CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 30, 2014, 04:16:05 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.
102481 Posts in 12091 Topics by 4669 Members
Latest Member: paulmanta
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 270
31  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Need help/picture to correct my 69 Z28 write up from Jerry MacNeish. on: June 11, 2014, 09:38:09 AM
How did that process differ at Van Nuys John?

Van Nuys had converted from Fisher/Chevrolet to GMAD the previous year, and had consolidated the Paint Shop (eliminated the Chevy paint shop); the front sheet metal previously painted separately by Chevrolet was now mounted on conveyor bucks about five feet ahead of the body shell. The black rocker and fender areas were masked and sprayed at the same time, but it was many hours later before the fender was installed on the body.
32  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stripe delete on: June 11, 2014, 09:27:31 AM
So in making sure I have taken all this in and understood properly....the only thing common from start to finish on one car that each dept see is the broadcast sheet. Correct? Fisher works off this as well as GM? So to really know for sure
About deletes such as nose stripes it would be on the broadcast sheet.
Say a z stripe delete might show up on cowl because that would effect what fisher had to do, but nose delete may not because it doesn't concern them?

The Broadcast copy was only seen by Chevrolet - it didn't exist until after the body was delivered by Fisher Body; Fisher had their own internal version, called the UOIT.

Nose stripes didn't affect Fisher, so they weren't on the cowl tag; Z/28 stripes DID affect Fisher.
33  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: intake on: June 10, 2014, 10:23:54 AM
You may find this article useful:
34  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Need help/picture to correct my 69 Z28 write up from Jerry MacNeish. on: June 10, 2014, 10:10:49 AM
Remember that the rocker panel was sprayed black in the Fisher Body main Paint Shop, when the body was just a shell, prior to entering the Fisher Body Trim Shop. The matching black on the bottom of the front fender was sprayed in the Chevrolet front sheet metal Paint Shop on their side of the plant, hours before the fender was installed on the car.
35  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stripe delete on: June 10, 2014, 09:52:54 AM
I know the conventional thinking is that the trim tag was only for Fisher body assembly but maybe there was a reason to have items on the trim tag that were not only for Fisher but also needed for scheduling the main line.
In the example of the 68 dash no paint code for nose stripe delete cars ........
Fisher did not put on the nose stripe but maybe the trim tag still needed to show a stripe delete Camaro.

A possible reason would be for some of the "scheduling rules" JohnZ  mentions in the research report on the assembly process.

If the special paint and other special order cars need more time or special tracking to meet special parts, process, or something else, that info would need to be considered when they were put into sequence. For example they may have needed to be sequenced together in some cases for assembly efficiency or paint efficiency but in other cases may have needed to be separated because of higher work station cycle/dwell times.

Even though Fisher would not have to know what nose stripe was used or not used, the trim tag may still needed to have the build order info on it for the scheduling.

here are quotes from JohnZ's report on assembly that I am referencing .......

"Scheduling:  There were usually six lines in the schedule bank - one for RS, one for A/C, one for SS and Z/28, and three for high-volume standard cars, so cars could be scheduled without having situations like three A/C's in a row, three consoles in a row, three RS's in a row, etc., as these had higher work content vs. the standard cars and scheduling two or three of them in a row would over-cycle certain line operations. "

 "Releasing:  When the clerk at the end of the body bank selected the next body based on the scheduling "rules" and released it from its line into the main conveyor to the Trim Line, the computer released the "Broadcast" file with the next sequence number, and it was sent to many teletype printers throughout the plant where subassemblies were built and sequenced for delivery to the Main Line to meet up with that particular car. The same computer program also generated the end-of-line paperwork for that car - the price sticker, car shipper, and other internal documents. "

The point not to be missed here is that there were TWO separate organizations doing production scheduling, with two totally different sets of priorities. Chevrolet dictated to Fisher Body which bodies they wanted each day, and Fisher Body had to schedule those units in a manner that best fit their system and scheduling priorities, most of which didn't affect Chevrolet operations.

Once Chevrolet received the bodies from Fisher, the Chevrolet scheduling rules and priorities took over, and that process was managed by the Body Bank operators, releasing units into the Chevrolet assembly system based on proper labor line balance and option workload distribution. Chevrolet didn't need anything from Fisher to understand what each unit required - they already had the dealer order with all the specs for each car, which Chevrolet transmitted to Fisher Body weeks before the body was scheduled to be built.

Each Fisher plant put whatever they wanted to on the cowl tag based on how they managed their own scheduling process, and nobody on the Chevrolet side of the plant cared what was on the tag nor did they ever even look at it - the only item on the cowl tag Chevrolet cared about was the Body Number, which the clerk wrote down at the entry to the Body Bank; that number was the direct link to that car's Chevrolet dealer order, and generated the Chevrolet Body and Chassis Broadcast Copies when the body was released from the bank.
36  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Package Tray Paint on: June 08, 2014, 12:50:36 PM
Related to this thread, thought I'd post two pics of my glovebox door, which I BELIEVE is unmolested.  Hope it helps someone with the suede discussion, which is a new finish name to me.  I'm not a paint guy, but will be bringing this door to my painter to match for the dashboard - which I've always known to be a smooth finish, a sort of semi dull, semi-gloss smooth black finish.  I have no proof this hasn't been repainted, but since I appear to have the original tire PSI sticker, I think it's original paint.  Hoping I can salvage the sticker, although I'm concerned about blue/green tape damaging it...maybe it's not such a big deal but it is the only original factory applied sticker and I'd prefer to keep it (assumption by its appearance and the fact it's in the glovebox where it's protected).

