CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 30, 2014, 01:21:03 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.
103694 Posts in 12182 Topics by 4697 Members
Latest Member: greygoose01
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 128 129 [130] 131 132 ... 156
1936  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 survivor Z on ebay on: October 01, 2012, 07:04:46 PM
IMO the detailing he's done to the car devalue it. Engine repaint and so on should not have been done. It would be worth more left untouched. Now like Kurt says it's a mixed bag. If he wants to sell it he better let it go for the almost 80K it's at. It's at all the money.
After 43 yrs, it's normal that it had some maintenance, even with the relatively low mileage; the urethane swaybar bushings indicate that he DID drive it a little, even if not many miles.   Whenever I have to remove a part on my car(s) for maintenance, I always clean and if necessary do whatever is required to *preserve* it (ie. eliminate rust, etc).   so I don't see a big problem with the man's car; it's the NICEST one I've seen in the past 30 yrs (including all the overrestored, plastic painted restorations).
Oh..  and it bid to nearly $87K... and he didn't sell it.   Actually, I considered that a good value for the car as well...  assuming that all the numbers on the car are correct (which I didn't see in the ebay info)..

Re some of the other comments:   My disk brake brackets look very similar to his after cleaning).. and I've still got paint marking residue on the spindles, and my car had 70K+ miles on it by 1980 when I parked it (also in a conditioned garage).   His floorboard looks very similar to mine (after I've cleaned mine).

PS.  I'd rather have that car (or mine) than any restored Z28 I've seen (and yes, I've attended national and regional shows for 30 yrs or more).

Gary
1937  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Found 1969 DZ Block Dated April 1969 NO VIN? on: September 27, 2012, 03:37:10 PM
The VINs stamped by the oil filter are EXTREMELY difficult to see (much less read).    I finally removed my engine and disassembled it and took the block out in bright sunlight..  cleaned it... penciled it..  chalked it..  etc..  trying to see if there was a VIN on it..  Finally, when the bright light is *just right*..    you pick up ONE character..  and then you can begin to make out the rest.    Taking a photograph of it is extremely difficult even in the best of circumstances, even if you know it's there..  and where it is. . etc...   so I'd guess that this engine has a VIN on the cast surface, but the owner just hasn't looked in the perfect circumstances yet. . Smiley
1938  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Freeing frozen piston in master cylinder on: September 26, 2012, 10:53:41 PM
Has anyone bought a Master Cylinder Rebuild kit recently?    Any suggestions on source for one?
1939  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Best source for lower ball joint? on: September 26, 2012, 10:51:52 PM
The TRW's and Moog's are supposedly US built.  Moog's a bit more expensive, so I ordered those thinking 'they must be a bit better'..   but that logic isn't always good....

Gary
1940  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 survivor Z on ebay on: September 26, 2012, 10:50:31 PM
Steve:  I totally agree.   The floor looked remarkably like mine *(re the overspray)*, although that one is even nicer.
Bullitt:   43 yrs of *aging* does things to rubber even when sitting in a conditioned garage!
1941  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 survivor Z on ebay on: September 26, 2012, 12:12:29 PM
Wow.. I am watching it now... I love it, but I'm prejudiced..    Smiley
It is optioned identical to my car except for my orange houndstooth.   
I have NO idea how this car has remained so clean... unless it's been in a sealed bag for 30 yrs.    Mine has 70K miles (all in the first 10 yrs) and has sat in my garage since 1980.. and mine is not nearly as clean as that one (although I'm cleaning mine now).   
Does anyone know where this owner lives?

Gary 

Yes Gary, it looks like a twin to our cars. I bought mine in the mid 70's because there is nothing nastier looking than a rs/z, hugger orange, black vinyl top with black stripes. The car is in NY.

I'd love to see some photos of your car, Steve..    Mine is partially disassembled now for cleaning up, preserving and getting it back on the road (after 32+ yrs of 'resting' in my garage.. Smiley    I want to keep it 'original unrestored' as much as possible, but there are some things you just need to replace (like lower ball joints after 70K miles; the uppers are very tight, but I damaged the boot disassembling with my pickle fork).  Other rubber parts needs replacing like A-arm bushings, etc.     (I DO want to drive it again; it's been too long).l Smiley
PS.  I cleaned up the bottomside of the floor (lying on my back under the elevated car), and it looks great now; almost worth the pain it caused on my old body).. Smiley

Gary
1942  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 survivor Z on ebay on: September 25, 2012, 03:52:17 PM
Wow.. I am watching it now... I love it, but I'm prejudiced..    Smiley
It is optioned identical to my car except for my orange houndstooth.   
I have NO idea how this car has remained so clean... unless it's been in a sealed bag for 30 yrs.    Mine has 70K miles (all in the first 10 yrs) and has sat in my garage since 1980.. and mine is not nearly as clean as that one (although I'm cleaning mine now).   
Does anyone know where this owner lives?

