CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2014, 05:11:51 PM

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.
97207 Posts in 11691 Topics by 4578 Members
Latest Member: ronhill
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 65
16  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1967 - Y-1 (Butternut with White top) - Anyone have any pictures? on: March 29, 2014, 10:32:45 AM
 Isn't that an aftermarket white top judging from the 2-piece rear window I see?
The color combo looks good, but like a black car, the dirt must show up quickly.

Mike
17  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Block crayon marks on: March 29, 2014, 10:28:56 AM
Hi John,

  I thought the engine prefix stamp was applied before the heads were mounted which explained why some of the stampings were close to the head to deck edge or under the water plug protrusion as with BB's. Or was it different between BB and SB in regards to when the pad was stamped in relation to the head mountings?

Mike
18  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Hmmm, "complete bumber to bumber" restored 69 Z on: March 29, 2014, 08:49:21 AM
 That is a very well written warranty.

Mike
19  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Block crayon marks on: March 29, 2014, 07:22:33 AM
 My vote is with 'OK'
It's good to see these marking were done while the engine was assembled and prior to painting over them and surviving today.

Mike
20  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: White paint on 68 cowl tag on: March 28, 2014, 09:18:57 PM
 This topic has been discussed a lot. Do a search and you will find several threads on it.
This one in particular seems to make it clearer. http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=10038.0
and http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=4727.0

As for '67 I can see it may have been done as a visual aid on a fast moving assembly line because many option codes were stamped on the tag.
Not sure why it was continued in early '68 but my guess would be the workers didn't realize this ad-hoc step was not necessary anymore because no options were listed to reference.

Mike
21  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: tank restoration on: March 28, 2014, 09:07:34 PM
I parted out an 01B of 1969 Los Angeles car late last year and the underside of the gas tank is painted black; will take and post some pictures tomorrow.
Here's a picture of that tank, you can see where there is no paint where the tank straps were. This is not undercoating. The tank was original to the car:


Tim,
  Are those dried paint runs at the lowest points I see?

Mike
22  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Date Stamping on: March 27, 2014, 06:57:17 PM
 Same here.....looked over the original '67 dash pad and no numbers or letters anywhere.

Mike
23  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 z28 distributor hold down bolt on: March 27, 2014, 06:53:10 PM
 Only speaking for '67 L35, especially the unrestored one, they are phosphate.
I can't recall ever seeing bright zinc bolt on first gen's.

Mike
24  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: tank restoration on: March 27, 2014, 06:24:45 PM
 Using a gas soaked rag and rubbing for several minutes I cleaned off a section of the tank (now the rest of the car looks like poop).
What is shown is a thick film of dried paint. It looks very much like the runs you would see on a parts that were flow coated with runs that collected and dried, though we know the tanks were not flow coated.
 I noticed in the vast majority of the dried droplets there appears to be what looks like solvent popping. Typical of a paint film going on too thick and something undercoating doesn't do. I included a rear shot of the car (excuse the flat tires) to show the age and patina.
  Maybe this should be a new topic and a poll taken?

Mike
25  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Research Topics & Reports / Re: 1967 Camaro radius rod research on: March 27, 2014, 04:50:29 PM
 There should be 3 bolts holding the front bracket. Two against the floor and one to the side rail.

Mike
26  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Hmmm, "complete bumber to bumber" restored 69 Z on: March 27, 2014, 12:30:21 PM
  I damn near spit my coffee out onto the keyboard after seeing that picture.  Shocked

"At 10PM she is a 2......at 2AM she is a 10"

Mike
27  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: tank restoration on: March 27, 2014, 10:47:56 AM
 No, I am not the original owner but I did buy it from him in 1980 after it sat in his garage covered with beach chairs for 6 years prior.
Like I said, you have to see it up close to see it is just thick paint buildup in those areas. The shadows from the flash exaggerate it to look more pronounced.
The runs don't look any thicker than those in the cowl and door areas.
Putting the runs aside, it still shows a black painted tank that apparently LOS did.
I hope Kurt can get the photo he stated.

Mike
28  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: tank restoration on: March 27, 2014, 07:00:52 AM
That lumpy 'paint' you refer to, sure looks like the old undercoating I've seen on many many cars..  Smiley

You have to see it in person to realize it is paint. The upper portions of the tank have a smooth black covering and only the lower portions where wet thick paint would gravitate to are lumpy. Same type of lumpy paint runs I have on the firewall cowl edge and inner door jambs. If it were undercoating then why stop at the tank and not do the whole underside? The floor boards are not coated with anything aside from years of grime. I can leave my fingernail imprint in the undercoating in the wheel wells and it still has that  tar texture, but the tank drips are hard and I can't leave any nail prints.

Mike
29  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: tank restoration on: March 26, 2014, 05:46:21 PM
Mine is definitely paint on the tank, no undercoating except the wheel wells. The covering is a typical factory application in that it has a lot of large runs at the bottom of the tanks lowest shape so application technique was quick and not exact. It most certainly is not a well masked off and carefully applied spray job that one would usually do if painting themselves. I'll take some picture and post later.

 Any other LOS Camaro owners out there -or- appraisers who have black sprayed tanks?

Mike

 Attached are images of my 67 4B LOS tank that is painted black. Due to the flash and dried dirt on the tank, it looks lighter but I can assure you it is black. I looked closely and used my fingernail and is definitely paint and not undercoating. As you can see it was applied in a typical production line fashion freehand. No masking at all. The paint stops on the edges of the tanks visible bottom. You can clearly see the overspray on the springs including dried drips with some overlapping the remaining gray paint of the spring. The bottom of the tank has the largest amount of runs that gravitated to the lowest parts. It is obvious the paint has been on the tank for a long time and not some carefully applied job that one would expect to do if painted after delivery.
  Any members from the Camaro Pace Car group present and care to chime in? I know you have seen this before.

Mike
30  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Is this tag real or fake? on: March 26, 2014, 02:36:19 PM
.................It separates the men from the boys doesn't it......
 My old-school car friend (WW2 vet) would always say when thinking back to the old days...."yep....those were the days when men were men...and the sheep knew it"

 Grin
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 65
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 0.092 seconds with 18 queries.