CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 16, 2014, 08:34:13 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.
104462 Posts in 12231 Topics by 4716 Members
Latest Member: Hgtech
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 62
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 SS Grille correct Black gloss Level? on: Today at 06:05:24 PM
Whatever they were molded in.  Grilles were molded in black (or silver) and the surrounds were painted body color, so there's no paint on the grill sections.
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Ebay gas cap on: Today at 12:55:55 PM
Not in my world.
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Ebay gas cap on: Today at 09:42:07 AM
Thats what people don't understand about NOS stuff.  ALL of it came from the Service department.  When a completely new car came into production part of the servie organization at GM had to go thru each and every peice that they needed to have on hand, and decide if an existing part was Functionally equivalent to a part on the new car.  If so they stocked the funtionally equivalent part.  If there was nothing out there that could be used, they stocked that part or parts.  Over time as other lines changed, were added or deleted the definition of functionally equivalent got looser and looser.  Most servie parts are not the same peice that came on the car originally, and the further away from the year the car was made makes it even less likely the part was actually even used on the car originally.  Look at NOS trim rings as an example.  Production cars had either the 4 clip retainer or the dragons teeth retainers design up to at least late in the 69 model year, some had D shaped valve stem holes, some had holes open to the inner edge, some are oval some are round yet every NOS trim ring has the multi finger retainers and oval valve stem holes that came out late in 69.

Service parts are not production parts.  If people want to pay stupid money for incorrect parts have at it.
4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Ebay gas cap on: Today at 05:52:11 AM
Thats the trouble with buying NOS parts.  NOS parts are not production parts, 90% of the time they are functionally equivalent parts that might fit 3 or 4 different car lines but are factory correct for none of them.
5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Original dealer info for 1st gens is available on: August 12, 2014, 05:24:43 PM
Don't forget starting April 19th Norwood was building Firebirds as well as Camaros, that probably where the other 250 cars per day went.
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Original dealer info for 1st gens is available on: July 31, 2014, 11:47:35 AM
Way back in the dawn of automobile manufacturing (and probably before) Fisher Coach was its own company building bodies of cars, wagons, etc for other companies that build the chassis and running gears, similar to Pinifarina in Europe, and half a dozen coach builders here in the US.  Back in the 20's and 30's you could have a custom body contructed to be put on most any higher end chassis.  Fisher plants were co located with the GM assembly plants but maintained a mostly separate organization.  They were esentially subcontractors to GM assembling "Body Tubs" for GM to finish assembling into completed cars.  GM paid Fisher for each Body Tub they assembled.  

Before 1926 fisher was building bodies for just about anyone in Detroit that was building cars. Between 1916 and 1926 they had a capcity of 370000 bodies a year and they built for  Abbot, Buick, Cadillac, Chalmers, Chandler, Chevrolet, Churchfield, Elmore, EMF, Ford, Herreshoff, Hudson, Krit, Oldsmobile, Packard, Regal, and Studebaker.

Back in 1926  Fisher Body was bought out by GM (they already owned 60% of Fishers Shares) and they became a separate Division within GM.  GM complained that Fisher built their assembly plant too far away from GMs plants and were therby holding their production up, so they bought them and moved their plants next to GM assembly plants to cut down on delays.  Fisher was paid on cost plus basis and allegedly had some inefficient processes that were increasing the prices of the bodies that GM had to pay.  So GM felt it was in their best interest to buy Fisher body up, locate the assembly plants near theirs, and change their processes to be more efficient.  Up until about the mid 70's they remained a separate division within GM but at that point they were completely absorbed and just became part of GM.  Up until that time they maintained their own separate identity, organization and personel.
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Original dealer info for 1st gens is available on: July 30, 2014, 09:12:59 PM
April and May of 68 LA cars have some unique trim tag build dates, there are several very long build weeks and some missing weeks around this time.  Must have been a new guy on the tag machine.   

Is this an "Ixxx" work order number car? 

First LA VIN for calendar month of May is supposed to be 338365 and LA was building about 3500 Camaros a month according to GMs records but I think those records are off a bit.  But an 05C dated tag on your vin is consistant with vin numbers close to yours.
8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Original dealer info for 1st gens is available on: July 30, 2014, 03:23:12 PM
Is your VIN in the 9N645XXX range (+/- 1000), or higher than that?  If its in the mid 640's and the tag is original, then it was scheduled to be built during the third week of May but was pulled forward for some reason.  If its VIN is significantly higher than the 9N645xxx range then your birth date is wrong, and is probably more inline with the tag date.
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Original dealer info for 1st gens is available on: July 29, 2014, 05:02:47 PM
Absolutely, GM determined when a particular car was to be built based on their schedules, and their part availablilities and Fisher built it.  There wasn't really much on the fisher side of the plant that could result in a material shortage that wouldn't alos affect the GM side.  Maybe things like convertible and vinyl tops in certain colors, some interior peices, etc.  Most of fishers parts were sheetmetal stampings that were not specific to a certain vehicle, like a 302 engine, or an M22 transmission. I'm sure there were some things on the Fisher side that could delay a build, but most of them was probably on GMs side.
10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: New body? on: July 27, 2014, 08:00:00 AM
Convertible with a coupe VIN and cowl tag (and vis-versa) is practically unsellable these days.
11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 67 pacesetter sale on: July 16, 2014, 11:38:45 AM
How about this, a little pacesetter ad from 67.

http://youtu.be/PNBpX29Qtn0
12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Trim Tag D80 question on: July 12, 2014, 10:03:05 AM
D80 first appeared on tags Just after the time the firebirds were added to the assembly line at Norwood.  Probably had more to do with the trans am cars than the Camaros, but the option lists used in the "computer" creating the tags probably couldn't differentiate between a spoiler option on a Camaro, and one on a Firebird so all the cars with spoilers ended up with the code on their tags.
13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Cowl Tag Codes Sep 68 vs Sep 69 on: July 10, 2014, 04:06:52 PM
They will be in yellow paint pen or grease pen UNDER the glue used to attach the package tray vinyl to the metal structure of the seat support.  Very important that they be under the glue, because I have seen people add them to cars but the markings were on top of the glue residue.  People will do anything for a buck these days.
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Farewell And The Best For Ed! on: July 05, 2014, 07:59:12 PM
No bodys getting banned,  that's sort of a wakeup call we just don't need the animosity spreading from one tread to another.  Now if people want to be contructive and start a new thread about axle stamps in any particular time period, that would help bullit65 confirm his is factory correct, or not that would be a much better use of everyone's time, instead of what's going on now.  Afterall isn't that what the site is supposed to be about, no one here is infallible, all we can do is make the best statements we can based on the info at hand, as time goes on and more info becomes available opinions change.  My axle it  too early (end of April) in this case so I can't start it off.  Lets see some axle stamps and pumpkin casting dates from everyone.
15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Farewell And The Best For Ed! on: July 05, 2014, 05:56:08 PM
Wow, I think someones shooting to be the second person ever banned from the site.  I suggest you drop it, the stamp on your axle is not consistant with others of the time period.  Could be a legitimate reason like the stamp broke at the assembly plant before yours was stamped, or it could have been restamped to match your POP.  Your not helping figure it out, but then I guess its just easier to stir the pot, or put up a smoke screen.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 62
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 0.352 seconds with 18 queries.