Messages

1951

Research Topics & Reports / Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles

« on: March 30, 2015, 08:08:38 PM »

It was a 08A on the tag could have been a repo tag I suppose?

Kurt would be able to answer that question better. 

But I think other VINs close to that are 07A.

1952

Research Topics & Reports / Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles

« on: March 30, 2015, 07:58:32 PM »

Well just saw another 08A car ( N667270) at a show, it also had the 341 rear, and curiously enough no stamp on the axle tube. Could be just coincidence

Are you sure?  I think that VIN should have an 07A tag.  And should be a 3894860 casting on the axle.  Did you see the casting date on the center of the housing?

Was it a Z?

1953

General Discussion / Re: your going the wrong way! 3.31 gears in a 302 powered 69?

« on: March 28, 2015, 08:12:47 PM »

I know, I know    currently has 4.10s in it now and its fine around town but get it up on hwy @4000 rpm and I'm still being run over so I'm going to 3.31s it has a M20 so its worse than 4.10x2.52 that I started with first gear ratio was 9.02 and now will be 8.34:1 (a little better than a 3.73 with a M21 @8.21) will this thing be a pig in the city now? or ? will it be tollerable?  future plans is to sideline the 302 for a 383 and that should be fine with 3.31
thoughts guys? 

What is your rear tire size now?  Stock?

Larger tire will help, but only a little.

It is up to you, but I am not sure if I had your setup that I would drop all the way down to 3.31 with a 302 engine. 

1954

Originality / Re: 1969 Muncie Transmission

« on: March 27, 2015, 10:15:46 PM »

I have a 69 trans with earlier shifter rod mounting studs installed.

Might have been modified over the years.  What is the casting number on the side cover?

1955

General Discussion / Re: Is it a 1969 Z/28?

« on: March 25, 2015, 10:37:40 PM »

I did check behind the seat but I don't see any crayon marks, but if they weren't putting the x code on the cowl tag yet would they write it behind the seat?

I have personally seen 2 pre X code cars that had the marks behind the rear seat. One car was in the 9N546xxx vicinity.

I don't know if this car would have that, since it is so early.

1956

Originality / Re: T-3 Headlights

« on: March 22, 2015, 08:02:46 PM »

Thanks a great chart.  Thanks Kurt.

1957

Originality / Re: 69 Z Harmonic Balancer or not ?

« on: March 21, 2015, 06:56:49 PM »

I believe the 69 Z28s and the high performance 350s in the early 70s used similar balancers.  Often difficult to tell the difference between the two.

1958

Originality / Re: 69 Z Harmonic Balancer or not ?

« on: March 21, 2015, 12:20:08 AM »

Does it have ANY numbers stamped on it?

1959

General Discussion / Re: 69 CAMARO PARTS WHAT ARE THEY WORTH?

« on: March 20, 2015, 11:09:10 PM »

Something to pass along to the next generation. I have already given him a truck, a car and a Jeep. He will probably end up with my cars too at some point.

Bryon, how about adopting me?! 
Paul

Paul, I know you are kidding.  But I will keep you in mind.

1960

General Discussion / Re: 69 CAMARO PARTS WHAT ARE THEY WORTH?

« on: March 20, 2015, 07:16:59 PM »

I am out for buying the parts.  So there won't be any competition from me.  But it they were local, I would have already been there.

I am accumulating parts right now for a project.  Have not found the right car yet, which will be with/for my son.  His top 2 choices would be a 69 Nova, 67-69 Camaro.  Any parts and probably the car itself will be a gift.  Something to pass along to the next generation. I have already given him a truck, a car and a Jeep. He will probably end up with my cars too at some point.

Giving away extra parts or selling them CHEAP to a friend that needs them just seems like the right thing to do.  But that is just me.  

1961

General Discussion / Re: 69 CAMARO PARTS WHAT ARE THEY WORTH?

« on: March 20, 2015, 06:29:13 PM »

Well I can tell you how I am looking at it.  For someone NEEDING the parts or ACCUMULATING parts for a future project, this seems like a good deal if you can get the price down maybe just a bit.  I bet for someone that actually goes there and looks at the stuff, there is more there than what you can see in the pics.  There ALWAYS is.  Trust me.  I have done that more than once.

If you are just planning to buy it to flip it and make money, well it might be best to let someone else have a chance at it.

It's not always about the money.  In the past I have given away parts that I did not need to someone else that did need them.

Just my opinion, and doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it.

1962

General Discussion / Re: 69 CAMARO PARTS WHAT ARE THEY WORTH?

« on: March 20, 2015, 05:09:34 PM »

Better take a look at what is all there.  His price is not a steal but he is not on the moon either.

http://bellingham.craigslist.org/pts/4933723690.html

1963

General Discussion / Re: 69 CAMARO PARTS WHAT ARE THEY WORTH?

« on: March 20, 2015, 02:31:16 PM »

Hard to say what is all there and what condition the stuff is in.  Can't see the lower part of the fenders.  

Hood looks like a Goodmark hood but find out ahead of time before you make an offer.

I would say you are looking at maybe $2K but condition matters a lot.  If the seats can be used as is for a driver, then maybe more than that.

Does he have the cross member from the car?

Can you check the driveshaft for me and see if it has any painted stripes?

1964

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Cast Date

« on: March 19, 2015, 04:00:06 PM »

That was great information. Thanks bergy.

1965

Decoding/Numbers / Re: CE coded warranty engines

« on: March 19, 2015, 03:58:24 PM »

Correct. No way to track it.  If it was installed in another car under warranty, the dealership that did the work MAY have noted the assembly stamp information on the block in the paperwork.  But no guarantee of that and no way to figure out what dealer it could have been.