CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2014, 10:15:14 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.
106635 Posts in 12432 Topics by 4790 Members
Latest Member: gmein
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 77
646  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster on ebay on: February 23, 2013, 05:15:24 PM
Mike, I wonder if it was lightly stamped and was cleaned up when the booster was restored? It is definitely original to the car.
  That could very well be the case. After I became more interested in this topic late last year I have looked at several original unrestored 69 boosters and many had such lightly stamped Delco markings that not all the characters were fully developed. So, if the metal is stripped down and polished during the restoration process then it's likely the remainder of the characters are removed.

Mike
647  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster on ebay on: February 23, 2013, 03:32:10 PM
Excellent! That fills in the gaps and starts to show a pattern from the sample size below.

Late 1968
Trim Tag   Julian Date  Delco Stamp  Font size (1/8Ē)
date      
shelf        334                    no      large
09C        199                   yes       large
10A        none                 yes       N/A
11A        310                   yes       large
      

1969        Julian Date   Delco Stamp  Font size (1/16Ē)
Trim Tag
date
01C              002               yes      small
02D              055               yes      small
05A              120               no       small
06A              140               yes      small
07A              148               yes      small


 This sample size is showing that late 68 used the larger 1/8Ē font and in 1969 it switched to the smaller 1/16Ē fonts.
In regards to the Delco stamp, the 2 deviations in the list are from the booster I have on the shelf and the 05A booster.
    The one I have on the shelf may very well have had the front shell replaced when it was restored back in the 1980ís when looks were more important than keeping numbers intact.
    The 05A booster *may* have had the shell replaced but I canít comment on that being itís not mine and I donít know its history.
But the data here sure shows the smaller font began around the Jan 1969 period.

Thank you,
Mike
648  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Size of original Battery tray mount and clamp bolts??? on: February 22, 2013, 10:08:45 PM
 As a suggestion, if you have the Factory Assembly Manual and if you get a copy of the AMK products catalog, you can see what the fastener sizes should be right down to the bolt size, head marking (most of the time it's correct), thread pitch and finish.

Mike
649  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Where to send starter for rebuild. on: February 22, 2013, 08:02:50 PM
I bring them to a local shop that's been doing them for decades. Listed as Alternator & Starter Repair Service.

I agree. I did that for my starter and alternator and the cost was around $40 each. I told the guy it was for a show car so he knew I wanted to retain the original cores
Mike
650  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster on ebay on: February 22, 2013, 07:40:18 PM
Gary & George,

  What size font for the Julian date? 1/16" or 2/16" ?

Thanks,
Mike
651  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969VIN on: February 21, 2013, 09:57:53 AM
  As cool as it looks with a partial painting, I'd prefer a full coverage to avoid the oxidation that eventually forms on smooth aluminum surfaces.
As Mark pointed out, being it depends on the painter of the time (van Gogh vs. Joe the painter) that gives us restorers more flexibility.

Mike
652  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Trim code on: February 20, 2013, 08:45:16 PM
 Hi Mark,

  That explanation of the month start dates sure clears it up! So, the date periods between the cowl tag and UOIT are correct in this case.
So it looks like the month/week code (ex:04B) and body code (H 457) for LOS built cars can fall within a week of each other.

 Thanks again for the clarification,
Mike
653  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Trim code on: February 20, 2013, 04:07:01 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: ďThe 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 daysĒ

 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
654  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: NCIB on: February 20, 2013, 09:53:45 AM
Hi Ed,

  If it's free then I can afford it  Wink
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
655  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: NCIB on: February 20, 2013, 08:59:26 AM
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
656  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Old pictures of the 1969 Z/28 I owned in the late '70's on: February 20, 2013, 08:30:53 AM
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)  Cheesy 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
657  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Penske 21015 dwell? on: February 20, 2013, 08:16:23 AM
 I was able to get it working last night. Itís been a while since I had to take out the DVM and troubleshoot a point to point wiring circuit (did that in the 70ís when I repaired TVís back then) and it turned out to be a cold solder joint. A little sweating of the joint and prestoÖit 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
658  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Penske 21015 dwell? on: February 19, 2013, 07:27:00 PM
 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
659  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Floor pans on: February 18, 2013, 06:31:13 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
660  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Leaf Spring code? on: February 17, 2013, 11:12:22 AM
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
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 77
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.114 seconds with 18 queries.