CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 18, 2014, 06:52:37 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.
107476 Posts in 12504 Topics by 4810 Members
Latest Member: rustoleumm
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 24
16  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
17  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 ?
18  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
19  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
20  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
21  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
22  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.

23  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.........


  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."
24  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct engine paint suggestions please! on: May 16, 2014, 06:20:36 AM
John , thanks for the reply

was this coffee can mask process the same for aluminum intake engines and iron intake engines?

Do you recall what was used to mask off the aluminum intake and alu/chrome valve covers of the L78s and 302 Z engines?

25  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Original dealer info for 1st gens is available on: May 16, 2014, 06:10:05 AM
have a question on the missing vins 1969 Camaro 9N508855 to 9N587275

Did GM Heritage check with the NICB to see if they have the shipping/dealer info on these missing vins?

I would think they can ask to borrow the NICB microfiche, have it digitized, then return it.

If the equipment is already set up to scan the old GM Heritage microfiche, they can scan the NICB microfiche to add to the data base.

GM gave the info to NICB back in the day so should be able to have access to it.
26  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stripe delete on: May 14, 2014, 10:42:45 AM
as far as I know, Yenko was the only one to get the special order 1968 Camaros that had COPO 9737 with 140 speedo, large ft sway bar, special code L78, and other HD items

in 1968 COPO 9737 was called the Yenko Sportscars Conversion
in 1969 COPO 9737 was called the Sportscar Conversion and other dealers were allowed to order it on 427 COPO Camaros and Chevelles
27  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct engine paint suggestions please! on: May 14, 2014, 07:51:32 AM
on engines like the Z/28 and L78 with alum intake and chrome or alum valve covers.
I know they used some type of cover or masking device to mask off the valve covers and intake that resulted in different levels of orange paint overspray but was the distributor covered?

Did the distributor get any orange paint on a 302 Z or L78 engine and would the dist on an slum intake engine look different then an iron intake engine?

I have an unrestored 499 L78 L72 distributor and has no paint on it

28  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stripe delete on: May 14, 2014, 07:02:29 AM
There is a lot of great info on this site and many thanks to all who contribute

looking at this info on the 1968 Yenko tag, I think that should be reviewed as my research is a little different then this info.....
"(These discussions apply only to U.S.-built bodies sold by GM in North America and are not applicable to models assembled outside of the U.S. Note that 1968 Yenkos and 1968 non-Canadian export models, not requiring the statement of certification to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, were shipped with 1959-1963 style Fisher Body tags that are absent the 1968 certification statement. And 1969 export tags are often blank on the bottom of the tag.) "

I don't believe the "Magic Mirror" tag was used to omit the 1968 safety statement
I believe it was used as a special order tag

The  "Magic Mirror" tag was used as late as 1966 on early Fremont CA. built Chevelles and some 1968 Camaros with the
 "Magic Mirror" tag have a separate tag with the safety statement on it.

I have been doing research on Yenkos since 1986 and did a lot on the Chevelles and 67-68 Camaros tags.
I found the special order tags on the Chevelles and 1967 Camaros over 10 years ago and at that time I was told they did not have special tags but proved they do have a special tag when compared to normal tags. (not all 1967 Yenkos have it, all Yenko and 427 COPO Chevelles I found have it)

Some 1968 Yenkos have the  "Magic Mirror" tag which at the time was said to be an export tag since it was also found on some export Camaros. When I was researching the 68s, I found the  "Magic Mirror" tag was used as late as 1966 on early Fremont Chevelles.
I believe it was used on special order 1968 Camaros because the  "Magic Mirror" tag has a "ACC" accessory code line which can show the special order codes if needed

Yenko was allowed special order cars for his race cars and hi po street cars  including Corvette, Camaro, Chevelle Corvair Nova and Vega and it shows up on most of the tags

attached a pic of 1966 Chevelle  "Magic Mirror" tag

29  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stripe delete on: May 12, 2014, 07:31:49 AM
I have seen special paint trim tags for 68 Camaro of some cars that had stripes and some did not and the tags look the same with the 2 dashes and no paint code

So on those special paint cars, you can't tell if they had stripes or not from the trim tag but those cars have original pictures one
 showing stripes and the other no stripe

I have seen some police Impala special paint trim tags where they showed 3 dashes in the paint code field which I think was to show
special paint and some type of extra work such as a stripe or maybe the door color was different then the lower body color (3 tone paint )

Camaro could have done something like that if they wanted to show more info on the tags

We know in 1967 the early big blocks and Zs were 4P then they expanded the info to show 4N 4K 4L
In 1968 there was no room to show option codes on the tag (except on special order tags)
Then in 1969 they started to  show more info with X codes and other codes or numbers
they must have had a reason to show more info on the tag
as it was continued with 1970 and later
30  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Very Original 69 Z28 distributor for sale on ebay.... on: May 12, 2014, 05:00:46 AM
seems like a lot of orange paint on that distributor for an engine with an aluminum intake

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 24
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 0.082 seconds with 18 queries.