top of the gas tank........

Thanks!
3179  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 68 LOS build sheets on: November 25, 2005, 09:48:12 PM
Zero that I'm aware of....

Not too hard to loosen it a little and peak on top of the tank via the rear wheelwell.
3180  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 AM FM radio options on: November 25, 2005, 09:44:40 PM
YYWW.
49th week of 74 is how I'd decode that.
Pages: 1 ... 210 211 [212] 213 214 215
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 0.082 seconds with 18 queries.