Messages

31

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 tag & VIN questions …

« on: June 27, 2023, 04:15:40 PM »

Must be an ultra-rare 12 cylinder.  Did you read this yet?  I think your friend has a VIN tag problem.  Plus the tag finish looks brushed, instead of polished stainless.   

http://camaros.org/numbers.shtml#VIN


The cowl tag may be legit, but the experts here will need to verify. And looking at the trim tag, it's neither an SS or RS. 

32

General Discussion / Re: Bronze pedal bushings?

« on: June 12, 2023, 08:03:14 PM »

Or you might see if a place like McMaster Carr has something off-the-shelf that would work.  NFI

https://www.mcmaster.com/products/bushings/?s=bronze+bushings

 

33

General Discussion / Re: Run stamped code on door skin

« on: June 07, 2023, 05:48:33 PM »

I know the entire door had the stamp on the other inner section - in the area under the interior trim panel, as seen in this old thread:

http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=11258.msg88914#msg88914

 

34

General Discussion / Re: Original Drive Train Cars

« on: June 04, 2023, 08:09:47 PM »

Restamps are taboo for Camaros.  Same goes for fake documentation and removing trim tags, or moving them to a different car.  I've heard that Corvette judging allows restamping, but not certain.  Possibly why there are more so-called numbers matching Vettes.

35

Originality / Re: Power steering hose Clips.

« on: June 02, 2023, 08:53:23 PM »

A few old threads on the foam sleeves.  I seem to recall that Mustangs may have used a similar foam sleeve that was being reproduced

http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=14327.msg128013#msg128013

http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=3980.msg180040#msg180040


Found it, no idea it it would fit
https://www.cjponyparts.com/power-steering-hose-protector-sleeve-20-mustang-boss-302-boss-429-428cj-1969-1971/p/PSHPS/

36

Originality / Re: Factory-correct 67-69 Camaro convertible top dust boot bag 4485356

« on: May 30, 2023, 05:33:48 PM »

Yes that would appear to be the case.  Might also be why virtually no originals exist.  Owners probably removed the boot from the heavy plastic bag and tossed it out, without any thought.  Or it was only an over the counter parts item, and few paid that much for a heavy plastic bag.  I was going to try and chase back the part number and see if it was listed as superseding an early top boot bag with a different part number, under group 13.450, but lost interest. 

Is anything listed in the judging manuals?  A while back I was trying to  get info on original tops (the manufacturer's marking in the lower drover side rear window) but didn't get much response.  Not many originals left out there.

37

Originality / Re: Factory-correct 67-69 Camaro convertible top dust boot bag 4485356

« on: May 30, 2023, 02:41:28 PM »

I doubt the polyethylene bags were used back in the 40s and 50s.  The P&A would indicate the plastic bag was the currently available version/part that would work with 42-76 cars, not that this type is what originally came with the car.  Parts get superseded.  If you search GM top boot bag on eBay there are a few places still selling the plastic poly bag type.     

38

General Discussion / Re: Help identify my Camaro

« on: May 28, 2023, 01:42:15 AM »

On an L30 the speedo cable exited the firewall to the left of the steering column, L48 on the right.

http://www.camaros.org/l30m20.shtml

39

Originality / Re: 1969 09C underchassis original paint unrestored pics butternut yellow

« on: May 26, 2023, 05:56:00 PM »

Before you get rid of the original tank, assuming it'd original to your car, there is a research topic thread on this site, where you can submit your tank code info:

http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=5577.0

 

40

Originality / Re: Factory-correct 67-69 Camaro convertible top dust boot bag 4485356

« on: May 25, 2023, 02:29:46 PM »

New old stock reproduction - got to love the vendor-speak.  The P&A books sometimes just list "black", while most indicate black polyethylene film.  The only one I ran across with a different PN was for 64-65 Malibu.  Maybe the type with the snap were from an earlier era, or used on full size or higher-end cars.  But even Cadillacs indicate the same 4485356 part number.  I'll take another look at mine and see if there are any more details on the inside of the bag.     

41

Originality / Re: Factory-correct 67-69 Camaro convertible top dust boot bag 4485356

« on: May 25, 2023, 12:57:00 AM »

More photos

42

Originality / Re: Factory-correct 67-69 Camaro convertible top dust boot bag 4485356

« on: May 25, 2023, 12:55:43 AM »

If you look at the "OE style" ones on HBC website, the inside is white.  Mine is black.  Looking at it, it almost appears they used black convertible top material "inside out" to make it.  It didn't cost much more than a repop.

 

 

43

Originality / Re: Factory-correct 67-69 Camaro convertible top dust boot bag 4485356

« on: May 24, 2023, 09:08:33 PM »

One showed up on eBay late last year and I bought it, over buying a plastic repro bag.  Same P/N but mine looks a little different.  The bag had more of a cloth/material look to it, and a snap on the flap.  It was in a GM box so didn't come from the assembly plant in a luggage compartment.  This is the poor photo from the auction.  I'll get a better shot of it, to include the box and any dates, and post later.

44

Restoration / Re: 67 water pump mounting bolts

« on: May 23, 2023, 01:16:08 AM »

Also if a factory AC car, check out UPC C60 in the AIM.  The compressor bracket goes on top of the pump on the passenger side, and likely requires two longer bolts.  The assembly plant would remove the two from the engine plant, when installing the bracket and the required longer bolts.  I don't think anything affected the driver side bolts. 

45

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Caveat Emptor...block stamp

« on: May 08, 2023, 08:05:03 PM »

In the description he's now claiming it's a faint HG, not HC.  Looks like a clear C to me.   Maybe he'll blur that picture next.