CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2015, 08:49:48 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.
112306 Posts in 12902 Topics by 4939 Members
Latest Member: Lwilliams
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 103 104 [105] 106 107 ... 190
1561  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original Hurst Shifter or Not on: October 20, 2013, 10:26:48 AM
If enough people with original cars/shifters can check/post the code from their shifter as well as their car's build date, maybe we can make some sense of this...  empirically  even if it isn't documented somewhere...?
1562  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original Hurst Shifter or Not on: October 19, 2013, 10:26:51 PM
I just checked my shifter from my 09C Z28, and found the numbers "890731C", so the '8' the month (August), and '9' the year  matches up with my Sept produced car.   I've never known that Hurst shifters were dated.  I knew mine was the original one, but didn't know this particular date code schema..

Gary
1563  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original Hurst Shifter or Not on: October 18, 2013, 11:36:09 PM
Steve,

Is it the code there at the bottom of this extracted image that decodes to Dec '68?   Can you explain that, as I didn't know there was a date code for these shifters..
1564  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: I am the only one that ordered the wrong shirt! on: October 18, 2013, 03:44:44 PM
Set up costs are a pretty penny...   for a one-off shirt...  Smiley
1565  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Question about Plants & States on: October 18, 2013, 02:31:40 PM
I think he's referring to Fisher body (who painted the firewall back), vs the Norwood assembly folks, or chassis (who painted the front clip).. Smiley
1566  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: I am the only one that ordered the wrong shirt! on: October 18, 2013, 02:29:37 PM
*L*.    we have to buy more for the RS cars..  so it's you that has more money (left over).  Smiley
(I thought you ordered 2 shirts anyway)_  *G*
1567  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: I am the only one that ordered the wrong shirt! on: October 18, 2013, 01:33:15 PM
Oh, just change your 2nd shirt order to a 'front / back'..  *G* and you'll have one of each.. Smiley
The one with the 'back printing' for car shows, and the one with pocket print only for club meetings..
1568  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Question about Plants & States on: October 18, 2013, 01:30:28 PM
I would bet they were sent where ever they were needed. I have a 68z from LOS & a 69ss from Norwood. Both were sold new at Orielly Chevrolet in Tucson Az....Joe

...  and ALL of the late year Camaros (August -Nov '69) were built in Norwood....  what is the build date of your '69SS?
1569  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Question about Plants & States on: October 18, 2013, 10:09:04 AM
As several knowledgable people have said before, scheduling of the cars depended on availability of the parts necessary for building it, and it is logical to assume that one plant might have a specific part available when the other might not.   They also gave priority to *sold* customer cars, as opposed to dealer orders for inventory.   All things being equal, I'd suspect they built the cars in the nearest plant to the "need"... but all things are not always *equal*..  Smiley
1570  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Cowl hood flapper valve on: October 18, 2013, 12:17:48 AM
Try this....

Free downloads are here and as of today they open fine:
http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1707817#post1707817
1571  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 California trim tag code mo 44 ? on: October 17, 2013, 10:27:46 PM
Rick, of course this is just me thinking this all out in my head and I could be wrong. I'm sure if others are reading this they are calculating too. Seems to me the VN plant can be figured out to the day but the NOR plant is a bit more difficult to pin it down.

I'm not so sure about this, as I understand it, Norwood produced Camaros on a regular production schedule, whereas VN produced other cars, and produced Camaros on a much lower rate.. so was their production *spurty* or regular on a very low rate?  I'd rather extimate Norwood production based on VIN than try to estimate VN date..  Smiley
1572  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?
1573  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???
1574  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...
1575  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?
Pages: 1 ... 103 104 [105] 106 107 ... 190
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 0.116 seconds with 19 queries.