CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 26, 2015, 07:37:48 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.
109099 Posts in 12633 Topics by 4860 Members
Latest Member: 67rsz
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 30
241  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 12D RS SS paint details on: March 16, 2013, 11:17:35 AM
Mike, yes I would be very interested in your pics of original paint D91. Closeups of the ending point of bottom of stripe will be greatly appreciated.
242  Orphans - documentation or VIN-stamped drivetrains - in search of the original cars / 1967 - Orphans / Re: 7N159882 MS block on: March 02, 2013, 05:43:19 PM
Block has been sold and is now in the Rochester, MN area.
243  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Sunoco 260 on: February 24, 2013, 02:26:14 PM
John, awesome photos. 

Garage?  That looks better than a museum, and cleaner too!!!
244  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Research Topics & Reports / Re: Original 67-69 Camaro driveshafts - information requested about your car on: February 22, 2013, 06:45:08 PM
67conv6cyl,

Thank You!  That does fit with the the expected original length.
245  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Research Topics & Reports / Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles on: February 21, 2013, 02:15:32 PM
The space between the C and the other two letters of the code is there for most (I am not quite sure I can say all) cases that I have seen for late 69 Model year and early 1970 model year Camaros.  It is not always there for Chevelles. 

Attached is a 1970 C OZ code that shows similar spacing.
246  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Research Topics & Reports / Re: Original 67-69 Camaro driveshafts - information requested about your car on: February 20, 2013, 04:10:44 PM
Anybody else?
247  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69' 302 CE numbers on: February 19, 2013, 10:04:19 PM
Yes, 2 bolt and 4 bolt CE blocks.  I have one 4 bolt CE 427, one 4 bolt CE 396/402, several 2 bolt CE v396s, one 2 bolt CE 402, one 2 bolt CE 454.
248  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Research Topics & Reports / Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles on: February 19, 2013, 10:00:30 PM
I agree with Kurt, I think it is C BU.

I am starting to think more that the 3 letter code started when the casting number changed to 3969341.  But more data points are needed.
249  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69' 302 CE numbers on: February 13, 2013, 08:12:19 PM
I agree with John completely. 

I have never seen anything other than the original CE stamp on the pad for the 68 model year and later. Dealers may have noted the CE assembly number on the warranty paperwork.  But that probably varied from one dealer to another.

Earlier pads were left blank.  But I am pretty sure the earlier blocks still received that assembly date stamp down on the pan rail/oil filter area.   

It has been a while since I have seen a blank pad warranty engine.

250  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Research Topics & Reports / Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles on: February 12, 2013, 06:20:42 PM
Build date 08E (Z28)
Casting number 3969341
Assembly stamp CBU 0828 G2
Casting date H139

Thanks! 
251  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Research Topics & Reports / Re: Earliest 3969341 and Latest 3894860 axles on: February 12, 2013, 06:19:45 PM
My 09C Z28/RS has the 3969341 rear, stamped BU0828

Gary

Gary, is it stamped BU or CBU?  The one Kurt posted had a casting date earlier than yours and it used the 3 letter code. 

I am just trying to see if maybe the casting date change corresponded with the change from 2 letter codes to 3 letter codes.
252  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69' 302 CE numbers on: February 11, 2013, 09:43:50 PM
Thanks Gary!  

What I find the most interesting in that Tonawanda letter is the part where is says...

It should be noted that the service identification number is required in addition to date stamp markings currently put on service assemblies.

I believe the "date stamp markings" are what referred to above as "something like T097 - T for Tonawanda, 09 for month (September) and 7 for last digit of year (1967 in this case)".

If you find any other documents which might clarify this, please post those too.

Bryon
253  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69' 302 CE numbers on: February 09, 2013, 12:09:54 PM
Gary if you ever find that GM Directive, I would be interested in seeing it.

From what I have seen, big blocks at Tonawanda generally did not receive a letter in the CE stamp, because fewer were produced and thus in general there was not a need to reuse the numbers.  There may be some cases where they were reused but I have not seen any.

Also from what I have seen, big blocks from Tonawanda received a stamp down on the pan rail near the oil filter area, which seems to be an assembly date stamp.  This would be something like T097 - T for Tonawanda, 09 for month (September) and 7 for last digit of year (1967 in this case).  I am looking for documentation of this.  I am only going off of what I could determine from the blocks that I have.
254  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 68 Camaro 4-speed Saginaw tranny on: February 09, 2013, 11:50:54 AM
I agree with Ed.  $750 for a Saginaw is WAY too high.  Normally they are $200 or less around here and if rebuilt and nice maybe $400. 
255  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Engine Stamp on: February 09, 2013, 11:46:12 AM
Dean, I will just say this.  If the VIN is a restamp, it really doesn't matter if the assembly date/suffix stamp is real or not.  The block has been messed with, therefore no original.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 30
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 0.336 seconds with 18 queries.