Messages

601

General Discussion / Re: AM-FM

« on: December 16, 2009, 04:43:34 AM »

Does that hold true for the rear fender mast as well?

not wanting to hijack a thred,but did the fm radio option require a differnt antenna than what was used for the standard am radio? anyone have a pic of a front am/fm antenna?

Only the screw-on mast was different - the same base was used for both applications.

not wanting to hijack a thred,but did the fm radio option require a differnt antenna than what was used for the standard am radio? anyone have a pic of a front am/fm antenna?

Only the screw-on mast was different - the same base was used for both applications.

602

Restoration / Re: 68 AIM revision Date

« on: December 14, 2009, 02:36:54 AM »

JohnZ,
Thanks for the explanation.
I have read your excellent paper on the Norwood assembly line procedures, several times, and it contains a wealth of information.
I wish there was a paper on the procedures, from the conception of a revision, to Engineering Graphics, to the implementation of the revision on the line.
Your latest information has put quite a few of the pieces together for me.
Thanks again.
 Bob C
.

There's no solid relationship between the AIM date and the implementation of a change on the line.
John has posted more info on it in the past, but the events can be months apart.

So, where revisions always done before the implementation of a line change, or could there possibly have been a line change and then the revision?
I want to thank you and all the members who try to answer my questions.

The date in the revision block only indicates when Engineering Graphics released the revised sheet; the actual implementation date on the line was handled through the NPC (Notice of Production Change) system. Those were internal documents, and seldom saw the light of day. Generally speaking, implementation occurred after the revised sheet was released, but some changes occurred prior to the revisiion date; you'd need the signed-off NPC (which had the VIN of the first car with the change implemented) to know for sure.

603

Restoration / Re: 68 AIM revision Date

« on: December 11, 2009, 06:33:56 AM »

There's no solid relationship between the AIM date and the implementation of a change on the line.
John has posted more info on it in the past, but the events can be months apart.

So, where revisions always done before the implementation of a line change, or could there possibly have been a line change and then the revision?
I want to thank you and all the members who try to answer my questions.

604

Restoration / Re: 68 AIM revision Date

« on: December 10, 2009, 06:31:39 PM »

John,
Were the revisions  in AIM done before, or after the line production change?
The reason I am asking about the revision is that I have an 5E 67 build with the correct firewall and fender-well piercing that is shown in the 67 AIM. The regulator bracket 3927351 that is shown in the 68 AIM looks like the Brk. I have, not the one that is shown in the 67 AIM 3901771. The revision indicates that there was a change that took place around my build date. Do you think that it could have been possible for an 5E build to have the newer bkt.?
I bought the car from a car rental agency in 1970 and have had it ever since.

605

Restoration / Re: 68 AIM revision Date

« on: December 10, 2009, 02:23:45 PM »

Definitely hard to read.  Sometime in the 20s, looking at the numbers below it, the first number is definitely a "2". I was going to deduce it is the 28th, but the 28th was a Sunday in 1967...  Maybe a 24, which was a Wednesday.

Phillip,
How does 3 23 67 look to you?

606

Restoration / Re: 1967 LOW FUEL MODULE ? CAN ONE BE REPAIRED ?

« on: December 10, 2009, 02:55:28 AM »

Do you have a good ground @ the module? How about the connections @ the gauge (green & pink) ?
If all are good, you may have to bite the bullet, as I do not think the module is repairable.
Bob

607

Restoration / 68 AIM revision Date

« on: December 10, 2009, 02:09:36 AM »

To anyone with 68 AIM,
Need to know the 1st revision date on K30 A2 #1, looks like 5 ? 67. This will answer some questions about my 5E build.
Thanks,
Bob

608

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct 1968 AC Compressor Identification

« on: October 16, 2009, 03:06:17 PM »

Mike,
Compressor is in good shape , just need % of gloss black and if "OK" stamp was used in 67.

609

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct 1968 AC Compressor Identification

« on: October 16, 2009, 03:48:55 AM »

What % gloss black was used on the 67 AC compressor ?
Did the compressor get a final inspection OK stamp ?

610

Decoding/Numbers / Re: production run numbers

« on: October 09, 2009, 03:06:07 PM »

I purchased the car in 1970 from a car rental firm. Auto crossed it for 2 years ( the body was completely striped of unnecessary weight and then all GM optional equipment added) and then put it in storage where it has been ever since.
Can I expect to find run numbers on most of the sheet metal componets used to build the body ?
Is 67 05E week 22 ?

611

Decoding/Numbers / production run numbers

« on: October 08, 2009, 08:39:29 PM »

Did a search but could not find a lot of information on run dates . One question in particular was brought up but was not answered.
What is the acceptable relation between run dates (week) and body build date (week) ?
I have a 67 05E build with run dates on the R door of H17, L door H18, gas neck cover H15. Looks like the run dates are falling in line but are these dates within the correct range of an 05E build?
Is a 67 05E a week 21 or 22 ?

612

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct 1968 AC Compressor Identification

« on: June 10, 2009, 02:55:07 AM »

KertS,
Thanks for the info.
Anyone have a 5E or later build that can verify that  the old sticker w orange text at the bottom was being used at the end of the year?
What % gloss black was used on the compressor?
Bob

67 is the same part #, but it uses the old style sticker with orange text at the bottom.
I think it was used all year, but I'm not positive....

613

Restoration / Re: Cluster lens for "high beams" and "low fuel"...'67 camaro

« on: June 09, 2009, 02:01:35 AM »

ED.
How close to scale is the picture?
Thanks for the picture, great shot!
Bob

P/N 6457873 used in 67 and 68.

Ed

P/N 6457873 used in 67 and 68.

Ed

614

Restoration / Re: Cluster lens for "high beams" and "low fuel"...'67 camaro

« on: June 08, 2009, 08:56:30 PM »

 You wouldn't possibly have a picture of the low fuel lens would you?
Bob

Well, I know the low fuel film is not repro'd.  I have a 68 with one and have seen them on e-bay before, very expensive.  I am looking at selling my console, tach and fuel lens at some time in the future, but not yet.  As far as the high beam, I think it's just a plain red film isn't it?  You could just cut out a piece of red film to fit for that.

615

General Discussion / Re: group number

« on: June 08, 2009, 08:01:30 PM »

Paul,
I think John is on the power tour.
Bob

Paul - If you get time - Can you email me a scan of the cruise section in your 69 P&A to compare with the 67 I got from Phillip?
I would like to cross reference it.

John -

I've been out of town.  I'll try to get that info to you this week.

Paul