CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 03, 2014, 12:07:47 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.
103839 Posts in 12195 Topics by 4704 Members
Latest Member: MICKIES69
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46
661  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Early '67 Sub-frame on: August 16, 2009, 11:37:58 PM
  I am sending post in reply to info. on early '67 Sub-frame report.   My R-R(Bolero Red) '67 was built 11A (66) in LOS, it is basically a standard Coupe(12437) with 327 - 2 bbl. with Powerglide, Tinted Windshield (only),cowl tag Reads like this;
        11A               A638
  ST  67-12437 LOS 8032   BODY
  TR  760-Z               R-R   PAINT
        W  2M
   It has the early Sub-frame horns (no holes),  also I'd like to add that it has the metal Bucket seat backs.  hope this adds to your report.   

662  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct 67 Control Arm Shaft on: August 08, 2009, 08:56:50 PM
Thanks, Jon!   So I'm now assuming that my early LOS car is correct with one of each.   Brings me to another question now,  was one more prevalent on one side or other?   OR, doesn't really matter.   I really didn't notice any difference when I took them off, just when I got them back and laid them side by side.  Thanks again for all your help!
663  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Correct 67 Control Arm Shaft on: August 05, 2009, 02:11:13 AM
I am in the process of doing a complete restoration of my early '67 Sub-frame.  Per the report here it matches all the spefics of an earlly '67 Sub-frame. (ie; no holes on inside of frame"horns")   I have completely dis-assembled the front suspension.  I just received the Control Arms(A-frames) and Control Arm shafts back from having all the bushings pressed out.   And I just noticed the 2 shafts are different.  1 is more straight across the top and bottom edges, and 1 is more "dog-bone" shaped.  The first has some Gm part #'s -381904 GM 35 D on one side, and 1038 on the other.  the second has no part #'s that I can see.  I am attaching a picture.  I believe that first or top shaft in picture is the correct shaft, can anyone confirm this?   Thank you!!!!
664  Orphans - documentation or VIN-stamped drivetrains - in search of the original cars / 1967 - Orphans / Re: 67 Invoice's on: July 01, 2009, 12:49:14 AM
Do you have any LOS invoices?   I have 124377L113583,  I have found the partial Vin on the inside of the Heater Blower Motor and it matches.  I can send picture of the Cowl tag if you need.   Thanks1
665  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: AR stamped on Plug Wire Looms on: June 23, 2009, 12:00:21 AM
So who was the supplier, AR?   anybody know?
666  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / AR stamped on Plug Wire Looms on: June 21, 2009, 12:12:46 AM
  I have what I believe are the original Spark Plug wire looms for my '67 Camaro 327.   The 2-wire Looms that fasten to the out side Valve Cover hold-down bolts have an AR stamped on them.   Can somebody tell me what this AR stands for?   Thanks.
667  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct Seat Belts??? on: May 11, 2009, 03:01:24 PM
 Hi Kevin, I was giving this some more thought.    I worked on Assembly lines when I was younger, and at one point I was a Assembly line Serviceman, and I remember times when I was told to go get just a "hand-ful" of parts to finish up a run of something.    I also remember times that a "change-over" was done, and a part didn't get changed, and didn't get caught until it reached the inspection area.    Anything like this could explain.    Thanks again!   Mike
668  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct Seat Belts??? on: May 11, 2009, 11:32:49 AM
All of the belts are a complete matched set, all 4 date codes the same(40D66).   The 2 front are Model # 310 and the 2 back are Model # 311(IRVINGS would have been #210 and #211)    There are no retractors on these belts, which would have been correct for the early build date(11A).   And as I stated before even the length is correct, they have the Fisher Coach emblem on the standard buckle which I believe is also correct.   The back of the buckle has a part  ROBBINS-JR-6704.   Maybe this helps more, Thanks!!   Mike
669  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct Seat Belts??? on: May 10, 2009, 11:04:46 AM
