CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 30, 2014, 07:03:03 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.
104953 Posts in 12264 Topics by 4727 Members
Latest Member: Z10 Paceman
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21
16  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. 
17  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Original dealer info for 1st gens is available on: July 09, 2014, 09:24:28 AM
A week ago I posted that NCRS sent me my car dealer #166 in zone#35. they had no info on that dealer #. During an extensive on-line search I found on
www.drnew.com and one other site that a "Judge Chevrolet" and sometime after added olds and geo to there name. It was a 60s thru 80s dealer changing to "Beacon Chevy" after that, going out of business around 2000 in Hightstown NJ. This dealership name would fit perfectly before "June Chevrolet" that was dealer #167. I even have a pic. of it before it was recently torn down and rebuilt as part of a strip mall area. Any thoughts on this. Any one from that area? Thanks, Gary.

You can submit info on dealers to NCRS, to help fill in missing database information.  See the bottom section of this web page:

http://www.ncrs.org/dealercodes.php

 
18  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Original dealer info for 1st gens is available on: July 08, 2014, 08:25:51 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.
19  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: L48 alternator part number on: July 07, 2014, 10:08:39 PM
Alternator was installed at the assembly plant not the engine plant, so probably 1 to 3 or 4 weeks prior to the assembly date.
20  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: K79 option on: July 07, 2014, 10:03:39 PM
As was discussed in your "L48 alternator part number" thread, the 61 amp 1100750 for a car with air cond.  It was required for RPO C60
21  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Trunk Lid Identification on: July 07, 2014, 09:56:09 PM
Lid on a 67 11B LOS, stamped T43 (the 3 almost looks like a 5) and does not have the oval hole in the center toward the front edge.  One hole to the right of latch plate and two to the left were drilled out when a PO added the spoiler.  FWIW this is a convertible and the LH quarter is stamped H43 2 and the right is H43 3.







22  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Trunk Lid Identification on: June 28, 2014, 03:25:50 PM
Here's an old thread on early 67 lids with pictures, apparently LOS and NOR were different:
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=9554.0
23  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Original dealer info for 1st gens is available on: June 24, 2014, 11:27:35 AM
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?
24  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 AC Muffler on: June 17, 2014, 09:48:15 AM
HBC carries repop mufflers, not sure how correct they are.
25  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: L48 alternator part number on: June 16, 2014, 09:19:42 AM
Yep, 1100750 61 amp.  See UPC C60 Sheet C1 in the AIM.
26  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Original dealer info for 1st gens is available on: June 04, 2014, 03:10:34 PM
Got one that says "GM Overseas Distribution" Possibly the Netherlands. Bummer... Ya think this might have been a serviceman working overseas and ordered it up? The original Delivery Dealer = Dealer Code 1 Zone 21 . Anybody know what or where that is?...Danny

Look back a few pages, Kurt posted a long list of Zones as of 1969 and #21 was "export"
27  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Dealership Memorabilia & Dealership Info on: May 26, 2014, 10:34:37 AM
Rosenthal is still around the DC area, I know they sell Honda/Acura and other imports. not sure if they still have a Chevy dealership in the area.
28  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 Z stamp on: May 17, 2014, 09:13:38 AM
Don't see any broach marks and the area of the stamping looks like it has been played with (cleaned up) - in addition to the font of the actual VIN stamp looking pretty large relative to that of the engine assembly code stamp from what I see..

Just to address the font size - I've seen many LOS cars where the partial is smaller than the engine code
29  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Look what my wife brought home for me just now. on: May 12, 2014, 05:14:25 PM
A long shot, but maybe call and see if they have cameras covering the parking lot?
30  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: LG7 behind rear seat and writing on the side of the floor pan hump on: April 30, 2014, 01:35:31 PM
Ok no one has seen that writing on the inside before??? Why would someone take the time to write the September 1968 date? Could this be the first one of that color produced? Maybe this is something to look for in the early 69 cars? The 1st is maybe the 1st shift or first run? B/SS/37 = Base /Super Sport/ 3 7 = Z28 (style trim and not) this is quite the curiosity, even if the guy decided to eat his lunch in that car and thought "hmm let me make write that his is the first green one Im doin" Maybe there is the the 1st blue and first red etc out there. Is this a Los  or Nor car?

Lots of maybes there.  It looks nothing like the known markings from the assembly lines, where cars were rolling down the line and markings were a quick scrawl with a crayon or a paint marking.   IMHO it's too new in appearance, too long and wrong format, and was not a factory marking.  I highly doubt someone in an assembly line would go to the trouble to write 1969CHEV when it was already obvious.   
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21
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 0.08 seconds with 18 queries.