CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2014, 09:33:58 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.
106622 Posts in 12430 Topics by 4790 Members
Latest Member: gmein
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 63
826  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 69 argent grille paint on: March 24, 2007, 11:36:52 AM
Original paint code was PPG DQE-8598 and it was an alkyd enamel paint.  Don't think it would have been a gloss, more likely a satin (80% gloss).
827  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Rear antenna hole on: March 24, 2007, 11:35:02 AM
I just went out and measured my car (I don't have a read antenna) and found the the 110.25" measurment referenced in the AIM places places the antenna just at the end of the arc of the trunklid opening.  I measured 100 " back from my front antenna (The AIM says it is 10" behind the firewall- or the 0 reference point) and the point ended up just about at the rear edge of the arc (plus or minus 1/4") and the rear edge of the top of the quarter panel was 119" back (or 129" back from the 0 point).  Looks like the antenna is supposed to be located 19" forward of the rear edge of the quarter, assuming the AIM dimensions are correct.
828  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Rear antenna hole on: March 24, 2007, 10:53:30 AM
Wow, that looks awfully far back on the fender.  I had one on a 68 eons ago and it seems (from memory) it was alot closer to the corner of the trunklid like right at the end of the trunk corner radius (about 3" forward of the one in these pictures).  Since I don't think I've ever seen a real one on a 69 are the 68s in a different location than the 69s?
829  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Rear antenna hole on: March 23, 2007, 09:10:01 PM
Its in the assembly manual, under RPO U73 page A1.  Its a 1.12" diameter hole, 114.25" back from the firewall, and 28.94" from the centerline of the car.  There is a .14" wide, by .12" long notch extending from the hole at a 165 degree angle ( about the 5 oclock position) from straight ahead (or 75 degrees from perpendicular to the cars centerline)
830  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Car Insurance on: March 22, 2007, 06:44:30 PM
Is this an area of trouble:

You and we agree that the actual cash value of your car is the             
                          vehicle value shown on the declarations page unless:

1.   your car has been damaged;

If your car is in an accident has it been damaged?

This policy seems to have alot of ifs and ors, and mentions ACV, but them ties ACV to the value in the declarations page, and then tells you if the car is damaged that number is no longer any good.  I like the statement in may policy better. (posted earlier) that basically says you get in an accident we either pay you the total amount in the declarations page, or we pay up to the amount on the declarations page to fix your car.  End of story.  But if your lawyer likes it make sure you bring him with you to the insurance company if you ever have a claim.
831  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Firestone or Goodyear F70-14 tires on: March 22, 2007, 05:50:14 PM
Heres a picture from the track in May of 69.  Track cars were running Goodyears.



Or this newspaper clipping of a Festival Car showing Firestone tires:

832  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: LA/Nor Vehicle ID numbers on: March 21, 2007, 04:31:24 PM
In 69 the last 6 digits of the VINs could be the same at both the LA and Norwood plants, ie N523456, and L523456.  The 69 body numbers were unique since they were assigned by the central office.  In 67 and 68 both the VINs and the body numbers could be repeated, ie N100001  NOR100001, and L100001 LOS100001 (of course these numbers don't really exist) since the VINs were sequential, and the body numbers were assigned by each plant.

Actually there was a Norwood N300001, and a Los Angeles L300001.  The first production VIN is always number 1.
833  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct Front Coil Spring Tape Decals for 1969 Z/28 RS on: March 20, 2007, 08:44:35 PM
According to the 69 spring chart, the YF spring is the base spring for all weight additions to the front end from 0 to 68 pounds.  The EY spring is used for weights from 69 to 148 pounds, and the YH was used for all weights above 148 pounds.  The rear spring was always a BM spring for all weight additions or deletions.  There is no HD suspension springs available for Z28s.

So your choices just got easier.  The RS option adds 23 lbs to the front and takes 2 lbs off the rear.

