CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 01, 2014, 03:01:12 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.
103753 Posts in 12184 Topics by 4697 Members
Latest Member: bobs67
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Correct Starter for 1967 SS L48 W/Powerglide on: August 27, 2014, 09:19:53 PM
If you're looking at the AIM, UPC 6 Sheet B3, the V8 starters they list on the diagram and in the revision record section are for a base 327.  These are the 7320 and 7496 you listed.

If you look at the UPC L48 Sheet A2 "V8 Engine 350 Non-Illustrated Parts", it lists a starting motor, and also tells you to see a parts list or bill of materials for the part number.  I don't think this documentation exists any longer.  From what I've read, it seems many think the 8338 is correct.  In Parts Catalogue No. 731A December 1972 it lists 1108338 as the correct starter for a 67 350, also used in 68 and 69, with the 1108400 being the service part number. 
http://gmpartswiki.com/getpage?pageid=53513

Looking at all the parts books can get confusing, I've seen instances where it looks like the 1107365 is listed for the 67 350 and 396 but maybe I'm reading it wrong
http://gmpartswiki.com/getpage?pageid=83153

Kurt was asking for information on known factory starters back in March, so there may be a research report in the works.

   
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 DG rallys on: August 21, 2014, 08:50:04 AM
I'll have access to five or six DG rims over Labor Day, I'll take some pics.
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Chassis J nut, 67 bumper mount on: August 19, 2014, 04:33:22 PM
The AMK is no longer available, been that status for a long time.

Here's a "close but no cigar" 7/16 j-nut set on eBay.  Seems no one makes these in 1/2-13 any longer:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/64-65-66-67-CAMARO-A-BODY-CHEVELLE-GTO-CUTLASS-GS-FRONT-BUMPER-TO-FRAME-J-NUTS-/151385832821?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item233f4c7d75&vxp=mtr

4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 DG rallys on: August 16, 2014, 12:24:23 PM
I have a set of 67 DG rally's. They have no date code that I can find. I heard these were good for that reason.
( No date code).
They are 14 x 6
Any info on them would be helpful.
Thanks.
TRC


There is no date code by the valve stem hole as the later wheels have.  There is a stamp on the "inside" wall of the wheel that cannot be seen once the tire is mounted, which I believe indicates the month and year, but I can't recall the exact format.  May be a letter for the month, thought I had a picture but didn't find one.
5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Chassis J nut, 67 bumper mount on: August 07, 2014, 02:50:49 PM
Yeah, that 1/2 sounds closer to the size I remember.  3/8 seemed a little small for a bumper bracket bolt.  You'll most likely have to some up with an alternative.
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Chassis J nut, 67 bumper mount on: August 06, 2014, 04:53:42 PM
You may have seen this, your car info may be desired to add to their research data.  November-December was thought to be the timeframe for the mixed usage of subframe components - same time they were switching over to frames with the holes.  My 11/15 build LOS has no holes.

http://www.camaros.org/TopicsofResearch.shtml
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Chassis J nut, 67 bumper mount on: August 02, 2014, 08:20:38 PM
Here's an old thread, I don't believe AMK had the correct one, nor do I think any of the big parts vendors carry them.  Not enough early 67s around to warrant the cost of reproducing I would assume.
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=8513.0

You'll most likely have to come up with some substitution.  It's one of those parts made of Unobtainium.   
8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Original dealer info for 1st gens is available on: July 25, 2014, 07:24:55 PM
Got a reply back on my order 1096 today, saying no information on VIN 124677L117xxx  Sad  Anyone else have a problem with early 67 LOS documents?

Today I received an email from Marilyn Heitzman, stating that an error was made and they do have info on my car!  Not sure how they discovered this, unless the "no hits" were being re-looked, but this news made my day.  A credit had already been issued so I'll place a new order tonight.

Today I got my report, about 2 1/2 weeks after reapplying.  I bought the car near Atlanta in 1985, no docs and original L48 gone.  I'll probably forego the K19 setup on my date correct engine and just go with K24.  The NCRS report was:

Production Date 11/15/66 (same date I guess-timated awhile back)
Dealer Code 241, Zone 6
John Geer Chevrolet
Sacramento, CA

Looks like in 1982 they were d/b/a Parkwood Chevrolet.  Long trip from CA to GA.  I'll have to start digging!
 
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Door edge guards adell? on: July 25, 2014, 08:51:20 AM
And that company is still around today:
http://www.adellcorporation.com/products_services.asp
10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 Dog Dish Caps on: July 24, 2014, 12:44:52 PM
Maybe this helps?
http://www.camaros.org/options.shtml#wcovers

11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Question about original dealer license plate frames on: July 18, 2014, 01:31:59 PM
Probably just whenever the bought a new batch or changed vendors.  I seem to recall they usually just put them on the rear plate, so the guy behind you at the traffic light would see who sold it.  If you use two, seems you would want them to match.
12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: cruise master-air filter on: July 17, 2014, 01:16:22 PM
Documentation I have shows the orig. owner wanted this option on the car but it had to be installed at dealer.


Is the car originally a SBC with Powerglide?  With so few made, I imagine they could have also run into parts supply issues throughout the year.  Maybe one of our experts will chime in.  If you can post any documentation it may help.
13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: cruise master-air filter on: July 16, 2014, 10:10:48 PM
I don't see anything in the 67 AIM or the CRG RPO spreadsheet indicating it was not available from the factory until mid year.  Required a small block and powerglide for factory.  I've seen old threads here or at Team Camaro saying the dealer could order some sort of adapter to also install cruise on manual cars.
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Any info on Willapa Harbor Motor Company? on: July 11, 2014, 04:29:34 PM
I'd try contacting any Chambers of Commerce in that area or town websites, ask them about any old dealership or give them that street address in the dealer database.  Those comments in the dealer database may be old.  Here's an old thread showing what paperwork they might have been referring to

http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=9214.0

and here's the City of Raymond, WA website:
http://cityofraymond.com/  
15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1967 Camaro RS/SS on: July 10, 2014, 10:40:44 AM
IMO you should not make a blanket statement of "numbers matching", and will always need to describe the block as being "date correct and believed to be original/born with", since there is no number left to match.  Best to be up front than have someone later discover the partial VIN missing and start to question the rest of the car's integrity.  Also, Iíve seen a MU block with casting dates close to yours that was assembled, as I recall, on Aug 19th, so to me the October 7th engine assembly date stamp raises my eyebrow.  Iím not sure it would sit around that long before assembly, but I am not familiar with the inventory methods at engine plants.  Also, if it was decked one would think the engine assembly stamp would also be gone.  Why would they remove the partial and not the assembly date?  As already mentioned, post up some pics.

There are ways to try and pull the old number back up, using chemicals or special instruments.  Do an advanced search at the above left section and you should find old threads.  Might be worth a try.

FWIW, the engine I mention above was from an 11B car.  Seems the inventory control on L48s at the assembly plant must have been FIFO, with some stuck back in the corners and waiting awhile before getting pulled for assembly. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
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 0.363 seconds with 18 queries.