CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 20, 2014, 11:50:29 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.
107584 Posts in 12510 Topics by 4812 Members
Latest Member: oldbop88
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 80
676  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Did console gauge cars also have a low oil pressure switch? on: March 02, 2013, 06:29:39 PM
 Updated with 12D

Feel free to add to this if you have a 67 with original gauges.
Cowl   Car   Firewall
Date   Plant   Junction
_________________________
12D   NOR  Brass
02C   LOS   Grommet
02E   NOR   Brass
03B   NOR   Brass
03C   NOR   Brass
05B   NOR   Grommet
05C   LOS   Grommet
05E   NOR   Brass
677  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Did console gauge cars also have a low oil pressure switch? on: February 27, 2013, 08:23:05 PM
Looks like we are starting to get a good sample size to see what the transition period was.
 Feel free to add to this if you have a 67 with original gauges.
Cowl   Car   Firewall
Date   Plant   Junction
_________________________
02C   LOS   Grommet
02E   NOR   Brass
03B   NOR   Brass
03C   NOR   Brass
05B   NOR   Grommet
05C   LOS   Grommet
05E   NOR   Brass

Buddy (X77-69z28), what month and plant is your 67 with the brass fitting?

Mike
678  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Research Topics & Reports / Re: 67-68 Los Angeles firewall piercings on: February 26, 2013, 11:26:00 PM
 The second picture of the 67 with the oil line is sure interesting. It has the rubber grommet. There has been a thread going around last year and it touched on when the switchover was from the metal firewall union to the rubber grommet ( http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=9493.0 ). The assembly manual shows around April-May 67. My 05B NOR has the rubber grommet. I'm surprised to see your 02C car has it.
  What is the "13" in the tunnel in the second picture?

Mike
679  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 67 Z28's on: February 26, 2013, 09:10:37 PM
 This site has some interesting info.
http://www.67z28.com/history.htm

Mike
680  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Parking Lights will not turn off on: February 25, 2013, 07:57:01 PM
Someone here had this similar problem last year and it turned out to be a misplaced wire in the front harness when he did some wire work.
Try doing a search and you should be able to find that thread.
 Good luck!

Mike
681  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster on ebay on: February 23, 2013, 11:00:03 PM

   If you are certain that is original to your car then that does throw a deviation in this for sure.  Huh
Below is the updated list.

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

1969        Julian Date   Delco Stamp  Font size (1/16”)
Trim Tag
date
01C              002               yes      small
02D              055               yes      small
05A              120               no       small
06A              140               yes      small
07A              148               yes      small
09C              199               yes      large
682  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Sunoco 260 on: February 23, 2013, 07:37:06 PM
 I used that in my 69 Grand Prix Model J back in '73. I *think* it was somewhere around 102 or 104, if that high.
Back in the days when you could get real leaded gas.

Mike
683  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
684  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 (1/8”)
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 (1/16”)
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 1/8” font and in 1969 it switched to the smaller 1/16” 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 1980’s when looks were more important than keeping numbers intact.
    The 05A booster *may* have had the shell replaced but I can’t comment on that being it’s not mine and I don’t know its history.
But the data here sure shows the smaller font began around the Jan 1969 period.

Thank you,
Mike
685  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
686  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
687  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
688  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
689  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
690  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: “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
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 80
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 0.11 seconds with 18 queries.