Thanks Kurt, I really respect your opinion.   And I completely understand that there is an industry standard.   But, I live in an area where there is a GM plant within 90 miles, and a Chrysler plant within 50 miles.  And I am an avid Car enthusiast(I attend a lot of car events), I have talked to people who have worked at these plants, and have heard stories of how incorrect parts get into vehicles.  I have a friend who installed Glass in the Chrysler plant and he has told me how several different Date Codes would get on one rack.   I have personally seen (in the late 70's) a Brand New Chevy truck delivered to the owner with GMC Sierra emblems on the side.  And I've heard other stories.   Bottom line, considering the condition of both the car and the belts, and the fact that nearly everything else on this car codes out correct, I really believe these belts were original to the car.   They are a complete matched set, and I believe that the Date codes would be correct.(approx. 3 to 4 weeks before the car build date)   The belt lenghts are even correct, per your report.   Do you know what these belts should have been installed in?   Was that car line also built at the Van Nuys plant during this time period?   With respect!!!  Mike
670  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Correct Seat Belts??? on: May 09, 2009, 12:43:56 AM
Has the Seat Belt report been updated recently?   I have an 11A -67 Camaro Coupe built in LOS, I actually think the car was built the first day of Nov. due to the A638 code in upper right corner.   Anyhow, my question is,   The seat belts are ROBBINS   1967   MODEL# 310 front, and #311 rear.   Date Code 40D66.   I have read your report on Seat Belts, and it states that ROBBINS seat belts were used in other Chevrolet lines but not in the Camaro.    These belts appear in every way to be what was original to the car, could they be correct?   The car has been in my family for the past 21 years, and they were not changed during that time.   And it just doesn't seem to make sense that someone would go to the trouble of changing out Seat Belts and coming up with the correct date codes.   I'm finding almost everything else on the the car is coding out correct.   Thanks for any help!
671  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 15 X 6 DC Rally Wheels on: April 23, 2009, 11:01:27 PM
Thanks again, Paul!   You've been a lot of help.   Thanks for the link!
672  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 15 X 6 DC Rally Wheels on: April 22, 2009, 10:15:38 PM
  Thanks Paul, I understand what you are saying about offset.   The back of the center of the wheel (where it mounts to the hub), is almost "on center" .06 isn't much.    Whereas .50 is a half inch.   I guess I understand "backspacing" better than I do offset, in sense of #'s.   So is it .44" more backspace?  Or .44" less backspace?    Thanks again.    Mike
673  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 15 X 6 DC Rally Wheels on: April 22, 2009, 03:04:07 PM
 Hi Paul, it was my understanding that the JK code at the end of the 15 X 6 JK, was the rim profile.   And from info. I have the DF wheel also has the JK profile.   I understand that the offset or backspacing could be different, do you know how much?   FYI; I'm assuming you looked at my reply above as to (I intend to use these wheels) and how I intend to build this car.   At this point I'm not planning on putting original Dual Piston Brake Calipers on the car(I'm planning to use an available kit), will this make any difference?   I have maintained all along that I don't intend to pass this off as an original Z/28, one look at the Cowl tag anyone with any Camaro knowlege will know this car was built too early to be a original Z.   Thanks for your help!     Mike
674  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 15 X 6 DC Rally Wheels on: April 21, 2009, 08:31:13 PM
Sorry Warren, I do plan to use them.   My plan is to build my car to a Z/28 "tribute/resto-mod".    And I plan to use 2 of these on the front, and 1 in the trunk.   I plan to use 15 X 8's on the rear.
675  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 15 X 6 DC Rally Wheels on: April 21, 2009, 02:45:37 AM
OK, I hope this works I am going to try to attach a photo.   I did some closer searching on the outside of the rim (between the beads) and found these stampings.   Would be on the back half of center, nearer the bead.  Would service replacements have had this Kelsey Hayes logo on them?   Also, you can see fairly clearly that this wheel is stamped with a 12 & a 67, this is the wheel I thought was a Dec. 67 wheel.   I can also make out a 4 & a 68 on the wheel that I thought was an Apr. 68.  The third wheel also has this same logo with a small A  & a 8   stamped under the 15 X 6 JK.   the A & the 8  are stamped at various angles compared to the straight line of the 15 X 6 JK.   Do these stampings add any clarity to the date codes?   ThanX!
Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 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 0.403 seconds with 18 queries.