The glove box door isn't part of the "suede" finish discussion. The glove box door was a Chevrolet part, and was flow-coated in black primer, baked, and then painted interior lacquer color and baked again prior to installation to the previously Fisher Body-painted steel instrument panel, which was a frequent color-match problem.
37  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Front Spoiler to Lower Valance Bolts on: June 02, 2014, 09:42:47 AM
The 1969 AIM specifies the spoiler-to-lower valance bolts as #9417075 #10-24 x 3/4" with a captured washer and #10-24 nut with captured washer #3759924. Do these bolts look like originals?

Nope. Those bolts in the photos have integral washers (washer heads), and the originals had "captured" washers, which are free-spinning, to avoid tearing up the plastic spoiler when they torque up.
38  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Chevrolet's process for having another run of parts manufactured on: June 01, 2014, 09:42:50 AM

How many would have been manufactured for the first run?

After the initial run who would be in charge of the next buying order if the part was going to be used during production? Designers or someone more interested in the bottom line?

How would the process go?
Would a current sample be provided with a set of drawings and would the sample be used as a casting model (to make new casting dies) to submit for approval?
Or would the part be hand manufactured from drawings like it was originally?

The first run for inspection/approvals/tool tryout with temporary tooling would be less than 100 units.

Once appearance and Engineering approvals are secured, any future production runs would be handled by Purchasing and Supplier Quality, with Engineering input as required. The part drawing defines the part dimensionally, and Engineering would supply an appearance sample to be matched for finishes, etc.
39  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Original dealer info for 1st gens is available on: May 29, 2014, 10:13:32 AM
B-29     Vehicle Build Month

One-character code from the following table.            Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
      1967  V   L   R   K   Z   S   P   W   N   Y   T   X
      1968  8   9   O   N   D   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
      1969  8   9   O   N   D   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
 late 1969  8   9   O   N

These codes were impregnated by the dealer ?

Nope. Everything that was die-imprinted on the P-O-P was done at the plant, when the plate was created in the Addressograph machine on the Final Line. All the dealer added was the GM-branded Dymo tape with the purchaser's name and address.
40  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Need glass installer in Central Florida on: May 28, 2014, 10:41:03 AM
John, thanks for your reply.

Are you saying that any one of these hundreds of glass shops should be qualified to do this job?......including using the dam?......including setting the glass at the right height so that the window moldings fit correctly?

I didn't know if this was a case where you have to find an "old school" guy who is experienced with old cars to get this done correctly.


I'm saying there's nothing new or unique about using urethane to install windshields and backlites - they do it every day. Obviously, it would help if they have an installer who has done older cars with reveal moldings, as most newer cars don't have them.
41  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Original GOODYEAR E70-15 Wide Tread GT, Date Code? on: May 28, 2014, 10:18:31 AM
What was the FIRST date for required DOT tire marking (when all manufacturers were required to mark per the DOT's mandate)??  Wasn't that sometime in the '60's??   Before that DOT required time, the only 'dated' marking on the tires would have been by manufacturer and all of them would be different....?

The DOT tire marking requirement was effective for the beginning of the 1968 model year, but there was no standard format for the information and the manufacturers each used their own proprietary coding, so the markings weren't understandable or relevant. The law was amended shortly thereafter and a standard format for the TIN (Tire Identification Number) was mandated, effective mid-May, 1971. John Kelsey of Kelsey Tire can decode the TIN on Goodyear tires made between 1968 and 1971, but as far as I know, nobody can decode the TIN from any other tire brands from that period.
42  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Need glass installer in Central Florida on: May 27, 2014, 09:43:10 AM
Does anyone know of a qualified glass installer in the Orlando or Central Florida area who can do a windshield and rear window installation using the "dam and urethane" method as opposed to using the butyl strip?


There are literally hundreds of glass shops in that area, and any of them use urethane every day for late model windshield replacement; it's against the law to use butyl in late model cars, and will get their liability insurance cancelled.
43  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 spare wheel on: May 26, 2014, 10:32:29 AM
Thought factory wheels were painted black on the back, service wheels were grey?

CBTN Figure 17-9.
The way I read the painting notes:

PLAIN K-H Part No E-82277 Cust PN _____
Coat with Rustproofing Oil: K-H Part No E-82278 Cust Part No. 3958480
Gray Primer K-H Spec B-3352: K-H Part No E-82279   Cust Part No. 3966934
Same as E-82279 except tape  identify for Chevrolet Service: K-H Part No E-82280

This relates to the 69 AD rally.

I assume you guys are hashing out the SS AO/YA wheels at this point. Does anyone have a copy of the CBTN for 70-75 & does it contain the K-H drawing with notes on it that might clarify.

Does this mean KH painted the wheels or does it mean they shipped rustproof oiled wheels?

As an aside - The N66 wheels were supplied by Motor City wheel not KH

K-H shipped whatever the customer ordered; the assembly plants ordered GM #3958480, K-H #E-82278. SERVICE ordered GM #3966934, K-H #82280.
44  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Dealership Memorabilia & Dealership Info on: May 25, 2014, 01:09:43 PM
I didn't realize that Chevrolet utilized that tear drop hood as well.

They didn't.
45  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 spare wheel on: May 22, 2014, 09:30:55 AM
Did Motor Wheel supply finished painted wheels (low volume)?
Did the assembly plants mask and spray 2 colors on the wheels?
Perhaps this could provide an answer to the grey back question regarding 69 Trans AM Rally II's (grey backs on survivors assembled at Norwood) as well.


I can't speak to the Pontiac Rally II wheels - I don't recall how those were handled - I was at Norwood before Firebird production was transferred there. The standard Pontiac wheels were black primer on the back side, based on Lordstown photos.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 270
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 0.094 seconds with 18 queries.