CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2014, 07:09:32 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.
106510 Posts in 12421 Topics by 4787 Members
Latest Member: Oilron14
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13
91  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 window fuzzies - ordered Repops on: July 25, 2013, 07:11:05 PM
Jeff68 had good luck with PUI. No one else has chimed in a with any other recommendations so I will try the PUI.

Does anyone know where to order the PUI from? I checked their website and they do not sell direct to the public.
92  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1968 Horns on: July 24, 2013, 09:00:46 PM
This is where they were on my car. I can't verify that this is the factory location, though. I had my front end apart many years ago and could not say now if the horns were put back correctly. My location differs from the photo posted by cook_dw. Maybe someone could tell me if mine were in the wrong place.

93  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 window fuzzies - ordered Repops on: July 24, 2013, 08:17:15 PM
I spoke with Steele today. The guy I talked with couldn't have been nicer. He confirmed that they farm this part out. I explained the problems I was having and before I could even ask for a refund, he offered it to me. He gave me a return number to write on the box, said UPS would come by to pick it up, and that he was going to refund my money. Couldn't have been easier!
94  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 window fuzzies - ordered Repops on: July 23, 2013, 11:36:54 PM
Here is a scan of the sticker on the Repops box. Just for the heck of it, I Googled that part number....CA161A. It comes up as the same item from Classic Industries for only $99.99.

95  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 window fuzzies - ordered Repops on: July 22, 2013, 05:54:36 PM
I am going to send these back. I'll give the PUI a try.

Thanks for the info...................Dave
96  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / '68 window fuzzies - ordered Repops on: July 21, 2013, 10:53:19 PM
I just received a set of interior and exterior window fuzzies from Steel Rubber Products for my '68 coupe with the deluxe interior and reveal belt line moldings. I choose Steele after researching peoples opinions on this forum and CRG. I am a little bewildered by what I received.  When I opened the shipping box, there was another box in side containing Repops brand fuzzies. There was no mention on Steele's website about then supplying Repops brand.

I thought, well let me check them out and see how they are. If they are fine, the Repops thing is not a big deal. I started out trying to test fit the exterior fuzzies that attach to the reveal molding on the quarter panel. The first problem I had is that the little tabs that fit into the reveal molding and then get bent over are not cleanly punched out. I can't pry then open. I can't even get a thin cutting blade under them to pry them up....... So I set those aside and tried test fitting the fuzzy to reveal molding on the door. I was able to pry these tabs up but the tabs are not centered like the originals. They are offset causing the fuzzy to sit to high and not rest properly on the reveal molding. You can see in my pictures how the original fits under the ridge on the top od the inside flange of the reveal molding and the Repop hits that ridge

Another thing that concerns me is that I paid top dollar for these. Steele's price was the most expensive of any reproductions I have seen. $180 plus $18 shipping. I just saw the same set of Repops on Ebay for $139 with free shipping under "Buy It Now." I wanted to check the price from Repops directly but their website is "under construction." Can anyone say what they paid for the same set of Repops.

So I guess the questions I am asking is....... why did I get Repops from Steele?

Has anyone had the same problems with tabs?

And did I pay too much?


97  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 Standard gas cap fitment problems on: July 15, 2013, 08:31:22 PM
Thank you for the info.......Dave
98  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 Standard gas cap fitment problems on: July 10, 2013, 01:52:27 PM
Yes I am...... The centering of the cap is not as bad as it looks in the picture. The angle I took it at and the flash caused a shadow making it look more off center...... I will adjust it to get it better though.
99  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 Standard gas cap fitment problems on: July 10, 2013, 07:59:35 AM
If I can't get mine fitting any better, at least it's good to know I am not alone and that the originals might not have been much better.

100  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 Standard gas cap fitment problems on: July 09, 2013, 08:30:37 PM
68Zproject and lakeholme........are your tailpanels and gas caps original to the car, GM replacements, or reproductions ?
101  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 wheel rear wheel opening molding correctness. on: July 09, 2013, 08:19:23 PM

When I bought my car in 1978, I went to the Chevy dealership and ordered a bunch of new trim, including four new wheel opening moldings. My car is not an RS. I always save and packrat receipts. These are the part numbers from my order. These moldings are the ones I still have and they are the short ones........For whatever that is worth.

102  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Remove trim tag or not ? on: July 02, 2013, 05:12:43 PM
Thanks for all the replies.......I am going to follow my first instinct and leave the tag alone.

My body was rebuilt a while back at a shop that just does panel replacements and no paint. The firewall was blasted and epoxy primed at that shop. The tag was well protected when they did it. It is at another shop now for final body work and paint.

Thanks again........Dave
103  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / '68 wheel rear wheel opening molding correctness. on: July 01, 2013, 10:41:49 PM

I had asked a question a couple of weeks ago about how to correctly position a '68 rear wheel opening molding on a reproduction fender with no molding screw holes drilled in it for reference. I got the answer I needed but now am wondering about a couple of other things. I was told the front edge of the molding should stop like this for a non Rally Sport.

And the rear edge should go all the way to the bottome of the opening like this.

My first question is this. The picture below is a '67. Look at the bottom of the forward edge of the molding and how far it goes down and how it conforms the the shape of the body. This is different from my '68 GM molding.  So is this a " '67 only " molding and wrong for a '68?

This is a picture of the rear bottom edge of my GM passenger side molding held up near my rear wheel opening. My quarter panel is a reproduction. The shape of the bottom of the molding does not match the shape of quarter panel here. In fact, when you put the molding on and line it up with the bottom of the opening, there is no metal behind the screw hole in the molding.

Is the quarter panel not shaped right here?

104  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / '68 Standard gas cap fitment problems on: July 01, 2013, 07:31:12 PM
I am trying to find just how close a '68 standard gas cap should follow the contour of the tail panel.

I have a a reproduction tail panel. When I put my original filler tube and gas cap on, the fit was terrible. I attributed at least part of the problem to the fact that the flange on my original filler tube was out of whack. The angle of the flange to the tube wasn't consistant all the way around. I am sure the fact that the tail panel is a reproduction has something to do with it too.

I bought a new filler tube and gas cap from CHQ. The fit is better but the cap still sticks out a little at the top and about a 1/8 or 3/16 inch on the bottom. It stuck out a little on the sides but I was able to put a little pressure on the sides of the cap and bend it a little so that the side are fairly flush with the tail panel.

So my questions are:     Were these gas caps completely flush with the tail panel all the way around when they left the factory or did they stick out some?

                                   If they were flush, what can I do to get a better fit?

The attached photos are of the new cap. The second photo is from the top looking down. I could not get it to orient the right way.


105  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Remove trim tag or not ? on: July 01, 2013, 05:51:02 PM
Just looking for a suggestion on which way to go with this. My '68 is at the paint shop now and the firewall is going to painted. My painter is asking me if I want to remove the trim tag to make sure there is no rust behind it, and then re-attach it.....I know anyone who has replaced a cowl has had to do this.

It would be nice to know it there was any rust back there and address it. My concern is re-attaching it with the right rivets and the right sealant inside and making it look like it was never off. Also, the tag is bent forward a little at the top and sticks out from the firewall.... more than a 1/16 inch but less than 1/8 inch. I could never straighten that without it removed.

My firewall wasn't rusty before the restoration started so I don't if there is a real concern for rust behind it or not. The attached photo is before any resoration started. AND I AM WELL AWARE OF THE FEELINGS OUT THERE CONCERNING MESSING WITH THESE TAGS.......My gut tells me to just leave it alone....but I am wondering what others think.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13
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 0.088 seconds with 18 queries.