CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 07:04:41 AM

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.
103781 Posts in 12188 Topics by 4700 Members
Latest Member: lpetruc
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 ... 72
691  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Official CRG Cap and T-shirt? on: November 13, 2012, 09:22:31 AM
My other concern dealt with the issue of how CRG gets its profits....
I would take this off line and discuss with the CRG folks privately. There are legal implications here when it comes to the word 'profits' unless CRG is a registered nonprofit organization with a 501 filing that can accept income.  

Mike
692  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster on ebay on: November 12, 2012, 07:47:48 PM
This much seems certain so far based on the few samples posted here:

Boosters made to late 68 used larger 1/8" fonts and no Delco (based on my only sample I have since the 80's from a resto shop)
9204 boosters made in 69 used a smaller 1/16" font but the Delco appearance seems mixed:

1968
Julian date 332 - Delco stamp - no

1969
Tag date Julian date  Delco Stamp?
02D        055           yes
05A        120           no
06A        140           yes
07A        148           yes
  If x77-69z28's  booster is indeed original to his car then that must mean the Delco stamping was not consistent. But this summary is based on a very small sample size so I would not draw any final conclusions. The one on eBay has the small fonts so that seems consistent, but the absence of the Delco can be correct if Delco was not stamped on every unit. However, the ad is wrong in that it states a 1/8" font when in fact that looks like 1/16" height. Also the front cover does not look like a reproduction. Those stand out and can be identified very easily due to them having very crisp pattern edges.
 Give Steve at brakeboosters.com a call if you need a correct booster.

Mike
693  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster on ebay on: November 12, 2012, 02:50:49 PM
   So based on the samples posted here it's looking like boosters made in 67 to sometime late 68 used 1/8" fonts and those stamped in 69 used 1/16" fonts.
I wonder when the Delco stamping appeared. The 1/8" font 9404 booster I have (made in late 68)  has no Delco stampings. It would be interesting to see if 69 dated boosters using the 1/16" fonts is when the Delco stamp appeared.

Mike
694  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Official CRG Cap and T-shirt? on: November 12, 2012, 12:00:56 PM
I vote for #14 in color, design and layout but...

I would eliminate the ' #1 source.....' line as it sounds like it's selling something. How about what the home page states...
"Research and Restoration Data for First-Generation Camaros"

Mike
695  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Official CRG Cap? on: November 10, 2012, 12:26:53 PM
Marty,
My vote is keep the CRG logo + wording.  Loose the RS, SS, etc. but add (in small lettering) the web address.

I kind of like this idea more. The shirt on customlink looks very nice so you're onto something now. IMO, a picture will eventually fade with washings. Having the wording embroidered would look much better vs screening.
696  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Quarter Window Well Water Drain on: November 10, 2012, 12:15:16 PM
  Standing on the outside looking into the quarter area bottom....look a few inches from the front wheel tub and you should see an elongated hole about 1/2" wide punched into the rocker that is towards the inside of the car. That's what my 67 has.

Mike
697  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Official CRG Cap? on: November 09, 2012, 08:36:20 PM
I like the emblems the way you mocked them up on the shirt. But the Z/28 may overshadow the SS and RS, enough for guys to want "the SS on top". Thats why it may look better to have :

RS      Z/28    SS

Plus the SS guys will like the SS out front, I would think....

I agree. The Z should be in the center due to the slash so that would maintain some symmetry but CRG should be the most prominent size to display and the model designations smaller.

Mike
698  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Console bracket & U-joint on: November 08, 2012, 06:02:54 PM
Hi Chick,

  I just looked at the botton of the nut flange that was against the floor and it clearly shows it is dark phosphate. Also, the two 'U' nuts which have their original finish look like dark phosphate. Mine have flange nuts so maybe that was a '67 thing. The threaded shafts are natural. I say phosphate because it is stated here in CRG that black oxide was not the method of choice back then.

Hope this helps,
Mike
699  Orphans - documentation or VIN-stamped drivetrains - in search of the original cars / 1969 - Orphans / Re: 9N515365 V09I7DZ block on e-bay on: November 08, 2012, 03:21:03 PM
I was thinking restamp too since the deck looked to be surfaced, but if you look carefully at the 1st picture, you can see the broach marks. The close up doesn't show that.

Ed

  That close up of the deck looks sort of like one 67 I have in that it appears a slight decking was done because the raised edges on the stamped characters I often see on untouched pads look to be gone though some broach marks remain.
What is the odd looking octagon stamp?

Mike
700  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Transmission crossmember bolts on: November 08, 2012, 02:34:20 PM
 I realize this topic is mainly '69 but for '67 the below picture shows a non-shoulder bolt taken from my survivor you may find of interest. This is on an L35/TH400 car.
It must have been fun installing these from the bottom up (unless they had shallow sockets) which llikely accounts for the type change in later years.

Mike
701  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Transmission crossmember bolts on: November 08, 2012, 10:41:19 AM
 I meant more for head markings and not the style.
I would think there could be other manufacturers making the same style so the marking would be different.

Mike
702  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Console bracket & U-joint on: November 08, 2012, 08:27:57 AM
My 67 bracket was natural and was still pretty clean of oxidation. I used some steel wool to clean and sprayed it with a flat clear.
 Can't help with the yoke.

Mike
703  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Transmission crossmember bolts on: November 08, 2012, 08:23:13 AM
 Why would these bolts be any different than so many others on the car as far as having different manufacturers markings?

Mike
704  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Reproduction Muncie Shifters on: November 06, 2012, 11:23:21 AM
 Back in the day this may have been an issue if you were racing, but today we are driving pampered show cars so racing is not necessarily on the list anymore as far as shifter play is concerned (don't want to risk a blown drive train component).

I still have the original Muncie shifter and I found that as long as it is adjusted correctly and the rod unions are not worm out, it does shift good, though not as firm as a Hurst.
IMO I would stay with the original shifter unless it has major wear.

Mike
705  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Best source for lower ball joint? on: November 05, 2012, 03:15:27 PM
 What I see more and more of is 'Made in the USA from imported parts'
Interesting reading of how a product can be labeled "Made in USA" can be found at:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/18/smallbusiness/made-in-usa-label/index.html

Sorry for being off topic slightly.

Mike
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 ... 72
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 0.413 seconds with 18 queries.