Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - bowtie68iho

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
I made this post to provide our Camaro community with detailed information on the factory-correct 1967-69 Camaro convertible top dust boot bag (Part Number 4485356).

It was over a decade ago that I purchased on eBay an NOS convertible top dust boot bag for my 1968 convertible.  The boot bag was in its original GM parts envelope.  See attached photos. 

Neither the boot, nor the boot bag, however, were depicted in any of the First-Generation Camaro assembly instruction manuals (AIMs).  More specifically, it was not listed anywhere in the AIM Miscellaneous Shipping List (i.e., 1967 AIM UPC 0, Sheets C1-C1.5; 1968 AIM UPC 0, Sheet C1; 1969 AIM UPC 0, Sheets C2-C3).  The boot and boot bag were also not depicted in either the “1967 Custom Feature Optional Accessories” booklet or the “Custom Feature Accessories for 1968 Camaro” booklet that were included in the Camaro’s glovebox by the factory in 1967 and 1968, respectively.  A similar accessories booklet was not listed in the 1969 AIM Miscellaneous Shipping List (i.e., 1969 AIM UPC 0, Sheets C2-C3).  I believe that it is unlikely that GM would sell their convertibles without a boot (and by extension, a boot bag), leaving it/them to be sold by dealers only.  If offered as an optional accessory, they would surely be depicted in the custom feature accessories booklets.  It would therefore be reasonable to assume that the boot and boot bag were furnished by Fisher Body and placed in the luggage compartment (i.e., trunk) with the boot stowed inside the bag…even though neither were on the Miscellaneous Shipping List.

For those looking for this part for their car, it is Part Number 4485356 under Group 13.450 and has had several descriptions over the three plus decades that it has been in GM parts catalogs: Bag, Dust Boot; Bag Assembly, Boot Retainer; Bag, Folding Top Dust Boot Storage; Bag Assembly, Folding Top Dust Boot Retainer; Bag, Soft Dust Boot Storage; and Bag Assembly, Dust Boot Storage.  It appears to have been in various GM parts catalogs from at least 1942 through 1976.  Page 295 of the General Motors Parts History Catalog 87B (1990, November) lists the part as “discontinued.”  At least one GM parts catalog described the bag material as a “(polyethylene film) (black)” (Source: Chevrolet Parts and Accessories Catalog P&A 30 (1970, October), p. 13-2).

For those interested in possibly reproducing a factory correct version of this boot bag for our hobby, here are the particulars of my NOS one:

Color: Black (i.e., the only color manufactured by GM)
Material: Tubular construction (i.e., with no flap or closure mechanism on the open end) of polyethylene material cut to length and heat-sealed about 5/16” from the closed end.  See attached photo.  The material was most likely linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE)…similar to modern tear-resistant trash bags. (However, one cannot be certain without either the original GM specifications or conducting a chemical analysis.) 
Dimensions:
Length: 41-3/4”
Width (measured while flat): 16-1/4”
Diameter: 10.345”
Thickness: 0.19 mm (7.48 MIL)
Approximate Volume: 15 gallons


Hope this helps everybody,
Bernie

2
I recently purchased on eBay an NOS exhaust heat stove 3916302 for a 1968 small block Cheverolet (SBC) with automatic transmission.  It had the original GM parts sticker affixed to it (see photos in this post).  Exhaust heat stove 3916302 is depicted in the 1968 Camaro Assembly Instruction Manual under UPC M35, Sheet A22 for both RPO L30 (327 ci) and L48 (350 ci) engines with Powerglide (RPO M35) transmissions.

I already had an original one on my 350 L48 auto car, but it was in used condition with some very minor pitting and was painted in high temp cast iron color to preserve it against rust.  There was no way for me to determine the original finish on the one installed on my car because it was glass bead blasted to bare metal at some time in the past.

