Messages

16

General Discussion / Re: 69 Hood Louver Original Silver Paint Color

« on: June 02, 2023, 04:03:00 AM »

Argent silver paint codes were listed in Reply #2 to the following CRG post: http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=11006.0;all

17

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dating plastic rear window 69 Camaro

« on: May 30, 2023, 11:35:16 PM »

Petes L48,

Yes, the Al Knoch plastic rear windows have the original Regalite logo and no DOT info.  I should have replied to this post a few months ago after receiving my new Al Knoch top with a date-coded plastic rear window.  I called Al Knoch before ordering and e-mailed them a copy of the page in the 67-68 Legends Judging Manual with the photo of an original date-coded plastic window.  Al Knoch was able to make my window with the correct date code format per the Legends manual.  I was very pleased with the results.

Bernie

18

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

« on: May 30, 2023, 04:09:01 PM »

The Chevrolet Parts and Accessories Catalog P&A 34 (1965, October), p. 525 states the following for GM part number 4485356: "62-66 CONV, (polyethylene film)."  That particular P&A was printed by GM in October 1965...before the First-Generation Camaro started production in August of 1966...so, polyethylene film dust boot bags were available for First-Generation Camaros.

Bernie

19

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

« on: May 30, 2023, 03:40:08 PM »

I do not consider Wikipedia to be either a respectable or reputable source for information, but here's a quote from a Wikipedia entry [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene] on polyethylene: "It was not until 1935 that another [Imperial Chemical Industries] chemist, Michael Perrin, developed this accident into a reproducible high-pressure synthesis for polyethylene that became the basis for industrial low-density polyethylene (LDPE) production beginning in 1939." 

It seems LDPE has been manufactured since 1939, so GM's use in 1942 would not be a stretch.

Bernie

20

Restoration / Re: 3/8 ink stamp rubber 3/8 fuel line

« on: May 30, 2023, 02:27:57 PM »

Here's a source for specialty inks that work on rubber hoses:

I still have bottles of AEROBRAND #1332 ink in white, yellow, red, and silver pigments/colors from the Specialty Ink Company that I purchased over a decade ago...but not much left.  I used these inks to custom stamp various rubber hoses for my car and other people's cars.  However. sometime since my original purchase over a decade ago, IIMAK Inks (Phone 800-685-6275 or 800-964-6275) out of Amherst, NY acquired Specialty Ink Company's business, including its formulas, brands, processes, etc.  Attached are grayscale PDF copies of the latest IIMAK Inks catalog that I downloaded from the following vendor web site: https://www.americanmarking.com/uploads/IIMAK-Specialty-Inks-Product-Guide-Web.pdf.  I had to break it into two documents (i.e., pages 1 - 3, and pages 4 - 7) and change it from color to grayscale and do some other creative things to get the document down to 500 KB or less in file size order to post it on CRG.

Looking at page 5 of their catalog in the AEROBRAND Specialty Inks section, it appears that Product #1141 could also work on rubber hoses.  The catalog states it works on the following surfaces: "Non-Porous Tires, Rubber hoses." You may have to call for availability of any pigments not listed in the catalog.

Bernie

21

Originality / Re: Kick panel stereo speakers

« on: May 30, 2023, 12:40:05 PM »

Attached, are photos of more detailed info on both the screw types/sizes and spacer sizes as well as the various speaker wire colors.

Bernie

22

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

« on: May 30, 2023, 12:23:46 PM »

A bad news update for those thinking of ordering a reproduction boot from Bowtie Muscle Parts...I tried last week and was told by one of the business owners that they "do not carry the boot bags any longer" and that they "never produced them, only purchased them for resale.  Our vendor went out of business."

So, someone in the classic car community with means and the right contacts has to take the initiative and get them reproduced.  BTW, these boots were not just for First-Generation Camaros, they were used for all GM convertible cars from at least 1942 through 1976...a lot of convertible cars that would require one for car shows and/or judging!

