CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2014, 03:34:08 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.
97557 Posts in 11721 Topics by 4582 Members
Latest Member: gplus
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 25
316  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Z28 on eBay...Real, Correct ? on: September 20, 2011, 05:58:42 AM
LOL now that would be worth some change to see happen.
317  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Z28 on eBay...Real, Correct ? on: September 16, 2011, 03:15:20 PM
depends on if the car was ever yours, or they just picked your name out of an old phone book when fabricating the POP Smiley
318  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Late March D80? on: September 16, 2011, 07:26:20 AM
You have to weigh the circumstance of the use of the repro tag in question. I looked at a car with a buddy who had the itch for a 69 to add to his stable. The owner presented the original cowl tag in a zip lock along with pictures of the damage it had sustained while still attached to the vehicle. It was trashed when the body shop working on his firewall caught it in the sander by "mistake". In MHO the mistake was using that body shop.

The lower GM text was trashed and the tag was distorted by the process along with one of the corners being eaten off. I truly think the sander operator was trying to sand the tag off not knowing what it was. First day on the job inexperience maybe - he looked like he was 12 in the photo's. The vehicle owner at that point made the shop owner order an exact replacement for cosmetic reasons but retained the original tag for chain of custody reasons to make sure everyone down the road understood no embellishment was done. I am willing to accept reproduction mounted tags on a vehicle under these circumstances as long as the original tag remains with the vehicle and is documented as to the situation and reasons for removing and reproducing the original, once separated or undocumented  all bets are off.

So Dave as long as documentation vets out the status of the vehicle as being born Z28 03D, you would have a few options. You could retain copies of all the supporting documentation and disqualify the D80 status on the tag, or at this point since the tag is already suspect, remove it, retain it with the above mentioned documentation, and order a true replacement that agrees with the DOCUMENTATION you assemble from legit sources.

I hope she turns out to be a true Z28 ride for your sake, but if nor there is no shame in documenting her as a clone, again as long as that image is used to market her if you sell her down the road.

Just my $1.50 worth of hi-test.
319  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 Camaro SS 350 factory tachometer on: September 15, 2011, 10:39:12 PM
Yes you could swap in an working OEM Tach, but just be aware that most aftermarket Tachs will require that you use a filter if you have stock dizzy and ignition.

A more difficult procedure would be to bench test your unit but If you have a sinewave generator, or access to one you can bench test the unit.

I would double check your Voltage Regulator and Alternator outputs and check the wiring connection at the fuse block and the back of the tach, and the brown wire out to the coil.
320  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Z/28 stripes on: August 26, 2011, 08:44:53 PM
Page 474 and 475 of the 1969 AIM has the layout for front and rear stripes.
321  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Car Brochure Website on: August 26, 2011, 08:42:38 PM
Very cool
322  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: console gauge car or not? on: August 14, 2011, 09:36:50 PM
True Marty it may have had a console but not the gauge package.
Is it true of 67 as it is with 68's that the OIL idiot light bezel was changed to read FUEL?

That may be you only clue left Kelvin that it at one time did have factory gauges.

But then again someone could have added factory gauges after the fact and not changed out the bezel.

What was the status of the original wiring harness?
323  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 SS350 muncie 4 speed tunnel hole template on: August 10, 2011, 06:32:53 PM
Try these. Both are 4 speed versions.
One is BW and the other is color.
Both show the torch cutout and the screw positions for the boot and the console bolts.
324  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 69 Assembly Manual, Best Place to Buy...? on: August 01, 2011, 12:29:29 AM
yeah if I didn't already have one or two printed versions of them kicking around I wouldn't buy one. Of the two copies I have - one is my buddy's who sold his Z years ago so I doubt he will ever need it again - but its printed on green paper and very hard to read.
325  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Z28 on eBay...Real, Correct ? on: July 31, 2011, 05:42:23 PM
yeah I'm no expert but it seems like this was born yesterday.
326  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 69 Assembly Manual, Best Place to Buy...? on: July 30, 2011, 10:09:25 AM
There is a current thread over at TC on this here was my reply...

If you do purchase a printed AIM at a swap meet thumb trough it as some of the versions out there are a hundred generations copied before your copy was made and some details are impossible to see.

The PDF versions of the 67, 68, 69 70, and 72 I have seen seem to have been scanned from very good low generation paper copies. I have both a paper and PDF 1969 AIM and find that the PDF pages are almost always better quality. But I need the paper in the Garage but sometimes I need to print off the pages from the PDF first LOL

327  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: 69 Console on: July 28, 2011, 07:46:20 PM
LOL well it is easy if you do take the whole thing apart or at least off the transmission hump and put it on a bench.
328  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Hurst Handle Shifter Bracket on: July 24, 2011, 07:33:32 PM
Did you check the Hurst site?
329  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Convertible top boot on: July 24, 2011, 07:30:33 PM
I thought there was a chart here someplace that listed the 1969 "rules" for the black verses white vert tops, based on the body color and that the interior color was used on the boot under most circumstances.
330  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Adding console gauges and tach for 69 Camaro on: July 23, 2011, 09:37:37 PM
The readers digest version:
Yes you need both harnesses if your vehicle did not come with factory gauges and tach.

The first harness called the "conversion" harness creates the stub that would have been installed at the factory for the console to plug into. This harness allows you to re-wire features like moving the fuel gauge and transforming the oil and temp idiot lights to gauge senders. You must order the correct conversion.

The second harness is really straight forward and allows the console saw tooth gauge set to connect to the stub you created with the conversion harness in step one.

The third option is not to install a conversion harness, but to replace your entire wiring harness with a full system either factory-fit line from AAW or the classic update.

As for the gauge set itself really the only difference is if they are true reproductions - requiring external filters on the fuel and temp gauges, or internal.

AAW also sells a true replacement VOLTS meter to replace the factory AMPS meter.

Tachs are better calibrated now then factory. Factory and NOS are wicked $$$ for what they are - 40 year old low tech but its your call.
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 25
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 0.093 seconds with 18 queries.