CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2014, 03:02:20 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.
97481 Posts in 11715 Topics by 4581 Members
Latest Member: Cooper48
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15
31  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 mono springs use decals? on: July 04, 2012, 07:07:09 PM
Jon thank you for posting the picture!

Ed, Mike's car is an 04B so that is after the chart revision. The AIM doesn't state what was revised so it could have been the addition/subraction of spring applications, the removal of the paint stripe colors, and/or the addition of the 2-letter codes..... Really no way of telling what it was......RatPack...............
32  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 mono springs use decals? on: July 04, 2012, 02:39:47 PM
My 07B Mountain Green '67 Z-28 built at the LOS plant had spring tags on it, not the paint stripe on the front of the spring. That was an untouched car I bought from the original owner.

Jon, now that you mention it, I think Mike had mentioned that he found some late build LOS cars that had spring tags, your Z may have been one of them. Do you have any pictures showing the tags? I have a set of original Z springs here and I cannot find traces of a paint stripe on them either....maybe had the tags too?............

  Or, there is a third possibility in that the spring chart revised date of 3-3-67 shows a change in usage but the assembly line didn't incorporate it just yet in their process?
Maybe a fourth....I am going to study the stripe closer and see if it is coral and just the yellow hue is caused by the rust. What usage is the coral for?

Thanks for the feedback.


Mike, I just dug out my 67 AIM where I had originally started the research on this back in 1995/6 when I worked for Year One. Here is what I have noted from back then. One note is that the spring chart is confusing in the 67 AIM as it has a typo for the BX code spring which should be 3925816 not 5925816, and that spring is the coral colored one: coupes w/L30 or L48. I also mistated that the two I didn't have stripe colors for were BA & BX, but it was BA & BB.

These are my notes from 1995 or so:

3925815 became 3912527 : first is white stripe and supersede had a yellow stripe, 1220 lb spring
3925816 became 3901395 : coral stripe,  1310 lb spring
3925817 became 3901397 : purple stripe, 1370 lb. spring
Now at one time all 6 springs were available at the same time, but they didn't always correlate to the 67 AIM when compared to the ones shown in the Feb 69 P&A 34 manual listed below:
3928515 - 67 Camaro coupe, 250 (ex spc rr spring) white stripe
3912527 - 67 Camaro 6cyl. yellow stripe
3925816 - ***No 67 applications shown
                   68 Camaro spt.cpe (327) exc. spec perf susp, 4spd)
                   69 Camaro
3901395 - 67 Camaro spt.cpe(230 & 327) (exc. spec perf susp) coral stripe
3925817 - *** No 67 applications shown
                   68 Camaro spt cpe w/spec perf suspension (exc. 350 & 396)
                   *** This spring was disco'd in 2/74 per my notes from Mike @ Eaton.
3901397 - 67 Camaro spt cpe w/spec perf. susp. (exc 350)
                   67 Camaro spt cpe (302, 350, 396) purple stripe

Confused? I am!!!...................RatPack.....................
33  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 mono springs use decals? on: July 03, 2012, 10:49:43 PM
About 10 years ago Mike Rossi and I were doing a lot of research on whether or not spring tags were ever used in 67 on the rear springs. We did find that the LOS plant did not use any tags on the springs in 67 and on some early 68's with mono-leaf rear springs except for two springs coded BA and BX. I do not remember if we ever found a 67 LOS car with tags for the other spring codes, and/or any 67 NOR car with the paint stripe on the springs. However, the color chart can be found in original P&A manuals for most of the springs. Per my information the paint stripe on your spring should be purple, not yellow. The yellow stripe was found on the 3909940 spring which was the standard rear spring for the L35 & L78 in 1967. I am not sure why you have F41 springs for the front, and non-F41 springs for the rear.....................RatPack....................

Here is a picture from an October 66 built LOS RS/SS 350 showing a coral paint stripe.......................

