CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 24, 2014, 08:36:10 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.
102343 Posts in 12080 Topics by 4664 Members
Latest Member: jjonesls1
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 46
46  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 26 year resto on: March 27, 2014, 04:53:50 PM
Good job Ed.  Nice looking car.
47  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: info on yenko/copo's on: March 21, 2014, 05:03:37 PM
Old thread I know but I am new here. This goes to  Williams  comment about the first  COPO  build date of the second week of January  and not  being a Yenko . I have a 69 Yenko with a  1 B build date verified by Vince. How do add pics, I'd be glad to show you.
Welcome Rich, and congrats on the car!  You will find that the build date on the Cowl Tag is the date the car was started.  Info. here:
Also, if your car is a 1 B build and a Yenko, it simply means it was built the same week as the one William spoke of.  And I think what William is saying is that the one he is talking about is the first one documented to this point.   It will have to be sorted out by VIN. if it was before or after.  They are always open to new info. here, if it can be documented.  That is what we're here for.

48  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1967 Camaro Pacesetter Sale on: March 21, 2014, 04:38:33 PM
67conv6cyl,  I was going to ask, does your car have the M11 Floor shift?  The stripe and the Floor shifter were no cost options.
49  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Interior color numbers for 67? on: March 21, 2014, 12:15:18 AM
  I think I see your point, the Turqouise  interior was only available in Deluxe interior in 67.  And I'm guessing very rare.
50  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Yanko on: March 19, 2014, 08:27:18 PM
Stories I've heard, there was only ever 2 Red YENKO's built.  Don't think this was one of them.  LOL!!!!
51  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1967 Camaro Pacesetter Sale on: March 19, 2014, 08:16:04 PM
Thanks Kurt, nice start, good info.
52  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Well My Camaro online Compadres, Time for a fight of my Life! on: March 16, 2014, 11:35:08 PM
Anyone have any news on Danny?

  Anybody, hear anything?
53  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: The CRG in Hemmings Motor News on: March 16, 2014, 11:33:11 PM
Maybe it means we're GREAT !!!
54  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: when we can no longer wrench... :) on: March 14, 2014, 11:17:32 PM
I'm 66, and I did Ground-up resto on my car when I was 63 - 64.  Of course I had a lot of help.  Got to say I am in prretty darn good health for my age.  I am a firm believer in "object in motion stays in motion" (hope I got that right)  I really try to stay active, even though I am retired.  I love to help my friends work on their cars.  I consider it "therapy".
55  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: How long have you owned your Camaro? on: March 11, 2014, 11:02:21 PM
   It is an early car built in 66 and was a 327/ 2bbl, 3 speed on the tree originally, factory Bolero red, black interior.

Cool story ds1;   Your car is very similar to mine  11A(66) LOS built,  327/2 bbl., Powerglide on the tree originally, Bolero Red with standard Black interior.  Difference is it was my sons first car, plan is it will go back to him eventually.  When I'm done playing.  LOL!
56  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 original part numbers on: March 11, 2014, 01:14:40 AM
Thanks all for the informatiom, the pad stamp is V0622ME.

That's a pretty late build, so I'd go with the 1107496 Starter, 1100693 Alternator, 3782608 W. Pump.
57  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100693 alternator. Need correct date for my car. on: March 11, 2014, 01:10:14 AM
My 1100693 Alternator is dated 6 K 21,  Block is dated 10 26 per the front pad.  This engine is in a 11 A built Camaro.  So Alternator date is only 5 days prior to Engine build date.  I know,,,this seems pretty close, but I'm pretty sure it is the original.
58  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Can 67 SB Engine Frame mounts be accidently switched? on: March 10, 2014, 04:31:38 PM

Sounds like you need to get that thing "un-packed" and start getting pictures posted. The sooner you get her back out of her cocoon, the sooner the weather will straighten out (weather is waiting on you and not vice-verse). Have a great day.

ko-lek-tor, we have had 3-4 days in a row now in 30's and 40's, may hit 50 today.  So I am "chomping at the bit" to get the car out.  But it is wet and sloppy and muddy, and we still a LOT of snow to melt.  So it won't be soon.  there are some pics. of my car here:
59  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Can 67 SB Engine Frame mounts be accidently switched? on: March 10, 2014, 03:43:27 PM
  Isn't there a lip that is turned down on one side of the mount and overhangs the frame cross member? I would think that would prevent the reverse mounting. I know my BB mounts have that turned down lip.

  Mike, Thanks!  Yes, I believe you are right about the lip.  I hadn't thought about that.  The car is in storage right now so I can't check today.  I did some searching, and found some pics. from different angle.  As I stated my Mounts are the originals, so I'm sure they have the lip.   Thanks again!
60  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Can 67 SB Engine Frame mounts be accidently switched? on: March 09, 2014, 11:36:46 PM
  This has been bothering me for some time now.  When I first got the car together I had some overheating issues, nothing major it hit 200 a few times.  When I'd get it out on the road it'd cool right down, I have a 180 Thermostat.  I finally figured out that the Fan was not "in" the Shroud far enough (ie: half way).  I added a 1 1/2 in. spacer and have had no issue since.  When I put the car together I used all original or correct parts, so what has been bothering me is WHY did I need that extra 1 1/2 in.?  The other night the thought came to me, that maybe the Engine Frame mounts got switched side to side. Is this possible?  Has anyone run into this?  As I remember there was no issue with the bolt holes lining up.  AND, if that did happen, would the Trans. Crossmember still line up with no issue?  As I said the car is running fine now with no issues, this just "bugs" me that I needed that spacer.  Any ideas are appreciated.  I'm a little OCD and I just want it right.  My wife bought me a T-shirt for Christmas says; I have OCD and ADD,  so everything has to be perfect, but only for a little while.  Fits!!!   Thanks!

BTW; this pic. is of repops, mine were the originals.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 46
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 0.087 seconds with 18 queries.