CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 01, 2014, 08:55:54 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.
103778 Posts in 12188 Topics by 4699 Members
Latest Member: ozman
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 [63] 64 65 ... 72
931  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 CAMARO CALF TRIM TAG on: March 18, 2012, 03:45:00 PM
The build sheet *may* be above the gas tank though I have never seen one myself. I found the UOIT on my LOS car taped to the tunnel on the drivers side under the carpet along with an electrical inspection tag.
I was told these are rare to find however so I got lucky to have one with my car and it's the only documentation I have to show it is what it is.

Mike
932  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: American Icon: Muscle Car on: March 18, 2012, 01:25:39 PM
............. but cracked up at every Camaro with that dang caution sticker you referred to Marty. Who the heck is restoring these things? The more we learn the more we notice how incredibly wrong some of these high restoration.

  When I see these repeated fan sticker mistakes I often think of what Jake Holman said in the movie The Sand Pebbles:   "....pigeon see...pigeon do"  Cheesy

Mike
933  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 CAMARO CALF TRIM TAG on: March 18, 2012, 11:54:27 AM
Hi Tony,
   The casting dates look tight so that's a good sign. What are the head cast dates? Did you check the cast numbers as well to see if they are correct? So far everything looks good but it's fun to document the numbers. Per a UOIT (a document that is rare to find), that area of the plate where the engine code would be stamped is listed as the engine reinforcement assembly.
So, if Mark is correct with the traction bar plate installed vs. not installed, then that would make sense why yours doesn't have the code stamped.

So far,  based on what you have presented, it looks like the car is authentic. I guess other cars built with that power train combination would have to be sampled to make that a definite conclusion.
Do you have other documentation such as a POP?

Mike
934  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: American Icon: Muscle Car on: March 18, 2012, 09:05:01 AM
Ahh yes...the muscle car vs. pony car debate still lives!

I have got to get me one of those fan stickers  Wink

Interesting article though and thanks for sharing.

Mike
935  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 CAMARO 12 BOLT CODE QS on: March 18, 2012, 08:26:42 AM
 Tony,
  You will also find this interesting as well:
http://www.camaros.org/radiusrod.shtml

Mike
936  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 CAMARO CALF TRIM TAG on: March 18, 2012, 08:23:09 AM
 So the engine code shows it's a 350/295 L48/automatic and the rear shows it's a 12 bolt non-posi.
What is interesting is the trim tag is missing the 4P code.
Here is a quote from the CRG indo: "The 4P code was not used at the start of production at either the Van Nuys plant or the Norwood plant.
Van Nuys started using the 4P code on the SS350 cars in September, but Norwood didn't start using the 4P code until October. Early Van Nuys SS350 cars and Norwood SS350 cars built before October will not have the 4P code to verify that they are SS's
. "
 This is looking like you car is an exception to this finding being yours is mid June 67 (Kurt?). Then again, with a VIN sequence of 666 anything is possible  Cheesy

The engine assembly is March 23rd. Early for a June build but it is possible it sat that long.  Both my 67 BB's sat about 2 months before being installed.
If you can dig into the block casting dates and numbers (intake, block, distributor and even heads if you want to pull the covers) that would present a clearer picture of what you have.
The June 1st rear date range is good. Is there a rear factory traction bar on this car?
Per the CRG end of month VIN report, the160666 falls in the June period, which is good.

As you can see, a picture can show us a lot!

Mike
937  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Engine chrome paint spray protection? on: March 17, 2012, 12:15:54 PM
That's interesting and sure makes sense.
On another note, if cans were used over the distributor then is it safe to assume that the hold down clamp and bolt were also covered in over spray?

Thanks John

Mike
938  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Duplication of engine/trans/subframe installtion into body from below? on: March 17, 2012, 08:57:06 AM
 I did it with my restored convertible back in the 80's when I did a chassis off restoration. I measured the rocker heights before removing the chassis to get an approximation of the clearance height needed.  When I (well....we being a few guys) rolled the chassis back in as a restored assembly after the body was painted and chassis detailed, the body was supported by the rear wheels (acting pivot point) and each rocker supported with carpet lined 2x4's on hydraulic jacks situated mid-way and slightly above the clearance height measured before. The chassis rear was supported by a heavy duty Sears mechanics dolly to support the tranny side. I used a small section of steel pipe to act as the alignment pin before securing with the chassis rubber and bolts.

Mike
939  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Cowl Grill Seal on: March 16, 2012, 06:53:47 PM
You have style Marty!
 That picture is hysterical  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
940  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Engine chrome paint spray protection? on: March 16, 2012, 01:20:01 PM
Just curious how a motor that was equipped with chrome valve covers were painted. I read coffee type cans were placed on the distributor, caps on hose nipples and tape (or magnet) on engine pads, but how were the chrome covers protected from overspray?

Thanks,
Mike
941  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Subframe date stamping on: March 15, 2012, 04:35:51 PM
Quote

Yeah Mike I'm sorry I didn't "Quote" you so you would know. The pic shows up but on my monitor it's a little too big to fit so I have to scroll it over to see the paint stripe is what I meant.

That was strange. My IE browser at work didn't display the pic but now I see it at home.

Mike
942  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Subframe date stamping on: March 15, 2012, 12:44:56 PM
Look at the bottom of the picture and slide it over. It's there.
Was this reply to me? I'll be darn if I see a picture mentioned in OG69Z's reply.  Huh

Mike
943  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Subframe date stamping on: March 15, 2012, 12:12:15 PM
No date stamp, but here is a photo of the yellow mark on a 03B  LA car.


Is there an attachment missing?

Mike
944  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Subframe date stamping on: March 14, 2012, 06:10:48 PM
 I never knew what this mark on my car was until I read this thread. Here is a picture of what remians of the stripe in front of the left front tire.
This is on my unrestrored 67 LOS 4B car.
945  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Quality of restoration parts... on: March 14, 2012, 05:59:27 PM
 They may be pricey in some areas but their have great stuff. I found them by accident when I was looking to replace my radiator which had a big dent in the tank right on the Harrison name since I got the car decades ago. The previous owner must have crashed the battery into it. I really didn't want to spend over $1000 for a repo but when I found they sold just the repo Harrison tank side for a hell of a lot less than a whole unit, I jumped on it.

Mike
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 [63] 64 65 ... 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 0.274 seconds with 18 queries.