34  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Red Oxide primer on interior or 68 Camaros- Jonn Z and Ed Please respond. on: July 02, 2012, 06:10:21 PM
The pattern so far is this: 68 Norwood cars only, exterior/interior colors did not change this base brown primer color. I have yet to observe any LOS cars, or any 67 NOR cars with anything other than grey.  Would like to see if this shows up in 67 Norwood cars at any time frame. I have pictures of Norwood cars from Jan 67 thru the end of production in July and all have grey primer inside and out. So if you have a Norwood 67, or any LOS 67-68 with this brown primer I would like to hear from you along with pictures to verify it..............Thanks.......RatPack......................
35  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Red Oxide primer on interior or 68 Camaros- Jonn Z and Ed Please respond. on: July 01, 2012, 09:41:39 PM
I don't have pictures of Keith's car before restoration, but it was probably blrown just like the others including that red car we judged. I took lots of pictures of that one. So far there have not been any with the red oxide primer like what started showing up in 69 and all 2nd gen cars. So far the only cars that have this brown primer are Norwood cars. Attached is a picture of "scoop"s car before restoration.............

my 67 is red o xcide inside with yellow overspray.
Which plant? Please post pictures or email them to me as none of the 67's I have observed have anything other than two shades of grey...................RatPack.................

36  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Red Oxide primer on interior or 68 Camaros- Jonn Z and Ed Please respond. on: June 29, 2012, 04:37:01 PM
Guys if your car has anything other than light grey or dark grey primer on the interior areas only, please post pictures if you can. So far in the past couple of days I have looked at 7 68's and 3 67's, and none of them have true red oxide primer on the interior areas. However, some do have a brown primer, the same as Larry's (scoop) car did originally. I also looked at the low mile 68 SS350 at the show last weekend and it too has brown primer, not red oxide. Some may refer to this color as red oxide, but it is not the same. I have already seen a pattern forming, but I will not make any conclusions until more cars are looked at and verified. So far there have not been any 67-68 cars with this brown color in any area other than the interior surfaces of the body. Nothing showing on the underside, trunk (excluding the underside of the pkg tray), or exterior areas. Guys that have red cars really need to observe them closely as red body color overspray that is on top of the grey primers will make them look brown or even orange if they have light grey primer.

Any and all help is appreciated. I have researched this heavily for over 5 years, and until I started compiling my info this week because of Larry being persistant at the show I didn't see the pattern forming...................Thanks,..........RatPack.................
37  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1111480 Distributor Stamp Verification on: June 27, 2012, 09:41:04 PM
Here is the picture from the auction enlarged showing what appears to be a "1" behind the edge of the "0"............RatPack............
38  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1111480 Distributor Stamp Verification on: June 27, 2012, 09:39:46 PM
May be a restamp as there appears to be a "1" hiding under the left edge of the "0". I have a 481 distributor with a build date of 9 D 1 and other than the "0" it appears exactly the same.......RatPack...............
39  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Red Oxide primer on interior or 68 Camaros- Jonn Z and Ed Please respond. on: June 27, 2012, 09:36:46 PM
People who have this ruddy brown/red oxide color in their 67-68's please post the build date, original exterior color, and build plant as this may have not been done at both plants........Thanks,..............RatPack..............
40  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: White vinyl top-source for correct? on: June 26, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
Mac B, are you sure you got gigged for cloth backing? It is possible that you mean you have the current repro that has a felt backing which gives it a "padded" feel. The original are cloth backed, and there is a new one available, but I think only in black. It also has the correct sewn pleats below the rear window in the correct location too. Let me do a little research as to who is making the correct top. It may be Legendary since they have the correct ones for the GM A-body cars. Below is a picture showing the backing of the repro top like on your car, and one of the correct ones from the GM original suppliers.............RatPack..........
41  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Fake 69 Olympic Gold Z is back on the market on: June 19, 2012, 02:05:59 PM
I spoke to James Potter back before Christmas regarding this car and a couple others they had for sale. When we spoke I asked him what happened to Jerry's paperwork and he point blank stated "I don't know what you are talking about, and who is Jerry MacNeish?" I went to explain to him who Jerry is/was, and that the car they are selling is a known clone. He said that was news to him and that he would check into it. My gut feeling was that he knew of Jerry, and also that they possibly had Jerry's report. The car was removed from their site within a day or so after I mentioned that to him. When he called me back regarding a couple other cars, he said that the gold car was no longer for sale. Rick bought the car as a "real" Z at the 2010 Palm Beach B-J auction and gave close to $60k for it then. So it has been sold twice as a "real" Z since it was discovered it wasn't real by Jerry in 2009. So what transpired after the first guy "xramcamaro2" discovered it was a fake Z? Was he the one that consigned it to B-J to be sold? If so, then he would be the one liable when it is all said and done.............RatPack..............
42  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Console Gauges on: May 26, 2012, 05:37:42 PM
White would be 1971-76 Nova bezels.............RatPack...............
43  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: EARLY TRUNK LID on: May 23, 2012, 09:39:44 PM
Chuck can you measure the height of the hold down bolt for the spare tire?..........RatPack...........
44  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: EARLY TRUNK LID on: May 17, 2012, 04:03:46 PM
LOS or NOR car?..............RatPack..............
45  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1968 L-89 Convertible on ebay. on: February 22, 2012, 12:38:31 PM
This reply is just for Ed....  Grin