Several past CRG posts on the 68 SBC exhaust heat stove had replies that speculated whether the original finish was unpainted galvanized steel (like the 69 NOS heat stoves sold over the GM counter that we see occasionally on eBay) or was dipped in semi-gloss black paint before being installed on the engine by the factory.  On September 20, 2021, Ed ('bertfam') said "All these kinds of parts were dip-primed semi-gloss black, but the paint burned off the first time the car was started!" in his Reply #2 to the following CRG post ("L48 heat stove on driver side exhaust manifold"): http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=19528.0.  That same post had photos of an original heat stove that post originator 'dlshady' said might have been a semi-gloss black.

Well, the NOS 68 SBC exhaust heat stove that I bought appears to have a satin black paint finish...not quite shiny enough to be a semi-gloss.  It would therefore seem reasonable for originality purposes (and concours Legends Judging) to first paint the 68 SBC exhaust heat stove with VHT FlameProof Coating 1,300-2,000-degree F flat black aerosol paint, then follow-up with VHT FlameProof Coating 1,300-2,000 degree F satin clear aerosol paint.

For those looking for this part for their car, it is Part Number 3916302 under Group 3.417 (Carburetor Air Heater Stove) and is listed in at least the following two GM references:

- Camaro 1967-68 Master Parts Catalogue No. 681A (1968, July) (Original work 1967, November), p. 40 lists it as: "1968/327 AND 350 ENGINE"

- Chevrolet Parts and Accessories Catalog P&A 34A (1969, February), p. 3-19 lists it as: "68 ALL w/A.T. (8 cyl.)"

Bernie

3
I have a pair of original black Madrid grain vinyl sunshades (i.e., sun visors) on my 68 Camaro convertible.  Recently, I came into possession of another pair of original 68 (or 67?) convertible black sunshades that I was intending on restoring for another person's car.  What piqued my interest was the shape of the vinyl piping clips on the pair that I just acquired.  The sunshades on my car have the same shape chrome-plated steel clips on the vinyl piping both inboard (i.e., by the inside rear view mirror support) and outboard (i.e., by the sunshade support assembly).  All of the clips were magnetic and appear to be stainless steel, not chromed steel.  Some stainless steel is magnetic so it is not a defining method to rule it out.  The other pair needing to be restored have the same inboard vinyl piping clips as on my car; however, the other pair have rectangular vinyl piping clips on the outboard side.  Attached, are photos of the two different piping clips on the other sunshades needing restoration. 

The black convertible sunshades appear to be the same [see reference #1] in both 1967 and 1968 model years as part number 7666122 under Group 10.203.

I guess it's possible that there were two different manufacturers of the sunshades or the clips changed between 1967 and 1968 model years even though the part number remained the same?  Does anybody know definitively which vinyl piping clips are factory correct and are they stainless steel or chromed steel?

Bernie

References: [1] Chevrolet Parts & Accessories Catalog P&A 34 (1967, November 1), p. 574

4
I've noticed two different types of quarter panel arm rest ash tray chrome inserts, one with the tab in the center and one with the tab at the end.  Attached, are photos of reproduction ones from NPD's online catalog for perspective.  The NPD catalog says the one with the tab in the center is for 1967 Camaros and the one with the tab at the end is for 1968-69 Camaros.  However, the Camaro Master Parts Catalogue No. 691A (November 1968, revised July 1969) lists three different rear quarter arm rest ash tray assemblies under Group 12.045 as follows:

1967: 7653741
1968: 7740365
1969: 8761461

I have two show-chromed restored 68 original ribbed ash tray lids but do not have the two original chrome inserts.  I'm looking for a pair of original inserts to get re-chromed and want to get the correct ones.  I test-fitted both reproduction types with the different tab locations in my original lids and both types fit.  Which insert type is factory correct?

5
Does anyone have a 68 convertible with the Vigilite (i.e., RPO U46 - Lamp Monitoring) system installed? 

In the 68 AIM, UPC U46/A1, it mentions a "3928738 SLEEVE" as having been released by Chevrolet and installed by Fisher Body.  Per Group 2.584 in the Chevrolet Parts and Accessories Catalog No. 34 (P&A 34) (Revised November 1, 1967), the sleeve is for 68 convertibles only, only one is required per car, and it is described as "SLEEVE, tail, stop and license lamp fiber optic conductor."

