Messages

1981

General Discussion / Re: 69 CAMARO'S LEFT ON THE ROAD

« on: September 19, 2013, 01:09:31 AM »

 How sad the story is. I wonder what happened. Racing and lost control and went into the lake possibly?
At least the families have some closure by getting the remains back to give a proper burial.

Mike

1982

Decoding/Numbers / Re: DB Car

« on: September 15, 2013, 09:43:36 PM »

Well, it's in the DB now 

Mike

1983

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69' Z28 on eBay in DB ?

« on: September 13, 2013, 03:38:50 PM »

 For color accuracy you need to use a lamp with at least a 5000-5500K (with 5500K being more accurate for Sun light at noon) temperature to get an accurate color display. Many typical home lamps are in the 3000-4000K range which is shifted towards warmer hues (yellows/reds) and lacking in the cooler spectral ranges that contain blues/violets. That is why outdoors or 5500K lamp rating is best for color representation in photography.

Mike

1984

General Discussion / First Ford Mustang sold to public story

« on: September 12, 2013, 05:02:46 PM »

 Not Camaro related but I figured car nuts would be interested in this Yahoo article on the 1st Ford Mustang sold to the public story
http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/first-ford-mustang-owner-still-keys-49-years-123831938.html

Mike

1985

Originality / Re: PTB on Los Angeles Camaros

« on: September 10, 2013, 04:29:07 PM »

 I have seen a few real examples on unrestored NOR cars and it looked like a high solids ink instead of paint.
I can't see any reason to use paint when ink is cheaper and I'm sure there was no intent for them to last beyond the assembly line.

Mike

1986

Originality / Re: Early '67 Camaro/SS

« on: September 09, 2013, 09:05:20 PM »

Deja Vu  http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=8424.0

Anyhow....My 67 4B LOS 'R' (396) decal mentions 4 pass +200 lbs luggage. Looks like the change was been done by then.

Mike

1987

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 68 NOR build sheet

« on: September 06, 2013, 04:43:11 PM »

 The only thing I have ever found under a rear seat was old mail from previous owners, some lose change and in the case of my LOS car, an ARCO gas receipt from the early '70's for 13 gallons of fuel for $5.
  I did find the UOIT and electrical inspection card by accident in the LOS car when removing the rug because it got wet. Nothing in the NOR car though.

Mike

1988

General Discussion / Re: real tag?

« on: September 06, 2013, 02:37:01 PM »

 I give the seller credit for discolsing it is a restamped motor and his careful use of words like 'correct' vs. original.
The tag looks like it was stamped on the same machine for not only the vehicle specific codes, but the 'blank' tag info as well (ST TR....)
It is a nice looking car though. Is the drive shaft optional? 

Mike

1989

General Discussion / Re: 69 CAMARO'S LEFT ON THE ROAD

« on: September 06, 2013, 02:30:29 PM »

 I remember reading a while ago (I think in Hemmings when that was the Bible of the auto world) that about 10-15% of a production run survives after 10 years for cars of that era. But like some have eluded to, a new '69 Z is born every day. Good thing for perpetual car regeneration. 

Mike

1990

General Discussion / Re: 1111499 Distributor Question??

« on: September 03, 2013, 07:07:46 PM »

I really don't know much about micrometers but on the body it is the difference between 3.815 (know original) and 3.813 my 1111499. That would be a difference of .002

The cap area is 3.800 (known original) and 3.797 my 1111499. That would be a difference of .003

That seems like an incredibly close measurement to me. Could this small amount be evidence that the distributor has been turned down?

Al

 That cap measurement is in the range of my two original 111169's (3.795 & 3.796). Even though the numbers don't match, it's still a distributor body.

Mike

1991

General Discussion / Re: 1111499 Distributor Question??

« on: September 02, 2013, 05:42:32 PM »

 Good point about the step, Steve....it can be felt easily with my fingernail too.
Here is what I measured at the step just below the top
1111169 (7C2) - 3.796"
1111169 (7A3) - 3.795"
1112047 (2E10) - I believe this may be 1972 vintage - 3.796"

Mike

1992

General Discussion / Re: 1111499 Distributor Question??

« on: September 02, 2013, 05:16:03 PM »

FWIW.... I took some measurements of original distributor bodies using a digital caliper:
* Distributor body 1112047  (2E10) modified to prime the oil and block and it measures exactly 3.803"
* One on my 67 396 1111169 (7C2) and measures exactly 3.806"
* Another 1111169 (7A3) measures exactly 3.805"

Mike

1993

Originality / Re: Early '67 Camaro/SS

« on: August 31, 2013, 07:37:56 PM »

 Both of my 67's (4B & 5B) only have 4 sets of belts.
 The past CRG report confirms that: http://www.camaros.org/seatbelt.shtml

Mike

1994

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Carb numbering

« on: August 31, 2013, 07:11:38 PM »

 Carb Junkies  ( http://www.carbjunkys.com/ ) rebuilt mine and did it using the same finish as the original parts, specifically the butterfly and choke flaps. Most resto shops dichromate everything including the flaps but mine have silver zinc color secondary butterfly and choke flaps with the dichromate body and other parts. That was important to me to retain the correct finish. Turn around time as about 18 days and cost very reasonable (I think it was $325 thereabouts).

Mike

1995

Originality / Re: Tag found on passenger rear quarter of a 69/Z28 LOS car

« on: August 30, 2013, 02:42:11 PM »

You'll find similar tear-off tags on almost all Chevrolet 2-door hardtop body styles in the 60's-70's, to "keep the dealers honest" on glass adjustment warranty claims; no tag stuck to the warranty claim, no reimbursement. 

Hi John,
    I'm curious why hardtops? Convertibles were handled different?

Mike