CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 04, 2015, 10:23:33 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.
110434 Posts in 12758 Topics by 4891 Members
Latest Member: Sixgun17
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 22
16  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: original engine on: January 13, 2015, 04:53:09 PM
So if I'm reading it correctly, Fisher's "A" week of August 1967 would have run Sunday 7th through Saturday 13th.

17  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: original engine on: January 13, 2015, 11:52:57 AM
Keep in mind that the 08A where A is the "week" of August, does not necessarily match up exactly with an August 1967 calendar.  Here's and old thread link below that discusses this.  Given this, you may have more separation between the engine build date and the Fisher scheduling date than you think.  IMO you're okay.  It's doubtful for a 327/210 car that anyone would go through a lot of effort in finding a "date correct" replacement engine or attempt a re-stamp.

18  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Rally wheel dating on: December 22, 2014, 11:53:02 AM
There was a DG wheel discussion on this forum back in September:

I've never seen a 67 model year DG wheel with a year stamp of 66, so I'm wondering if they just started that year & month stamp in January 1967?

19  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: This Pic got me thinking.. on: December 02, 2014, 12:14:42 PM
Not saying it's the case here, but sometimes the semi flat black will reflect enough light to where it almost appears white in older b/w pictures, especially if a flash was used and depending on angles.  Sort of an optical illusion.
20  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 lower control arm won't fit in subframe on: November 06, 2014, 12:50:49 PM
Thanks for tip on the chassis service manual but I don't have one of those and I have to get these control arms in tomorrow.


May be too late, but looks like you can still download the 67 service manuals here, probably little to no difference between a 68.
21  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Body Stamping Plants on: November 06, 2014, 10:11:21 AM
Continuing on the T code -  there was a Ternstedt Division of Fisher Body in Detroit, but it appears they didn't do body panel stamping, and the Trenton NJ plant (and later Columbus OH plant) were expansion/spin-offs of this plant.

Another location I though of was Tarrytown, NY.  But from what little I could find it appears this was a GM assembly plant with a Fisher Body division co-located, possibly similar to Norwood.  So in my mind, unlikely they were the source of the T code sheet metal.   

22  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Body Stamping Plants on: November 05, 2014, 05:34:15 PM
I tried researching this the past two days, and it's been a little complex with not a lot of info on the internet.  From what I've found, it appears the plants were often in flux, with changing roles over the years.  Sometimes stamping operations, sometimes body assembly, sometimes hardware, interior, etc.  Also, some seemed to have been referred to by various names - sometimes the nearest big town, sometimes the actual town, sometimes the county, sometimes the street location, and the oldest Fisher plants in Flint and Detroit even went by numbers.  My best guess as to the Fisher stamping plants at the time is:

*Wyoming, MI - 36th & Buchanan
*Grand Blanc, MI - South Saginaw Street
*Flint, MI - Bristol Road, sometimes referred to as Genesee (County), appears a tool & die plant was also in Flint
*Grand Rapids, MI - Alpine Avenue
*Kalamazoo, MI - Comstock Township
*Mansfield/Ontario, OH - West 4th Street0
*Hamilton/Fairfield, OH - Route 4
*Cleveland/Coit Road, OH (not sure what the did in 1966-1969)
*Marion, IN - West 2nd Street
*Chicago/Willow Springs, IL
*Pittsburgh/McKeesport, PA (aka West Mifflin, PA)

It appears a good number of these plant are abandoned, demolished, or repurposed today, with stamping operations now moved to other locations.  

The T code is still a mystery.  The only Fisher plant I ran across with an obvious T in the location/name was Trenton, NJ.  But it appears that plant made hardware and smaller parts.  

23  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Manchester United Players Refuse To Drive Camaros and Corvettes on: November 03, 2014, 03:30:40 PM
The steering wheel's on the wrong side!  Wink
24  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Body Stamping Plants on: November 03, 2014, 12:11:22 PM
Here's an old link where it was speculated that K was for Kalamazoo:

I also read once that the H was thought to be Hamilton/Fairfield in Ohio, which may make sense as a supplier to Norwood.  Here's shots of the abandoned plant:

I think all the metal on my LOS car is code T, maybe some plant further west?

UPDATE - here's where I read about Hamilton:

25  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Rare Stripe and Bumper Package? on: October 10, 2014, 08:48:15 AM
Can you post the dimensions for those stripes? I want to make sure my body man gets it right the first time  Shocked
26  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 Camaro L30/PG ?? 12 or 10 bolt rear? on: October 08, 2014, 09:12:19 AM
I saw this one on CL last week.  It appears to me it's a standard hood with the grilles slapped on, in about the same location as an SS hood.  They may have also used the additional Nova piece that the grilles set in.
27  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Proper type of sealant or seal to use ??? on: October 07, 2014, 09:41:17 AM
Either one would be a suitable candidate, not sure which would be most factory correct.  The blocks you can buy at big box stores or electrical suppliers is a little darker, both can be easily formed to fit.  AMK also sells just the mastic sealing pieces to place under washers or stamped nuts:

28  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Chassis J nut, 67 bumper mount on: October 04, 2014, 10:51:04 AM
Paul - did you get this resolved?  I found these 1/2 - 13 aftermarket j-nuts at Carlisle yesterday, I think Auveco brand although the longer one has a script m.  The one on the left appears to be the same size as factory but has a hex head.  Let me know if you want more info.   

29  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 DG rallys on: September 04, 2014, 10:53:06 PM
Here's a few shots of inside the rim on 67 DG wheels.  You can see the year and a digit for what I assume is the month.  The stamp is usually near a ridge and hard to see or partial.  I've not seen any with 66 for the year, so maybe the earlier ones didn't have a date code?  It seems the earlier wheels have the DG stamp to the left of the valve stem hole as you look from the center of the wheel out to the edge.  The ones I found with date stamps had the DG to the right of the hole.

April 1967 stamp?

February 1967 stamp?

Indeterminate month 1967 stamp

30  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.

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

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

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 22
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 0.083 seconds with 18 queries.