Does anybody have a photo, measurements, and/or location of this "sleeve" that they can post?

Also, does anybody have photos of the 1367472 grommet that goes in the driver's side of the rear-center bumper bracket per 68 AIM, UPC U46/A3?  I believe it is plastic, but not sure.  It is the same grommet used for the license plate lamp wire (68 AIM, UPC 12/C4) on the passenger side of the rear-center bumper bracket.  Per Group 9.775 of the P&A 30A (October 1970), this grommet is used on the following vehicles:

- 66-67 Chevy, battery positive cable generator and forward lamp wiring harness.
- 67-68 Camaro, license plate lamp wire.
- 69 Chevelle, park lamp wire.

Thanks, in advance!
Bernie

6
Does anyone have a photo of an original jacking instruction sheet sticker 3929977 for a 1968 Camaro SS convertible?  Attached, is a photo of a reproduction sticker dated 7-30-67.  The sticker is listed in the 68 AIM on UPC L35/A15.  Per the 68 AIM, this sticker is correct for all 68 SS convertibles (i.e., including for the L48 SS 350):

RPO L34: UPC L34/A2.5 (UPC 10/10E, "SPARE WHEEL MOUNTINGS-*", * = "Assembles same as RPO L35")
RPO L35: UPC L35/A15
RPO L48: UPC L48/A2 (UPC 10/10E, "SPARE WHEEL MOUNTINGS-Assembles same as RPO L35")
RPO L78: UPC L78/A3 (UPC 10/10E, "SPARE WHEEL MOUNTINGS-*", * = "Assembles same as RPO L35")

- Bernie

7
Does anybody have original headlamp socket seals (P/N 3906125, Group 2.584) for the Vigilite/Lamp Monitoring System that they can give me the dimensions?  Attached, is a photo of them.  The repros appear to be foam sleeves; whereas, the original ones appear to be rubber sleeves.  With the original dimensions, someone can find a rubber sleeve or hose and then trim it to fit.

Bernie

8
Attached, is a photo of the embossing on the passenger underside of an original 1969 Camaro coupe trunk mat without the RPO N65 space saver tire.  The embossing appears to be heat stamped into the rubber mat.  I provided measurements to document the exact location of the embossing on the underside of the mat.

The rubber thickness was measured in multiple locations with digital calipers at 0.053" (varies up to +0.004").  The thickness of the reproduction trunk mat in my 68 Camaro measured with digital calipers at 0.052" (varies + or -0.004").  It appears that the difference in thickness between original mats and this particular reproduction mat is imperceptible by touch.  Unfortunately, I do not recall where I purchased my reproduction mat.

Here's a list of the trunk mats for first generation Camaros under Group 15.222:
7663177, 1967 coupe, excluding N65 space saver tire
7728644, 1967 coupe, with N65 space saver tire
7689199, 1967 convertible, excluding N65 space saver tire
7728646, 1967 convertible, with N65 space saver tire

7779677, 1968 coupe, excluding N65 space saver tire
7779681, 1968 coupe, with N65 space saver tire
7779679, 1968 convertible, excluding N65 space saver tire
7779683, 1968 convertible, with N65 space saver tire

8738793, 1969 coupe, excluding N65 space saver tire
8738795, 1969 coupe, with N65 space saver tire
8738794, 1969 convertible, excluding N65 space saver tire
8738796, 1969 convertible, with N65 space saver tire

Hopefully, other CRG members with original trunk mats can post similar photos with measurements for other trunk mats. 

- Bernie

9
Attached, is a MS Word table that I started to track my collection of photos of original first generation Camaro spare tire and wheel assembly information sheet stickers and decals.  Feel free to change the table for any incorrect or missing information and then re-post. 

Anybody with photos of original stickers (to include the 1967 N65 decal), please upload to this post.  I'll take any photos of reproduction stickers/decals too, but please state whether your photo is of an original or reproduction sticker/decal.  If possible, please include the sticker/decal revision date if you can read it, but it's not clearly visible in the photo.