Gary 
1943  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 'late' '69 Z28 Valve Cover drippers on: September 25, 2012, 03:08:33 PM
a lot of people *restoring* '69 Z28s hunt for and find 'non dripper' VC's because that is what they are told was 'original'...    I'm fairly certain in my own mind that lots of 'late production 1969  350 hp Corvettes and Z28's got dripper type VC's in the factory.   I've had many people with late cars write me and tell me their cars also had dripper VC's, but they had believed they'd been changed (due to the 'common information' that '69's didn't have drippers and '70's did have drippers.    Based on the evidence from many inputs, it is also possible that there was not a 'changeover' date when they switched, but instead at some point in mid-summer '69, the VC was redesigned for the drippers (an improvement but without any other impact or appearance change), and when the new production came in, they began being used (mixed with any leftover dripper-less covers).   There's no reason Chevrolet would have declared ''69's do not get drippers and '70's do get drippers!   The VC design was updated and the parts were used when they came in...
1944  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 69 brake calipers on: September 21, 2012, 12:11:18 AM
Going back to the date codes for a moment, there are 'cast dates' on the calipers, and also stamped dates:   on my two calipers from my 09C (1969) Z28,  on one caliper was a cast code of 143 (23May), with stamped date of 168 (17June).   On the other, was a cast date of 188 (7July), and a stamped date of 227 (15August).   All of these dates seem reasonable to me for calipers.   Am I interpreting the cast and stamped dates correctly?   The castings are done, then some time later, (3 to 5 weeks later in my caes), the parts are machined, the calipers built/assembled, and the assembly dates stamped in.   Note:  My '227 stamped date actually seemed to be 00227, but I interpreted it the same way?

Gary
1945  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Charlotte Autofair September 20-23 on: September 20, 2012, 05:52:22 PM
Thanks Phillip,

I think I will do that since it's 'late' to make this one..
Gary
1946  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Sound bites of stock '69 Z28 exhaust systems on: September 20, 2012, 05:33:13 PM
Stainless steel exhausts generally sound a bit 'tinny'.....   and that may account for whatever you heard...
Gary
1947  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Source for 'EY' Coil Springs for '69 Z28/RS?? on: September 20, 2012, 05:29:34 PM
After getting Bills message, I did what I should have done previously, and checked online for 'moog coil spring specifications', and found the following springs which might be *closest* to what we need on our Camaros.
Spring #    Inside Dia    Bar Dia    Load rate (lbs)    Spring Rate (Lbs/in.)    Free Height    Install Height    Ends Type
5370               3.63     0.64              2022                  357                        15.94                 10.25                TT
6310               3.63     0.63              1928                  329                        16.12                  10.25                 TT
6312               3.68     0.64               1800                  337                        16.06                  10.75               TT
6320               3.68     0.64               1724                  380                        15.29                  10.75                 TT
6314               3.68     0.61               1644                   289                        16.44                  10.75                 TT
6308               3.68     0.64               1607                   380                        14.98                  10.75                 TT

I'm leaning towards the lowest (10.25") installed height springs, which I believe is closer to where the original Z28 springs sat (although I don't have factual information on this, and I do have some concern over tire scrubbing (std size tires with RS package).   Being a bit stiff sprung is OK with me, so I'm thinking that the 5370 or 6310 might be the best choice  (my RS/cowl car is about 90 lbs heavier in the front than base z28).   What do you guys think?   Anyone with any applicable experience here?   (There was no information in the spec sheet for number of coil loops)..

PS.  I'm also awaiting information from 'coilsprings.com' to see what they recommend...

Gary
1948  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Source for 'EY' Coil Springs for '69 Z28/RS?? on: September 20, 2012, 03:21:48 PM
Bill,  thanks a lot!   I think that's exactly what I was looking for... the 6312 might be what I need with my extra 90 lbs or so weight over a standard Z28; and should push the ride height down to the right level.  Do you have a source for getting that information on the various Moog springs?   i don't want my Z28 sitting up like an SS... Smiley

Gary
1949  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Source for 'EY' Coil Springs for '69 Z28/RS?? on: September 20, 2012, 12:29:52 PM
I did a little research over on Team Camaro, and most of the coil spring discussion was between the Moog 6308 and Moog 6320 units, but when I checked thru some of the auto parts suppliers (ie. Advance Auto Parts), they actually list the Moog 6314 or 6312 for the 69 Z28...   Without having the actual spring specs, it makes it difficult to determine if one of them  might be better (or adequate).   Z28's, even with less weight on the front than non-Z28 camaros of the same year, always sat a little lower in front which makes me think the Z28 spring was shorter.   The one I removed (EY) has 8 loops and 15-3/8 to 15-1/2 uncompressed length on removal.   
Can anyone comment on either of these parts which might help?

Gary / 69Z28-RS
1950  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Charlotte Autofair September 20-23 on: September 20, 2012, 12:16:04 PM
I'd love to go...  checking on the distance to drive...  Smiley
442 miles..  8 hrs..  per Mapquest.    Is it worth driving all day Friday and Sunday for one day there (Saturday)??

Gary / 69z28-RS
Pages: 1 ... 128 129 [130] 131 132 ... 156
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.485 seconds with 19 queries.