CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2015, 04:48:33 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.
112283 Posts in 12899 Topics by 4936 Members
Latest Member: Rallyred
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 60
16  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: New guy, New project ' 67 on: March 05, 2015, 05:49:42 PM
The cost to make and maintain the dies to consistently duplicate assembly line sheet metal would be very high. And then every part would be expected to be nearly perfect .Most shops know what to expect of repro panels.  Not to mention many of these panels are being installed on previously done cars with repro parts so they would not line up anyway. Go buy a late stamped NOS fender and you will have a day labor minimum to fix the results of worn out dies.
17  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: New guy, New project ' 67 on: March 05, 2015, 04:03:17 PM
If you are going through that hassle you may as well graft in the run numbers in the decklid area. You'll need to fit the quarter window U-seal and mod that area accordingly, also the window felt ledge and mounting clip slots. The other possible differences between AMD and a GM quarter are in that AMD thread. Sometimes they weld the bumper reinforcement on backwards too.
18  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: New guy, New project ' 67 on: February 22, 2015, 01:56:04 PM
I just installed another tulip (deck filler) panel which was a CHL part with molding pins included. Perfect fit unlike others I've done. You can glue the tulip to the gutter. It's not only faster and stronger but seals also.
19  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z28 Value on: February 02, 2015, 01:34:20 PM
Fixing that hole is not a big deal, no need to tear the entire firewall apart to do so. Might as well do it when you redo the booster and MC. Line around tag is obviously a mis-tape. Best to overtape and cut tight with an X-acto. I like the 'Cuda more.
20  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Anyone done this? on: January 22, 2015, 08:44:01 PM
How was the car being represented? Not unusual for an an overflow to be adapted to a car. What about that fuel filter? So many things wrong with cars at these puffed up auctions. Many who have no clue about body and paint are buying hacked together butchery. Same as most cars sold on the internet. It's at an auction so the quality must be superb.
21  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1st gen camaro shop recommendations? on: January 18, 2015, 04:34:27 PM
Yes Paul, I'm in CT.
22  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1st gen camaro shop recommendations? on: January 18, 2015, 03:30:30 PM
I do this for a living and can tell you those are base prices for basic panel replacement. All costs increase at an hourly rate to achieve proper gaps and make panel corrections. Like Chick said, a true evaluation cannot be provided until the car is down to bare metal.
23  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1st gen camaro shop recommendations? on: January 17, 2015, 05:50:03 PM
I know someone who had to have work redone by Graverobbers and I saw the work. They did a collision cut on the quarters instead of replacing entire panels. Quarters were installed over a rotten roof skin and rotten driprails. Molding pins were welded on wrong and moldings would never have fit correctly. The Goodmark doors and fenders they supplied were awful and were tossed. Goodmark quarters were removed and a new roof skin, driprails, 2 quarters and tailpanel were replaced with AMD tin.
24  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Found this in a box outside in the rain on: January 10, 2015, 08:58:55 PM
As I stated, prices vary depending on the vendor. This was left out when you quoted me. Keep digging and you willl find more price differences. Or just use your local contacts and grab parts from parts cars in the area.

25  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Found this in a box outside in the rain on: January 10, 2015, 04:43:21 PM
Solenoid wire clip is $25 repro. There's a different style clip for 67 that's $15. Brace is $10 repro. Prices vary with vendors.
26  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Firmer Shock Absorber? on: January 04, 2015, 07:54:07 PM
KYB Gas-A-Justs give a very hard, uncomfortable ride. Not bad if the road travelled is tabletop flawless and no irreguler, bumpy backroads are driven. KYB also makes factory replacements that provide a soft, comfortable ride.
27  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: car that lost its barn! on: December 25, 2014, 02:36:11 PM
Tarps rapidly accelerate corrosion and more so when a car is parked on soft ground.

Sad that cars sit like this when a tarp would have done alot
28  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 67 Camaro Rear Seat - RS on: December 23, 2014, 12:30:48 PM
RS option has nothing to do with seat width. Standard and deluxe interior rear seat widths are different on a '67. Deluxe, fold down and convertible are narrower.
29  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 67 rag exhaust replacement on: December 22, 2014, 08:08:49 PM
Did Gardner resolve their problems brought up in an older thread? I've have not heard of any installation complaints about D&R's system yet.
30  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Bracket on Driver's Side Trunk Floor on: December 14, 2014, 02:42:03 PM
There is no such exhaust bracket welded to the floor at that location on either 67 I have here, nor was there ever.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 60
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 0.084 seconds with 18 queries.