When I have most of the photos of original stickers (to include the 1967 N65 decal), and photos of reproduction stickers when originals are not available, I will be writing a CRG Report on First-Generation Camaro Spare Tire and Wheel Assemblies.

Thanks, in advance!

- Bernie

10
I noticed that eBay lists a reproduction 69 Camaro spare tire jack column and wrench strap #4778650 as being of a "rubber sleeve type."  They are sold in pairs.  I have also seen these same rubber straps on eBay as being allegedly "NOS" with a GM box in the background, but no part number on the box label (see attached photo).  However, all of these straps are incorrect.  The strap is T-shaped, plastic, and 7-1/8" long...not a rubber sleeve.  Unfortunately, I do not have a photo of the original straps...but, I do have diagrams and parts catalog descriptions to support my claim.  Fortunately, AMK Products sells a reproduction #4778650 on page 167 of their 2020 catalog, under AMK part #B-10983.  See attached photo.

The 67 Camaro AIM lists this strap on the following pages:
- UPC C60/D3 (Air Conditioning-Hose Routing)
- UPC K30/A3 (Hoses & Wiring)

The 68 Camaro AIM lists this strap on the following pages:
- UPC C60/D4 (Air Conditioning - Hose Routing)
- UPC K30/A3 (Hoses & Wiring)

The 69 Camaro AIM lists this strap on the following pages:
- UPC 10/A2 (Spare Tire & Jack Stowage) - (See attached photo)
- UPC Z22/B4 (Rally Sport-Windshield Washer Jar Mounting) - (See attached photo)
- UPC Z22/B5 (Rally Sport - Retractable Headlamp Hose Routing)

The strap is clearly depicted in these various AIM pages as being a T-shaped one, not a sleeve.

Here are the actual specifications for #4778650 (official sources follow in brackets):

Length: 7-1/8" [1, 2]
Material: plastic [3] 

Sources:
[1] Chevrolet Parts Catalogue No. 651 of December 1964, Group 11.558, page 364, under line "Strap, Electric Seat Adjuster Wiring Harness."
[2] Chevrolet Parts Catalogue No. 651 of December 1964, Group 13.090, page 454, under line "Strap, Wiring Harness on Shroud."
[3] Chevrolet Parts & Accessories Catalog No. P&A 94 of January 1965, Group 13.090, page 347, under both lines "1960 thru 1964 Elect. Seat" and "1965-4-6 Way Seat."

11
I bought this used convertible top bow "wedge" from Larry Christiansen many years ago to put on my Legends Class 68 Camaro RS/SS convertible.  I never asked him about the part, just installed it per Larry's recommendation.  Fast forward to today.  I plan on having a draftsman draw a blueprint of it so one of the aftermarket parts places can reproduce it.  However, I never found out its part number, group number, or description from Larry.  I just sent him an e-mail inquiring as to its details.  In the meantime, I wanted to ask CRG members if they have any details about the part.  Two of the photos attached are of the part installed on original cars, the remaining two photos are of the cleaned part that I bought from Larry just before being installed on my car.  The part requires two forged (not commercial flat-head) tacks...they resemble miniature railroad spikes.

12
I have seen several posts in the past on the console gauge oil hose grommet 3906193 that was installed in the firewall by the factory.  However, I have not seen anybody address whether the original grommet had a slit in it for the oil hose.  The reproduction grommet that is being sold today does not have a slit in it (see photo attached).  There are many CRG posts of members cutting the oil hose and then using new compression fittings in their restorations.  This is warranted for re-using original hose assemblies to prevent leakage at the compression fittings...but not for NOS or new reproduction hose assemblies.  I am guessing that everybody is cutting their hoses because neither compression fitting end fits through the reproduction grommet hole and they don't want to cut a slit into the reproduction grommet whereby ruining its "originality"?  I am going to make the argument that the original grommet did have a slit in it, about half way between its two embossed text (i.e., embossed text is about 180 degrees apart).  There is at least one CRG post that had a photo of what appears to be an original grommet with a slit in it (Camaro Research Group discussion forum "Did console gauge cars also have a low oil pressure switch?" Reply #29 on February 27, 2013, 21:40:52 by Member '67rs/ss396').