Typical Z28 options weights are:

M20 +11 lb  front +5 rear
D55  +8 front +4 rear
D80 -1 front +6 rear
J50 +9 front +2 rear
N10 +3 front +26 rear
N40 +30 front 0 rear
U63 +6 front +3 rear
U69 +7 front +3 rear
U79 +5 front +2 rear
V01 +7 front -1 rear
V31 +5 front -1 rear
V32 -1 front +5 rear
VE3 -6 front +1 rear
Z22 23 front -2 rear
Z28 3 front +33 rear

I don't think you could get to a set of YH springs unless you had a Z28 with just about every option made on it.

834  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct Front Coil Spring Tape Decals for 1969 Z/28 RS on: March 20, 2007, 05:47:53 AM
There was about 8 different front springs available.  The spring used depended on the weight over the front and rear axles which inturn depended on the options the car had.  The RS option added something like 22 lbs to the front of the car, so stiffer springs were needed, but other options could have added or removed weight from the front or rear of the car resulting in the car using anyone of the available springs.  Each car is going to be different.
835  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dual Fuel Lines on: March 19, 2007, 05:44:21 AM
One more possibility.  Have you ever seen the hidden VINs on this car?  If so I would assume they match the VIN on the dash and block.  If not, have a look.  If they match then I would have to say that someone, for some reason removed the return fuel line (and sender?).  You did say the fuel sender is also a single line version as well didn't you?
836  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dual Fuel Lines on: March 18, 2007, 09:19:56 PM
Looks like they are a good set of stamps to me.
837  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dual Fuel Lines on: March 17, 2007, 07:41:17 AM
Your just not getting it.  The is no reason to remove that return line when you put a holley on the car, or even if you removed the stock fuel filter whcih is where the connection to the vent line is located.  Lets take a poll of all the people on this forum who have put a holley on a car equipped with 2 fuel lines, (L48, LM1, L34 and L35s) and see who pulled that second fuel line out just for a carb and or engine change.  I had a holley on my car 15 years ago and I still have both lines.  Good thing cause I have a stock rochester on it now.

The real problem is that the engine is coded as an L35 and the date is correct for the cars build date.  If the car was an L78 originally and some previous owner put an L35 in it because the original engine blew up, is it very likely that the he (or she) would have gone thru the effort to find a correctly dated Camaro L35 block, or would he have just put any old big block he could find and build it the way he wanted it?  If someone puts a holley on their  car they just make a new fuel line, they don't have to buy one from GM, but they could buy one from an L78 if they wanted to.  There is still no reason to remove the return line from under the car, most people would just leave it alone, and at most put a cap on the end of it.

Its the date coded L35 that is the root of this problem.  If we can accept the fact that GM would never let a single fuel lined L35 out of the factory, and assume that 99.9% of all camaro owners would not replace the fuel lines when they put a holley carb on an engine we end up with the conclusion that that engine does not belong in this car.  We then take the next step and then assume someone attempted to clone a matching numbers big block from something else.  There are very few 69 Camaros that had a 3.07 axle as one of its three standard ratios (economy, standard and performance) and those cars are the LM1, L48, L34, L35 and L78.  Four of those have dual fuel lines, one has a single fuel line. Thats not to say someone couldn't order it as an optional ratio on any car but the 3.07 is not exactly something you would pick if you were selecting an optional axle ratio.  So if we further assume that the axle is original, the single fuel line is original, the car had power front brakes then the car begins to look like an L78.  BUT is has a date coded L35 in it and theres the problem.   

I'm just playing the odds that while engine swaps are extremely common in these cars over the past 36 years, people swapping fuel lines is extremely rare unless the car is being totally restored which it sounds like this one hasn't been.  Thats why I rely more on the fuel line being original than the engine code being original.

So do we have someone (previous to the current owner) attempting to make a matching numbers big block out of a big block and just not being smart enough to know they were replacing an L78 with an L35, or do we have someone just a little smarter and they replaced (or restamped) the engine transmission and rear axle with correctly dated parts and putting it in this car.  I don't know, everything is speculation atthis point with the info we have at hand.
838  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dual Fuel Lines on: March 16, 2007, 10:28:36 PM
Your right I don't know if the car was originally a big block or not, just like you don't know it was.  

