CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 21, 2014, 10:55:38 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.
107589 Posts in 12510 Topics by 4812 Members
Latest Member: oldbop88
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 83 84 [85] 86 87 ... 170
1261  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 California trim tag code mo 44 ? on: October 17, 2013, 04:39:34 PM
I'm unsure if there was an 'uniform' Camaro production schedule at VN...?   Can anyone provide information on that?
1262  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 California trim tag code mo 44 ? on: October 17, 2013, 04:18:57 PM
No, you can best estimate the exact day your car was built using the VIN, along with the 'end of month' VIN numbers provided in the CRG files, along with the calendar for the month of production, check the number of work days, the total production for the month, and daily production rate, and then calculate which work day your car was 'likely produced (+/- a day)...
UHOH..  I may have spoke too soon, seeing now this was a VN car... ??  Maybe there's a better way for VN???
1263  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: rust preventer on: October 17, 2013, 04:07:08 PM
Boeshield is the most often recommendation I've read here..    Recently I found out that Sears carries it, and with a good price, and I purchased some, although I've yet to use it...
1264  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: maybe i can get on: October 17, 2013, 11:37:46 AM
Although I've never worked with an LS engine, I believe ALL the LS engines, from LS1 thru LS? are siamesed, but since these engine blocks are aluminum, I'm suspecting that due to the better heat transfer characteristics of Al vs Fe, that the siamesed cylinders are not a thermal problem as they could be with the old 400 block?
1265  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Oil Pan Bolt on: October 16, 2013, 10:41:50 PM
Are you referring to the drain hole plug??
1266  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 camaro cowl tag/vin decode on: October 16, 2013, 11:12:42 AM
that's very interesting William.   I had been curious, and had asked previously (although no one responded) re the *highest* BDY NBR prior to resetting the number to 100000 on August 1, 69.  It would be interesting to hear folks chime in with their BDY NBR if they have one near to 376,000 so we might get a better idea of how high it reached.

I think I understand that BDY NBR were assigned by Chevrolet, without respect to production plants, so that the BDY NBR were sequential on assignment, and were then assigned to the production plant thru whatever criteria they used?  If that is true, then the total production from both plants at the end of July was actually (169,119 - Norwood, and 31,163 - VN/LOS), so the total production prior to resetting the BDY NBR was the sum of those two counts (200,282 total cars produced (versus the 276,xxx BDY NBR assigned) during the *normal* model year (thru July 31, 1969).  The BDY NBR was *reset* for Norwood production on August 1, 1969... so I have a question:

Question:   What happened to the *orders* corresponding to those additional 76,000 or so Bodies assigned?   Only 42,803 additional cars were built during the extended production at Norwood..  Were the BDY NBRs modified on August 1 for the remaining cars to be built?   I'm assuming that very few, if any, customer orders for '69's were accepted after that point, so were those remaining *orders* internally generated numbers to maintain the parts pipeline given the apparently known issues with the upcoming '70 production??   Maybe JohnZ has some memory or information about what happened at that time?
1267  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: To the paint shop! on: October 16, 2013, 10:41:07 AM
..... parts deleted....
And that fellow 1st generation enthusiast is my story----may be ready for next summer nats ,may not. But when I run into some of you ,this car's going to be "right" And when I'm bored with it in this configuration , the flat hood, OE exhaust goes back on. I'll be retired, she'll be retired-----fold down the back seat ,throw the clubs in the back , and go golfing.

Nah.. Smiley  ..    if you drive a '67 Z28 to the golf course, I'd bet you won't pull into the golf club, but instead will be so *thrilled* driving the Z, that you'll decide that a long ride is much better than a long walk..  Smiley
1268  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: maybe i can get on: October 16, 2013, 10:33:37 AM
What JohnZ said...Smiley ...  and of course, that larger bore spacing for the old big blocks, also made for a *larger physical size* of the engines, which precipitated the terminology of 'BIG block'...  Smiley

Related question:  Was the 'old' 348/409' (1958-1964) series engines also on a 4.84" bore spacing?   If not, does anyone know what it was?
1269  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: 1969 heater core removal w/ factory Air Conditioning... on: October 16, 2013, 10:19:19 AM
it's much easier (possible?) if the inner fender is out of the way... Smiley   PS.  I once traded a '68 Z28 that I really liked because the heater core was leaking and I didn't want to disassemble that part of the car..

Via the internet, this link provides instructions on replacement of the heater core

1270  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Master Cylinder Secondary Piston on: October 16, 2013, 10:10:32 AM
The link to Rick's (above) is for 1-1/8" kit...

I have a Raybestos kit (MK472) for a Delco MC (1” piston) that I purchased accidentally a few months ago (I needed a 1-1/8” kit).. which hasn’t been opened or used.   I’d be glad to sell it to you if you need it…  on the package it states:  ‘US assembled’.. no info on mfg of parts.    You can also find these via ebay as well…
1271  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 camaro cowl tag/vin decode on: October 16, 2013, 08:30:08 AM
The VIN corresponds to 'mid June' production; the production date on the tag is 06A, so that is fine.  The Body Number is almost 100,000 higher than 'uniform' distribution, but I suspect that *might* be possible for a customer ordered/SOLD car.. as they move up in the production cycle...  Someone else might have a better idea?  I didn't notice anything that would get my attention...   Why do you suspect this tag/vin combination??
1272  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 coil bracket on: October 15, 2013, 11:13:35 PM
I wonder if it was just a vendor thing.I know that there were 3 different rear bumper ends for a 57 chevy . They varied slightly cosmeticly but hard to notice.
The three '57 Chevy Bumper ends were 1) the production bumper end, 2) Service part #1, and 3) Service Part #3.   The service parts were incrementally more simple to make and thus less expensive to mfg as time went on.  by FAR the one preferred by restorers is the production bumper end, with the raised area on top, and the segmented 'black' below the backup light housing.
1273  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: maybe i can get on: October 15, 2013, 11:14:11 AM
What would you do with it??    Smiley   Besides constantly messing up your shorts??   Smiley
1274  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Sill Paint on: October 13, 2013, 09:51:32 PM
for '69's..  it stops behind the rocker molding....
1275  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: storage on: October 10, 2013, 06:41:51 AM
I suppose you fellas know how tempting you are making it..  for us southerners to MOVE NORTH?   Smiley   (tongue firmly in cheek!!)..  Smiley
Pages: 1 ... 83 84 [85] 86 87 ... 170
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 0.105 seconds with 18 queries.