Bernie

23

Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro AC Dryer

« on: May 25, 2023, 01:31:19 PM »

I believe the factory correct finish for all First-Gen A/C receiver/dryers is painted (i.e., dip-primed) semi-gloss black.  I ran into this issue back in 2010 when preparing my car for the 2012 Legends judging.  In 2012, there were two 68s being judged for Legends that had factory A/C: mine and a coupe by Keith Morsel (not sure of last name spelling).  Both of our cars had our receiver dryers painted semi-gloss black and did not receive any point deductions for them.  Keith's car took a 100% the following year.

Incidentally, Jeff Ashen ('Pacecar Jeff') of broachbuster.com has climbed in and out of hundreds of First-Gen Camaros in junkyards in his lifetime and can be an authority on originality.  His web site sells NOS and rebuilt A/C receiver/dryers: http://www.broachbuster.com/id49.htm.  All of them appear to be painted semi-gloss black.

Bernie

24

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

« on: May 25, 2023, 11:15:00 AM »

Thanks for the great find, Dave!  I went to the link you just provided and copied the text below in case the advertisement is later taken down due to product unavailability:

"Correct convertible top boot storage bag used on most all GM convertibles from the mid 60's through the mid 70's.

Bowtie Muscle Parts has just received a very limited supply of new old stock Reproduction top boot storage bags. These storage bags are very different from the bags sold on the market today. They are a plain, heavy gauge plastic bag. This is factory correct and what was originally available from GM. Today’s reproductions, though very nice are not what came with your convertible originally. Take a look at the picture of the GM Parts catalog 7-1-69 and it shows GM part number 4485356 as the "BAG ASSEMBLY". It also states it is made of, "black polyethylene film". These are perfect for only the most discriminating restorer who wants their car factory correct exactly the way it came from the assembly plant. Buy now because when these are gone, they are gone forever. We do not have another source for these.

Item is in stock and ready to ship with in one business day of receiving cleared payment.

Thank you for visiting Bowtie Muscle Parts on ebay!"

The photos of the product appear to match my NOS dust boot bag.  However, the advertisement doesn't provide the product's dimensions.  The dimensions provided of the NOS bag in my original post should help somebody to again make factory correct reproductions.

Bernie

25

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

« on: May 24, 2023, 11:22:26 PM »

Attached, is a close-up of the GM parts envelope.

26

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

« on: May 24, 2023, 10:57:54 PM »

Several different GM parts catalogs from the 1960s and 1970s listed the material as "polyethylene."  I listed the one parts catalog in particular because it also showed the earliest date for the part number as 1942. 

I have seen cloth repop boot bags sold on eBay with a flap and snap.  Is it possible that the eBay seller of your boot bag swapped out the original with a repop and put it in the original GM box?

27

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

« on: May 24, 2023, 10:51:57 PM »

Some GM parts boxes have dates on one of box flaps (sometimes the 1 of 4 flaps that is obscured by the other overlapping flaps).  If you still have the original box, could you check for a date?  Something else to check: Did the text on your box look more modern and possibly have a computer-printed label?

28

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

« on: May 24, 2023, 06:26:30 PM »

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

29

Originality / Correct finish for 68 Camaro 8 cyl w/AT exhaust heat stove 3916302

« on: May 19, 2023, 07:08:03 PM »

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

30

Originality / Re: What are the factory correct 67-68 convertible sunshade vinyl piping clips?

« on: April 25, 2023, 07:25:23 PM »

Here's an update.

A friend of mine had a pair of original 1969 Camaro convertible sunshades so I posted a photo of his 1969 convertible ones next to my original 1968 convertible ones.  Both were Madrid grain vinyl.  The noticeable differences, however, were the width at the rearview mirror support end and the outboard piping clips (i.e., nearest the side window).  See attached photo.

The 1967 and 1968 black convertible sunshades had the same part number 7666122 (under Group 10.203); whereas, 1969 black convertible sunshades had part number 8766289.  It would be reasonable to assume that with the same part numbers that both 1967 and 1968 sunshades were identical.

Bernie