CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 20, 2014, 03:28:35 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.
103288 Posts in 12153 Topics by 4689 Members
Latest Member: merle
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23
1  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / Re: New Zealand/Australian Camaros And Firebirds on: August 06, 2014, 07:47:32 AM
that looks like the original owner day2 barn find L88 Camaro on ebay recently?

he said he liked the 68 Penske TA and copied some details from it

also had 1960s looking seat belts, fire extinguisher, roll bar , and the early style 1st gen Hurst shifter
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: My New '68 Camaro Z/28 Butternut Yellow on: August 06, 2014, 07:31:59 AM
not related to the carb problem but another thing to check on unrestored cars........

the distributor mechanical advance has a rubber bump stop that can dry out and crumble off leaving
a smaller diameter steel pin. This can change your timing and advance by a large amount

many people installed aftermarket advance kits that came with weights, springs, and a bronze bushing, so if your car has that it should
be OK but if it still has the rubber bushing you may want to check it.

3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: My New '68 Camaro Z/28 Butternut Yellow on: July 19, 2014, 04:28:51 AM
congratulations that's a great find , its like a cool Camaro rat rod the way it is , with original patina

hows the Muncie shifter working on it?

they can get pretty bad with old dried out original grease in them

would like to see pics of the Muncie shifter if you get a chance
4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Farewell And The Best For Ed! on: July 07, 2014, 07:28:57 AM
where can I get a "Save ED" tee shirt? Smiley

I hope Ed returns also
5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stripe delete on: June 10, 2014, 09:17:59 AM
I know the conventional thinking is that the trim tag was only for Fisher body assembly but maybe there was a reason to have items on the trim tag that were not only for Fisher but also needed for scheduling the main line.

If you look at some of the engine and trans codes and other codes, I don't know if they  were all needed by Fisher.
A good example is the large number of option codes on 1967 Chevelle BAL trim tags.

In the example of the 68 dash no paint code for nose stripe delete cars ........
Fisher did not put on the nose stripe but maybe the trim tag still needed to show a stripe delete Camaro.

A possible reason would be for some of the "scheduling rules" JohnZ  mentions in the research report on the assembly process.

If the special paint and other special order cars need more time or special tracking to meet special parts, process, or something else, that info would need to be considered when they were put into sequence. For example they may have needed to be sequenced together in some cases for assembly efficiency or paint efficiency but in other cases may have needed to be separated because of higher work station cycle/dwell times.

Even though Fisher would not have to know what nose stripe was used or not used, the trim tag may still needed to have the build order info on it for the scheduling.

here are quotes from JohnZ's report on assembly that I am referencing .......

"Scheduling:  There were usually six lines in the schedule bank - one for RS, one for A/C, one for SS and Z/28, and three for high-volume standard cars, so cars could be scheduled without having situations like three A/C's in a row, three consoles in a row, three RS's in a row, etc., as these had higher work content vs. the standard cars and scheduling two or three of them in a row would over-cycle certain line operations. "

 "Releasing:  When the clerk at the end of the body bank selected the next body based on the scheduling "rules" and released it from its line into the main conveyor to the Trim Line, the computer released the "Broadcast" file with the next sequence number, and it was sent to many teletype printers throughout the plant where subassemblies were built and sequenced for delivery to the Main Line to meet up with that particular car. The same computer program also generated the end-of-line paperwork for that car - the price sticker, car shipper, and other internal documents. "
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Heavy undercoating was it factory or dealer applied? on: June 05, 2014, 10:46:51 AM
I think some of the dealers just spray canned the undercoat in their own service areas
that spray can black tar like paint has been around a long time

some may have sent the cars to Ziebart or Rusty Jones or other undercoating company  if there was one in the area

I have seen some original cars with a coating variance form thin/light coating to thick/heavy coating

and some have the press in plastic caps where holes were drilled to apply the coating in hidden areas like rocker panels
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stripe delete on: June 05, 2014, 10:35:24 AM
just to ad something to the special paint / special trim tag research

not a Camaro but shows what was done by GM in 1969 in one plant

In a discussion on a special paint 1969 Chevelle built at the Leeds plant in Kansas City with "AVO" on the tag
AVO is not used on the normal tag and only found on a small number of tags, some are documented special paint cars

I found in GM BUSINESS SYSTEMS BS 1457 GM GLOSSARY OF TERMS
 ......AVO...... "avoid verbal orders"   listed  as a form used to document verbal communications

8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: If Anyone is Interested in a 67 Pace Car on: May 25, 2014, 09:07:37 AM
The economy is keeping the market soft in some ways but interest remains strong for the 1st gen Camaro
they also have a second life in the restomod world with some of these selling over $100K

 http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2011/05/ultimate-restomod-67-camaro-with-corvette-frame-ls7-engine-video.html
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Yellow 69 Camaro Design car on: May 24, 2014, 06:03:53 AM
Z427 200MPH speedometer

looks like 5082 miles ?
10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Yellow 69 Camaro Design car on: May 24, 2014, 05:56:08 AM
Z/427 horn button and Sport Shift detail
11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Yellow 69 Camaro Design car on: May 24, 2014, 05:37:05 AM
Jon M posted these pics awhile ago I believe taken at Elkhart Lake Road America
Chevy brought some nice Camaros there including the 67 Cherokee, 68 Z/28 convertible, and the Z/427

you can see people taking pictures of it

the custom painted Chevy show truck/trailer in the background

I hope that some more pics of it turn up as they get found and uploaded
12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Yellow 69 Camaro Design car on: May 24, 2014, 05:18:53 AM
the yellow Camaro has an amazing amount of small custom details

