CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2015, 08:03:46 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.
112295 Posts in 12900 Topics by 4937 Members
Latest Member: 22rodman
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 65
886  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Car Insurance on: February 23, 2007, 05:51:18 PM
You have a stated value policy unless your policy says this: (and only this)

"In the event of loss to a "your covered auto" described in the Schedule or in the Declarations for which a specific premium charge indicates that Antique Auto Agreed Value Coverage is afforded:


1. We will, subject to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Schedule or in the Declarations for this coverage:

a. Repair or replace the damaged or stolen property with like kind and quality if the amount necessary to repair or replace such property is equal to or less than the limit of liability shown in the Schedule or in the Declarations; or

b. Pay the amount shown in the Schedule or in the Declarations."

If there are any statements about depreciation, or "value at the time of the accident", the insurance company will find some comparible cars in your area (usually the ones with no drive train and missing the floorboards sitting in a marsh) and use that to establish a lowball value, and then they will depreciate it further for excessive mileage or some other factorsthey dream up you will be lucky to get a couple of thousand dollars out of the insurance company.  Check your policies and read them carefully.
887  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Help decoding my 69 vin on: December 04, 2006, 08:01:03 PM
You can disregard whatevers on that window sticker as far as original documentation, its a repro.
888  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 350 SS EXHAUST BRACKET on: November 05, 2006, 04:19:07 PM
If it was an L48 (350/300HP) then it was an SS and would have had dual exhaust.  If it was an L65 (350/250HP) then it was not an SS and would not automatically have received dual exhaust, but it was available as an extra cost option.

How many fuel lines are under your car?
889  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 Z/28 spring decals on: October 28, 2006, 09:06:47 AM
6314 is a Moog spring part number for a 1644lb load spring, with a 288 lb spring rate and a free spring height of 16.446"  The normal Z28 spring was the equivalent of a moog 6308 with a 1607 lb load, 379 lb spring rate, and a free height of 14.981".  Don't think the production springs had any markings on them other than the paper tag that was wrapped around one of the coils.
890  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: X Codes on: October 28, 2006, 06:51:04 AM
If the car was made after 1/1/69 and has 2 fuel lines, its an SS.  The only small block that used two fuel lines after that date was the L48.  Both the L34 and L35 big blocks also used two fuel lines, all others had a single 3/8" fuel line.

SS's also required front discs, multileaf rear springs and for the most part a 12 bolt axle, although an L48 with a powerglide transmission would come with a 10 bolt axle.
891  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: '69 Z/28 Stripe Widths? on: October 26, 2006, 11:23:24 AM
http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11686

http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10763
892  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1967 350 motor numbers on: October 26, 2006, 05:10:20 AM
I wouldn't necessarily make that statement, I know of one other 67 L48 within 300VIN numbers of this one, with a January 25th MU coded engine.  Besides if you were going to fake an engine for an April built car, wouldn't you expect the engine date to be late March, or early April?
893  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1967 350 motor numbers on: October 25, 2006, 07:07:25 PM
Its a 350/295HP engine from a 67 Camaro with an automatic transmission, built at the Norwood Assembly Plant with a VIN of 124377N207562.  Engine was assembled on January 30th 1967 at the Flint engine plant.
894  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Z database on: October 23, 2006, 09:59:54 PM
Tags real.  Did it originally belong to that car, who knows without knowing the VIN and more of the features on the car.  Someone along the way one of the car's owners broke the cardinal rule of cowl tags, which is you NEVER remove it from the car for any reason.  Once it's off, the car will almost always be questioned.  Especially when it's put back on with Home Depot rivets.
895  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: AC Delco AM Radio (differences for 68 vs 69) on: October 23, 2006, 05:40:36 AM
Nope, 67 and 68 are close, but 69's are completely different.  69's are similar (but different) to the 70 to 73 or 74 radios.  The angles of the dash are different between the 68 and 69 so the 68 radios have a different face on them than the 69's which are essentially flat.
896  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: STANDARD INT WITH DELUXE SEAT BELTS on: October 22, 2006, 07:54:03 AM
Even deluxe interior cars came with standard belts.  Deluxe belts were a separate option that had to be ordered if you wanted it.
897  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Starter part number on: October 19, 2006, 09:13:21 PM
You guys are mixing Production part numbers and service part numbers.  The 1108338 is the production part number for an L48 with all standard transmissions and late production powerglide transmissions (service part number is 1108418). The  1108420 is the production number for late production TH350 equipped L48s (service part is the same).  Production number is 1108361 for all early production automatics (service part number is also 1108361).  All of these starters will have the production part number stamped on them even if they are a service part (ie if you had an 1108418, the box label would say 1108418 but the starter would be stamped 1108338)

Difference between the 361 and 338 starters is the solenoid assembly housing drive (nose peice) and drive assembly (more or less teeth).  The 420 has the same solenoid  and housing drive as the 361 and the same drive assembly as the 338, but it has a different armature than either the 361 or 338 (more torque?).  There are a few other small part differences between the 3 different starters as well.

I don't know where the production break occured on these starters.  Delco notes them as first jobs, and after jobs, but because the nose peice changed I would ASSUME it was around the time the blocks with the offset starter holes came online (3970010).

1108367 is a production part number for a 68 302 or 327/210HP, or a 69 302, 307, and 327, or a 1970 307 starter.

The 1108418 mentioned above is the production number for a 69 396 (all transmissions), and a 70 396 and 454 with standard transmission starter.  Service part is 1108400.

Source is the 67-72 721A Camaro Master Parts Manual  Section 2.0 Starter Assemblies.
898  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Paint decoding on: October 16, 2006, 05:36:29 AM
If it had stripes they would be black.  Since its a convertible it won't have Z28 stripes unless its a pace car (720 coded interior).  If its an SS it would have had black Hockey stick stripes.  Other than that, your going to have to rely on evidence on the car to find any stripes.
899  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 wiper transmission and cowl plenum area color on: September 30, 2006, 07:11:11 AM
I don't think you can say that a car with black stripes had the lower cowl area blacked out.  Thats just overspray from painting the top of the cowl area, which all cars with the Z28 stripes got.  In this case the paint just happens to be black.
900  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 wiper transmission and cowl plenum area color on: September 22, 2006, 07:52:42 AM
Yes, the whole car was painted body color, and then the area on top of the cowl was painted stripe color by Fisher.  They were then suppossed to black out the area under the cowl (where the wiper linkage is), but for the most part they didn't seem to do it.  The cowl panel itself was painted and striped (f required) separate from the car by Fisher, and wasn't installed until much later on the GM side of the plant, after the wiper linkage was installed.
Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 65
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 0.086 seconds with 18 queries.