CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 22, 2014, 12:03:24 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.
107640 Posts in 12512 Topics by 4814 Members
Latest Member: speedyb
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 35
436  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 headlight switch w /U17 console instruments on: December 31, 2009, 09:55:42 PM
You are looking in the correct group (2.485). The reason you can not find the service numbers I quoted is that they have been superseded in later parts books. That is the reason to try and use parts books that are printed for the model year in question.
A picture of the  67 (1995149 w/ U17) headlight switch would be greatly appreciated
Does anyone have a 67 parts book that would look up the two part numbers in question (1995147 & 1995149) and let us know what you find?

Maybe someone with a 67 parts book could see if there are 2 part numbers used in 67 for the headlight switch.

Maybe someone can help me look it up. I have a 65-75 Chevrolet parts catalog and I'm looking in group 2.485 which is switches - lighting. I can't find any of these numbers.. Am I looking in the right place?
I just got the manual on pdf. It's huge and I don't know how to use it yet.

For example, it lists three 69 Camaro swtches though..
w/o RS, w/o console inst. cluster (U17) 1995175
w/RS, w/o console inst. cluster 1995176
w/o RS, w/console inst. cluster 1995177
w/RS, w/console inst. cluster combination not shown but w/o RS, w/console inst. cluster is listed twice. However, below this combo is 1995177 but U17 makes no mention of a different switch.

The 69 AIM lists 1995175 as non RS UPC12-B2
RS as 1995176 and RS w/U17 1995177. RPO Z22-B7. Same deal. A different switch for U17, but only with RS.
All this time, I also thought there was just two.

Confused? Me too.. Tongue
437  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 power steering box on: December 31, 2009, 09:11:50 PM
I beleve 7806396 was the correct manual steering box. You might give Jerry M. a call , I am sure he knows.

I am not sure what casting number was used for the 67 Z/28 steering box.was it 7826692?
438  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1967 LOW FUEL MODULE ? CAN ONE BE REPAIRED ? on: December 27, 2009, 01:07:04 PM
Brad,
Never had a bad module to back door engineer to see what is inside.
Let us know what you find.

I've just learned that the fuel module has a FUSE ? or BULB ? in the back of it ? I am going to check that
439  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 headlight switch w /U17 console instruments on: December 24, 2009, 10:42:10 PM
JohnZ,
The 68 AIM 12 B6, revision 1, Dated 6-29-67, verifies what you said is correct. My 69 parts book also gives the 164 as the correct number.
Was the RS option available at the start of production on the 67?
Tom,
Looking at the std. and RS wiring diagrams, shows no need for a different switch (all wiring is the same at the switch).
Maybe someone with a 67 parts book could see if there are 2 part numbers used in 67 for the headlight switch.
Does anyone have a picture of a 1995149 headlight switch?

Merry Christmas to all.
440  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 67 headlight switch w /U17 console instruments on: December 23, 2009, 10:58:48 PM
Does anyone know why there are 2 67 headlight switches. Std.1995147 and 1995149 w/U17. Does the 149 have a higher rated light dimmer for the console ? See VPC 12 B6 and revision 4. Huh
441  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: AM-FM on: December 15, 2009, 11:43:34 PM
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.
442  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 68 AIM revision Date on: December 13, 2009, 09:36:54 PM
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.
443  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 68 AIM revision Date on: December 11, 2009, 01:33:56 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.
444  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 68 AIM revision Date on: December 10, 2009, 01:31:39 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.
445  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 68 AIM revision Date on: December 10, 2009, 09:23:45 AM
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?
446  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1967 LOW FUEL MODULE ? CAN ONE BE REPAIRED ? on: December 09, 2009, 09:55:28 PM
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
447  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / 68 AIM revision Date on: December 09, 2009, 09:09:36 PM
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
448  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct 1968 AC Compressor Identification on: October 16, 2009, 10:06:17 AM
Mike,
Compressor is in good shape , just need % of gloss black and if "OK" stamp was used in 67.
449  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct 1968 AC Compressor Identification on: October 15, 2009, 10:48:55 PM
What % gloss black was used on the 67 AC compressor ?
Did the compressor get a final inspection OK stamp ?
450  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: production run numbers on: October 09, 2009, 10:06:07 AM
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 ?
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 35
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 0.122 seconds with 18 queries.