"flawless car" and its "restoration done to concours specs"....Train wreck! Here is what I see just from pictures:
- front stripe incorrectly painted, must have been done by hand and 1/4" tape instead of 1/8", plus it ends wrong behind bumper.
- 67 driver side mirror with a bowtie? come on!
- wrong front spoiler
- 1969 14 x 7 rally wheels with 67 center caps
- wrong finish on tailpanel
- black paint does not go into door jambs for lower blackout
- steering wheel is repro
- ashtray should be black
- two different style of window cranks on front doors
- jack base and lift mechanism should be gray
- trunk floor has been replaced with cheap repro as drain plug area has not been cutout and no plug installed, wrong finish in trunk
- cheap repro trunk weatherstrip
- spare tire mounted wrong side up
- Firebird multileaf springs
- shock / spring mounting plate bolts too long
- gas tank straps do not use rubber insulation
- generic exhaust system with wrong style tailpipes (not oval shaped)
- bolts on crankshaft pulley are wrong style and finish
- alternator fan should be silver cad or zinc plated, not black
- voltage regulator is mounted in the wrong location
- reproduction radiator and shroud. Should have original parts with this low of advertised "original" miles.
- w/s washer jar is actually mounted in the location shown in the AIM, should be further forward as other bb RS cars built that week in both plants are further forward.
- air cleaner is the $20 local parts store 14" drop base unit that the base has been painted black on. Very easy to spot these.
- lots of incorrect underhood finishes along with the overkill of crayon marks.
- wrong exhaust manifolds (no smog holes), missing the AIR system, plus why in the crap is the wiper motor silver?!?!
- doesn't have the silver horizontal ribs on the grill.
Why didn't he post pictures of the stampings of the engine, trans, and rear axle?

What I don't understand is why would the original owner go to Louisville to buy this car when Jim Reed Chevrolet in Nashville since it was closer by 75 miles or more. Besides Jim Reed would have more than likely been the dealer to have such a car in stock? Martinsburg isn't really a city, it is more like a wide spot in the road close to the TN/KY state line above Cookeville TN. Most people in that area were/are farmers, and probably at that time most of the roads were still dirt or gravel. Fake buyer's name, fake rural route number, and a fake city make it pretty hard to track down a prior owner would it not? I'm not even sure that town actually existed in 1967 even as an "unincorporated town".....

As for the POP, it was an obvious repro/fake call it what you will. We have discussed this car privately and I will not divulge the issues with the POP due to the counterfeiters out there trying to correct their mistakes.....RatPack.........
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15
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.