Messages

2161

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Trim code

« on: February 20, 2013, 09:07:01 PM »

  Based on Hot302's question and I know you are discussing '69 vintage but I figured the '67 LOS process was the same.
Here is what I have for my 67 LOS built and the UOIT was under the rug taped to the hump.

Cowl trim tag info:
04B        H457

o   04B = Second week of April (of course)
o   Based on what I have read above the H 457 would equate to H=8th day of month (April) and 457= body number for that day

UOIT printed date on the top above the 'Style' field is 04-13-67

  Based on this excerpt from the CRG article: “The letter indicates the approximate day of the month for the start of the assembly of the vehicle body. It is only an approximate date because it appears that the day on the tag was actually when the vehicle was being scheduled to be built. The actual start of production could vary by a few days”

 I see a lag from the 8th day (H) and the UOIT printed date (04-13-67) of 5 days so this gives credence to the CRG article, if I understand it correctly.
What I do find interesting is the printed UOIT date comes after the stamped cowl tag date. I would have thought the UOIT would be dated before the tag was stamped to indicate the options to prepare the body for but it is looking like the UOIT was printed after the cowl tag was stamped (and with the options). Also of interest is the UOIT paper edges with tape still attached has over spray on it the same color as the body which means it was in the spray boot at that time.

Mike

2162

General Discussion / Re: NCIB

« on: February 20, 2013, 02:53:45 PM »

Hi Ed,

  If it's free then I can afford it 
I had seen that URL before and all it provided was that my VIN was neither a total loss or listed in any theft records.
I was more curious of it's history of previous owners beyond those I know of now.

Thanks,
Mike

2163

General Discussion / Re: NCIB

« on: February 20, 2013, 01:59:26 PM »

So, these reports I see you can buy based on your supplied VIN don't include data as mention in this discussion?
For $6 dollars I was tempted to buy a report for my VIN but was curious if it was worth the money.

Mike

2164

General Discussion / Re: Old pictures of the 1969 Z/28 I owned in the late '70's

« on: February 20, 2013, 01:30:53 PM »

George,

  Now that picture of you car sure brings back memories. I had the same car in the same color including rear spoiler I purchased in 1975.
I sold in the mid-80's when the babies arrived and bought a K-car to become a family man (meaning I couldn't afford the gas and needed a bigger car to lug around cribs and baby seats)   By that time I had the two BB's I still have now but I sure miss driving the '71 daily with my wife (then girl friend).

Mike

2165

Maintenance / Re: Penske 21015 dwell?

« on: February 20, 2013, 01:16:23 PM »

 I was able to get it working last night. It’s been a while since I had to take out the DVM and troubleshoot a point to point wiring circuit (did that in the 70’s when I repaired TV’s back then) and it turned out to be a cold solder joint. A little sweating of the joint and presto…it worked. I can now get the zero set to function.
Nothing like seeing 'Made in the USA' label on something this old and still working.

Thank you for the replies!
Mike

2166

Maintenance / Penske 21015 dwell?

« on: February 20, 2013, 12:27:00 AM »

 Picked up a Sears-Penske 21015 dwell/tach meter today and installed a new 4.5v battery.
I have no manual unfortunately. I'm trying to figure out how to calibrate the 'set line' setting but can't get the meter to move.
I verified the meter is working.
I assume this is for the points resistance measurements.
Does anyone happen to have this model by chance?

Thanks,
Mike

2167

Restoration / Re: Floor pans

« on: February 18, 2013, 11:31:13 PM »

 Hi Joe,

  Your work looks exactly how I did the rear boards behind the seats in the early 80's on the convertible though there were no floor reproductions yet so I used a clean parts car for the metal.
Knowing the seams would be visible on the outside I used a step-flange on the edges and mig welded the sections together and finished off using lead to fill in the gap. Viewing from the outside doesn't look it was replaced and on the inside the seam sealer works great at covering the welds.

Mike

2168

Originality / Re: Leaf Spring code?

« on: February 17, 2013, 04:12:22 PM »

So what color is the paint stripe on Z/28 springs.

Lynn,

  I believe the spring color coding was a 67 thing prior to using a label to identify rear springs
I raised that question last year. You can review it here:
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=9739.0

Mike

2169

Originality / Re: Was it DIFF or DIFF.

« on: February 17, 2013, 04:05:49 PM »

 That means LI Corvette by me has the correct one (with a period).
It figures the Corvette crowd are that granular in details  

Thanks Lynn!
Mike

2170

Originality / Was it DIFF or DIFF.

« on: February 17, 2013, 03:06:53 PM »

   I'm looking for the correct posi tag for my one 67 with a 12 bolt posi.
From looking at the CRQ archives I understand the correct wordage should be:
"USE POSITRACTION DIFF LUBRICANT ONLY"

I see two reproduction tags with one style having a period after the word DIFF and another without a period (DIFF.  vs. DIFF)
Does anyone still have their original tag to verify which is correct?

Thank you,
Mike

2171

General Discussion / Re: NCIB

« on: February 16, 2013, 08:27:01 PM »

 Do you think the services offered to produce a VIN history report (example: InstaVin) would include cars made prior to when a 'title' began to be used?

Mike

2172

General Discussion / Re: Original P T B marks

« on: February 16, 2013, 05:36:10 PM »

X77-

 Was it paint or a heavy ink that managed to survived time.

Mike

2173

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69' 302 CE numbers

« on: February 16, 2013, 02:07:26 AM »

 Thanks Gary, John and Bryon,

   Interesting about the CE history. I'm guessing with the growing popularity of high performance motors back in the day, engine and tranny damage became more frequent leading to more warranty fixes. So a  better way to track warranty was needed though it sounds like the Georgia statutory requirements played a major role in the CE policy change.
  Back to an earlier question, was there such a thing as a 2-bolt main CE block? I have only seen 4-bolt main blocks. I'm sure 2 bold mains must have failed at some time back then.

Thanks,
Mike

2174

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69' 302 CE numbers

« on: February 13, 2013, 12:00:34 AM »

Gary,

  What was the normal practice of post installation markings of warranty engine and transmissions (original parts with unique serial numbers) prior to this CE requirement listed in Aug/Sep of 67?

Thanks,
Mike

2175

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Z/RS numbers

« on: February 10, 2013, 09:04:58 PM »

 I'm impressed about this clever wording....
The Term “Numbers Matching” used in our descriptions refers to an engine that has an: engine block casting number and date, engine assembly date and suffix code, and engine VIN/serial number that are present in a manner that is consistent with build sequence of the described vehicle.
 
  IMO, today's buyers may not be as demanding in having an original stamped part so a restamped one will be acceptable even if they are told out right. After all, if you are driving it around, an original or restamped doesn't matter......each will give you just as much fun.
Whether we like it or not, those restamps are here to stay even if it is kept a secret as to what to watch out for.

Mike