I attached copies of the 68 AIM and 69 AIM pages that show the grommet installation.  I could not attach the 67 AIM page because of a four attachment limit.  I'll attach the 67 AIM page on a reply to this post, if permitted.  All three of these AIM illustrations, however, show the grommet with a separate part number than the hose assembly.  The hose assembly is shown in the three AIMs with the compression fitting already attached on the engine compartment side.  The same holds true of the hose assembly compression fitting under the console oil gauge.  Because of the size of the compression fittings on both ends of the hose, and the size of the hole in the grommet, it would be physically impossible to put the hose through the grommet if the grommet did not already have a slit in it.  I doubt the assembly line workers had the time to cut the oil hose, push the hose through the grommet, and then install a new compression fitting sleeve on every car with console gauges...and that task is not shown anywhere in the three AIMs.

The solution is simple: Use a razor blade and put a slit in the reproduction grommet half way between the two embossed text.  If any of the vendors read this post, maybe they could begin selling the grommets already slit, or at least make a note in their sale advertisement that the grommet will need to be slit to fit the hose.

13
I would like to write a CRG report on 67-69 Camaro wiring harness tags, but need additional data.  So far, I have original tags or photos for about 15-20 harness tags.  I also have some info on the tag location on their respective harness.  More info would be great.  The tags were color-coded, had a 2-letter broadcast code (most, but not all), a symbol with 3 downward spreading arrows, and the last 4 numbers from the GM part number.  Does anybody have a list of all of the broadcast codes and/or the color codes for these tags?  If so, please either reply for all to see, or PM me.  Thanks!

14
The original 67-68 tail light housing backing plates after almost 50 years look like a dull gray plating with a spangle pattern.  I'd say they almost look like an old galvanized chain link fence that has lost its luster over the years.  Even the repros have duplicated the aged, dull, finish (but the repros don't have the SAE 67 stampings).  Chain link fences are/were hot-dipped galvanized and also have the spangle pattern in the finish due to large zinc crystallites in the molten solution. 

Electrogalvanizing, also known as "clear zinc" plating, is a thinner plating than hot-dipping and does not have the spangle in it. 

In a separate CRG blog under Restoration, "Cadmium vs. Zinc Plating," JohnZ stated that either zinc or cadmium plating was an option in the 60's.  However, he didn't clarify which form of zinc and for which parts.  I'm guessing certain parts were clear zinc and certain ones were hot-dipped?  A good picture of aged, dull looking original ones, is posted under CRG blog Restoration, "Restoring a galvanized finish ???."

Does anyone know with certainty whether hot-dipped galvanizing or electrogalvanizing (i.e., "clear zinc"), or either, were original plating finishes on these housing backing plates?  Either finish would be shiny and look very different than the aged, dull look on all original and repro ones today.  It is important for our community to know if either or both of these finishes are acceptable to judges.

Thanks in advance!

15
There are 4 hex nuts (size 3/8"-16) with lock washers that mount the power brake booster to the firewall.  On UPC J50/A2 of the1968 FAIM, the bottom two nuts/washers are listed as "PRODUCTION NUT & L. WASHER."  The upper two are GM part numbers 9418931 (nut) and 103321 (lock washer).  Are the bottom two nuts/lock washers different than the top two?  What finish are these fasteners, phosphate (gray - black) or zinc (dark silver)?  The nut is not in the AMK Products catalog and the lock washer is available in both finishes. 

My gut says phosphate, but then why is the screw (3848408) zinc plated on the zinc dichromate bracket for the proportioning valve (UPC J52/A2 of the 1968 FAIM)?  Is it because it contacts the zinc dichromate plating?  If so, then shouldn't the 4 nuts/lock washers be zinc plated?

Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks in advance!

Pages: [1] 2 3
anything