The front bumper is molded in and looks like it is a one piece grill and bumper

The Super Scoop looks to be extended on the back

The wheel wells are flared

I have never seen a pic of the back of the car so hope that ones turns up
as there must be spectator pictures of it sitting around in an attic somewhere

I blewup these pics to show the grill/bumper
13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Yellow 69 Camaro Design car on: May 23, 2014, 11:03:35 AM
Chevy Chief Designer Bill Mitchel's custom built 1969 Z/427 Camaro
 used in a Camaro calendar

I think it also had a molded in front bumper

don't forget one other little upgrade - the ZL1 engine

cool looking wheels also


Chevy brought out some custom 69 Camaros and Corvettes for the 1970 model year press previews and car shows and race displays
Z427 pic used in a Camaro calendar
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stripe delete on: May 23, 2014, 10:17:25 AM
That was another interesting thing I see in my notes on this but didn't copy to my reply because it was getting too long and most people would be asleep before finishing my post Smiley

The 68 Yenko was a fast car with a high power to weight ratio so would be somewhat unsafe but they actually had safety upgrades.
The 1968 Yenko COPO 9737 had disk brakes, HD suspension, larger ft bar, 140 speedo, and other items.


In comparison, look at the 1968 COPO 9738 Chevy II. Fred Gibb was allowed to special order  50 of these  L78 TH400 Chevy IIs to meet the NHRA rule book for the auto trans drag car class. Chevy knew these cars were ordered to drag race and they have the safety statement.

Same issues with the L88 Corvettes and the 1969 ZL1 Camaros. 500 HP and lighter weight, built to meet the racing rules. They were somewhat of a safety risk as compared to normal production cars but they have the safety statement.

 
15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stripe delete on: May 23, 2014, 09:43:48 AM

The Yenkos were running MV code motor which probably was not certified and were going to be sold new with a 427.  So they were not in compliance with federal regs.
That leads to our conclusion of why the Yenko cars got the ACC tag.

this is my opinion based on  what I found when researching the 1967-68 Yenkos.

It is hard to believe that Chevy would sell a car to a US dealer that did not meet all the Federal regulations, but if that were the case , it still does not explain the use of the Magic Mirror tag. The statement on the normal 1968 tag  is not for engine/emission regulations , it is just to date the safety standards.

Chevy was already in a lot of trouble with the Corvair safety issues so I don't think they would sell a car to any US dealer that did not meet safety laws. More on this later.

I have done a lot of research on the Yenkos as the Magic Mirror tag is an interesting mystery to me.

We know they needed to show special orders or fleet orders on the trim tags, for some reason, and they did use a special order tag the year before on some 1967 Yenko Camaros.

The 68 Camaros with special paint used a special order trim tag but was just omission of the paint code. That was enough to do the job for special paint but I think something more was needed to show a special order car or a fleet order or a COPO order.

What would a 1968 special order Camaro tag look like for a build like a show car, an export,  a police, fire, military, or a fleet order if they had to build one?
Not many examples found to do the research on.

Not counting special order paint (dash) tags, what examples do we have for 1968 Camaros?
I only know of the exports, the Yenkos, and two other Camaros with Magic Mirror tags.

We know that GM used special order tags and we have examples from Camaro, Chevelle, Impala, truck, Firebird, and others, where they used  numbers or words such as SHOW, MEMO, COPO, SPEC, SPECIAL, and others codes on the tags.

I think they selected the magic mirror tag to show the special order as I have not seen the other codes used like GM used on the other makes and models.

The  mystery is why did they use the Magic Mirror tag?
If they just wanted to omit the safety statement, they could have just used a 1967 Camaro tag or another 1967 tag since they did not have the safety statement.

Hard to say what they were thinking, but the magic mirror tag was an old tag. It was used from about 1962 to early 1966 in some plants.
If they wanted an odd ball tag that would stand out as a special order tag, the Magic Mirror tag would do the job.

on the safety statement..........

I did some research on the safety statement looking at what was used in 68-69 by GM, Ford, Chrysler, AMC, and Chevy Trucks. There does not appear to be a Government regulated statement required as they all used different ones. One thing common in all of them is that the build date of that particular vehicle is always associated with the safety statement.

I think that is why GM put it on the trim tags. So the vehicle build date can be cross checked with the cut in date of the Federal regulation. AMC and Chevy trucks used a separate tag with a blank field to stamp the vehicle build date.

The new 1968 regulation cut in dates were for Jan 1st but due to the design and production times, many of the safety features had to be done before the required date.
It looks like the dated safety statement was needed so they can correspond to the regulation versions for that vehicle's build date.

I did not find anything saying there was a Gov requirement for a safety statement as some MFG did not use any so I don't know if that was a problem to omit the safety statement on the 1968 Yenkos.

here is the 1968 Camaro safety statement on the standard tag.........

 "GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION CERTIFIES TO THE DEALER THAT THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS APPLICABLE AT TIME OF MANUFACTURE"

  here is some of the 1968 Federal reg........

"In 1968, the precursor agency to The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) show the safety technologies installed in passenger cars by model year 1968, responding to the initial FMVSS of January 1, 1968, included lap/shoulder or lap belts at all seat positions, energy-absorbing steering assemblies, dual master cylinders, and seat back locks, among others. In addition, model year 1968 passenger cars were equipped with side marker lamps, anticipating a requirement that would take effect on January 1, 1969."
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23
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 0.087 seconds with 18 queries.