Show Posts

781

General Discussion / Re: 69Z Camaro tail lamp question

« on: October 03, 2007, 02:05:25 PM »

Quote from: ss jim on October 03, 2007, 02:20:28 AM

I have #67's on the inner lenses and these work well. Hope this helps. Jim

While I'm at it I'll try them too.Thanks,Jim.

782

General Discussion / Re: 69Z Camaro tail lamp question

« on: October 02, 2007, 08:48:08 PM »

Scott,I thought about converting the inner sockets and wiring to dual contact but couldn't cut into a original harness.I found a pair of obsolete 1095s and they are perfect.But at $4.00 a piece I will try also try JohnZs suggestion #97s.This is my first 69 and was wondering what others did about this.Thank you all for your help.Steve G.

783

General Discussion / Re: 69Z Camaro tail lamp question

« on: October 02, 2007, 01:08:19 PM »

Thanks Dave for the reply,I can,t believe that the 69s came with the 1156s in the inner segment.Its as bright as the outer segment when the brakes/directionals are applied and makes it not as noticeable as to a lane change or stop.There are 1095 bulbs listed in some catalogs that have the S2 base with a single contact and 3 candle power but seem to be no longer available.I,m curious as to what other perfectionists out there have done about this?

784

General Discussion / Re: 69Z Camaro tail lamp question

« on: October 01, 2007, 08:16:57 PM »

I have the owners manual and it does list 1157s.So that would mean the inner most segment on the tail lamp would have a 1157 bulb.But the sockets are single contact.And the wire harness looks unaltered.Do your 69s have dual contact sockets on the inboard positions?

785

General Discussion / 69Z Camaro tail lamp question

« on: October 01, 2007, 03:25:39 PM »

What are the correct 3 bulbs for the tail lamps?In the car now are,Outer segment 1157,mid segment(reverse)1156,Inner segment 1156.The problem is the 1157 has a 3 candle power filament and the 1156 has a 25 c.p.When they are both on at the same time in park lamp position they don't match.They only match when the brakes are applyed.The lamp sockets are dual contact outer.Single contact mid.And single contact inner.so the bulbs match the sockets.Did somone switch the inner sockets from double to single or are the 1156s wrong for the inner position?

786

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Muncie speedo gear part numbers

« on: September 27, 2007, 05:40:56 PM »

That makes sense,Thanks,John.

787

Restoration / Re: 69 Camaro horn

« on: September 27, 2007, 12:57:29 PM »

Horn Works it is,Thank you all.Steve G.

788

Restoration / 69 Camaro horn

« on: September 26, 2007, 06:32:24 PM »

Anyone know of a horn repair/restoration service.I have original dual horns in a 69Z and one is not working.

789

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Muncie speedo gear part numbers

« on: September 26, 2007, 04:57:11 PM »

Thank you John,exactly what I am looking for.Would you happen to have the part # for the 19 tooth white gear that would place between the 3.08 and 3.36 ratios?

790

Decoding/Numbers / Muncie speedo gear part numbers

« on: September 25, 2007, 06:34:35 PM »

Does anyone know the part numbers for the range of drive and driven gears on the Muncie trans?Or where I can find a list?

791

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Odd rear code on '69 Z/28

« on: September 03, 2007, 05:03:20 PM »

Also,whats the deal with the X3 mark behind the rear seat back?

792

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Odd rear code on '69 Z/28

« on: September 03, 2007, 05:01:27 PM »

It's probably not.Even though the 3 previous owners say it is.With the evidence of some drag race history who would use a 3:31 for that purpose?Unless they swapped gears in the BS housing,it does have the welded tubes.I've checked for a build sheet under the seats with no luck.What other locations should I look?

793

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Odd rear code on '69 Z/28

« on: August 31, 2007, 08:56:22 PM »

Quote from: nuch_ss396 on August 13, 2007, 02:48:34 AM

Guys!

I'm looking at a 04/69 built Z/28 that appears to be original ( except for the original blown engine ).
Odd thing is that the rear has an 05xx assembly date and is a BS code ( 3.31 posi ). I'm at a
loss as to why the axle assembly is the month after the assembly of the car. Could this possibly
be legit? I've heard of cars being sidelined for "repairs", but the entire rear assembly. Any thoughts
on the matter would be appreciated. One possible clue is that the axle tubes were later welded to
the center casting in some sort of strengthening or repair operation. 3 owners back said it was like
that when they owned the car. It also looks like driveshaft loops were on the car at some point as well.

BTW, the M-20 is the original per the matching partial VIN. There is no POP or documentation available.

Lastly, how unusual was the 3.31 posi in the '69 Z/28?

Steve

Can a 04C body have a 05/15 rear installed from the factory?Could the car have been sidelined due to an unavaliable 3:31 axel?Can someone tell me from the VIN when it(the VIN)was issued?

794