I do know that no L35 made during the 69 model year was equipped with a single fuel line.  GM would not send a car out of the factory that required two fuel lines equipped with a single line.  The dual fuel line was there for a reason and it wasn't for looks.  There was no engine fuel lines that would have connected the fuel pump to the rochester carb that didn't have the return line on it.  The only big block with a single fuel line was the L78 which used a holley carb.  We know its not an L78 because the engine has and L35 assembly code.  The Holley fuel line will not fit onto a rochester, and the guys on the line really weren't in a position to be making up parts to make a car with a mismatched fuel system work.  If the car mistakenly came down the line with a single fuel line it probably would have taken them 15 or 20 minutes to get the dual lines installed if the car needed it.  Could some previous owner have pulled out the dual fuel lines and the tank pickup and sender assembly and replaced it with a single line setup the day after the car was bought, sure they could have, but I would say the chances of that happening is way less than 1%.  Could some previous owner have put a big block in a small block car, and a big block heater cover, sure they could have.  Which of these two events do you think happens more often changing a fuel pickup and fuel lines or putting a big block in a small blcok car?

At the moment we know the car has an L35 engine, a big block heater core, a replacement transmission, a 3.07 posi 12 bolt axle power disc brakes, and a single fuel line.  Throw the JG engine code out and most people would say its an L78 as thats the only big block that could have a single fuel line.  Add the JG code and most people would say its a clone because no L35s came with a single fuel line.  As I said before theres not enough info to make a definative judgement at the moment, heck we don't even know the VIN or trim tag info beyond its a 12A Norwood car.  It could be an L78 that someone put an L35 in for all we know.  The only thing thats sure is the parts in the car right now, don't match what left the factory, be it the fuel lines, or the engine.
839  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: cant find rs sheetmetal in assembly manuel on: March 16, 2007, 06:03:05 PM
Doesn't really matter, there is no sheetmetal instructions in the Z22 section.  The fenders, while they are different, they assemble the same as the non RS  fenders so they are not illustrated.  Same with the rear panel, it was already on the car when it came to the GM side, so all they show you is the backup light assembly and the hole it goes in on the tail panel.  The only dimensional info you get is for drilling the holes for the rallysport emblem on the front fender.
840  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dual Fuel Lines on: March 16, 2007, 11:30:56 AM
If you were putting a big block in a car back in the day, would you have pulled out an extra fuel line if it didn't interfere with anything else you were doing?  If you put a rochester carb on a 2 BBl engine would you put an extra fuel line in just because the factory did it that way?  All I'm saying is that people don't usually mess around with things on a car when they are making changes to a car if they don't have to.  I just use the "FACTORY" method of installation to try and figure out what a car was originally using whatever clues are available.

So far we have a big block in a camaro with a 3.07 rear axle 2 fuel lines and an automatic transmission that was replaced years ago.  The assembly code on the engine is dated prior to the build date of the car, but I've not seen the stamping on the pad, so I won't use that as evidence to say that it is original until I see a picture of it.  A 3.07 axle ratio is the economy ratio for a small block SS, and the standard ratio for a big block SS, so that doesn't help.  2 fuel lines were used on the L48, and the LM1 when this car was made, so thats 1 point for the car being either an L48 or LM1 originally with a big block added later.

Do we know for sure if its originally an SS at all?  No, we don't hence the questions on the location of brake line brackets, and there is a difference in the bracket locations between drum front brakes and disc front brakes.  Someone who doesn't change the fuel lines when the put a big block into a car certainly wont change the brake brackets.  Do we know if there is a dual exhaust bracket on the driver side sub frame?  For all we know the car has a small block heater cover as that hasn't been mentioned either.

It makes no difference to me if its a big block or an L6 car, I'm just trying to help someone figure out what they have.  alot of what is needed to do that is visual, and if you can't see it you have to ask questions.  If the evidence points towards small block then thats the way it goes, if it points towards big block its a win for the owner, but right with the info in hand I wouldn't pay big block money for this car if it was for sale.  Need more info to make an educated decision one way or the other at this point.
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 63
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 0.085 seconds with 18 queries.