CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 01, 2015, 12:43:31 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.
109350 Posts in 12660 Topics by 4866 Members
Latest Member: jamejia1967
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 87
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 Build sheet info on: January 29, 2015, 09:25:32 AM
1/2 to 3/4 of them have been known for years and most of these are in Jerry's book... however to my knowledge a complete one has never been available. 

If someone had a late 1969 Firebird build sheet from Norwood and a PHS to go with it then more may be able to be decoded as long as they were similar in form.
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 Z/28 on: January 28, 2015, 09:50:57 PM
IMHO for a daily driven street car the 3.55 M20 would have been the optimum set up for a 69 Z28. 
The effective first gear ratio is better than a 3.73 M21 but not quite as good as M21 4.10 but the 3.55 gained a lot better top end and lowered the cruising RPM.

If there was going to be very little driving at highway speeds i'd  lean toward 3.73 M20. If it was purely for weekend fun 4.10 M20.
Until I am racing on a road course I am not considering a M21/22. 
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: info,,1969 z28,,for sale? on: January 28, 2015, 09:11:49 PM
A little strong on the money... unless the 5 AD's, Carb, smog, radiator, alt and distributor are there and correct. Those parts will set you back 5k.
4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: casting date to assembly gap on: January 28, 2015, 08:55:00 PM
There is nothing out of place with that spread.
5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 Build sheet info on: January 28, 2015, 08:52:49 PM
There is not...
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: The straight skinny on post '65, pre-mid '70, Hurst shifter plating on: January 23, 2015, 04:40:34 PM
It may be easier to figure GM's specs by looking at shifters other than hurst. Since Hurst supplied both OEM and the after market looking at the GM built shifters or The Muncie shifter supplied in 67-68 may offer some glimpses as to specs. I would venture to guess that if Hurst's specs exceeded GM's specs, (corrosion, saltspray etc) it would be no problem to substitute better finishes. ex.  If GM required zinc for (X)hours corrosion protection and Cad offered (X+)hours if Cad were supplied it may have been a non issue.
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: The straight skinny on post '65, pre-mid '70, Hurst shifter plating on: January 22, 2015, 06:46:16 PM
ok, correct me if I am wrong I think the actual question is are people being led to believe that zinc is correct because environmentally true cadmium plating is near impossible to have done, or is their documentation from the oem to back up the claims?

Which is a good question.
8  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Wheels used on Trans-Am Camaros on: January 22, 2015, 01:09:05 PM
Here are a set of 15x8.5 5 on 5" magnesium TQ thrusts on ebay

http://www.ebay.com/itm/4-15-x-8-5-MAGNESIUM-TORQ-THRUST-D-WHEELS-CORVETTE-Z-28-TRANS-AM-SCCA-/291349709117?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Wheels&hash=item43d5cbc13d
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 Z/28 on: January 22, 2015, 11:08:47 AM
Yes it would be, that is a terrible street set up. But dusk blue with a cowl hood and endura... nice nice nice combo, only thing better would be white H/T interior.
10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: The straight skinny on post '65, pre-mid '70, Hurst shifter plating on: January 21, 2015, 03:30:49 PM
You are making statements regarding specs in a 1962 advertisements for Hurst Shifters, yet asking questions about 65-69 Hurst supplied OEM shifters.
Apples to Oranges
GM's specs may or may not have been the exact specs for what Hurst supplied to the aftermarket.
Example elimination of the positive stops in the comp plus, the bayonette handle and rubber insulator were not used, nor were the rubber bushings in the shifter gates for the rods, these were done to accommodate the OEM's, not for performance.
11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: MQ Block on: January 21, 2015, 03:20:34 PM
That block might  have been for one of the last 4P l78 cars before they became 4k.


So someone could think they have a SS350...
Did anyone check that VIN 208512 against the Yenko list?
12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: MQ Block on: January 20, 2015, 11:38:03 AM
Wasn't the block cast May of 1966?
If these numbers are right the engine's assembly would be 10-1/2 months after being cast, correct? 
13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Vintage 1967 Yenko photo's on: January 20, 2015, 12:25:02 AM
The car in an early Yenko advertisement (the Span advertisement) matches this car to a T except the car in the ad had sidepipes. Same 427 emblem placement, car in ad has hubcaps and std SS hood like the car pictured, any idea if they are one in the same?  White RS/SS with bumblebee, SS hood.  
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: MQ Block on: January 19, 2015, 05:43:48 PM
The picture shown is horrible for determining much of anything.
Are you absolutely sure it is an E?
Do you see any visible signs of what may be a repair of the block?
I can come up with a couple of reasons a block would sit for 11 months before being built.
1. A repair needed to be performed or
2. It was uncycled inventory (by uncycled I mean a FIFO inventory system was not being employed.)

That being said lets talk about the block, ... the deck looks to have a decent amount of rust pitting, make sure the pitting is consistent across the stamping, in other words makes sure there are pits in the stamp character impressions and they match the rest of the pitting.  

As far as an assembly date being too early, I do not believe there are too many norms associated with 67 L78 production, there were too few built in the 4 months they were produced in order to draw many meaningful conclusions.

Bergy worked at Tonowanda he or JohnZ may be able to elaborate on the inventory procedures and whether it is possible and if so, the probability of it happening.  
15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Info for everybody,,,1969 Z28 for sale ? on: January 19, 2015, 05:16:41 PM
It is shown on the pad and the oil filter boss...
The 12C X66 Norwood I have been working on has it's VIN by the Oil Filter, was Norwood alternating the locations for the VIN by mid January?  

Shouldn't the Transmission have a A B C on it, the assembly date is Oct 22, I thought the cut off was before Oct 20th.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 87
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 0.096 seconds with 18 queries.