CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 22, 2014, 04:26:13 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.
102223 Posts in 12071 Topics by 4661 Members
Latest Member: 23bull
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 33
106  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68 and 69 Camaros for sale..... :) on: May 08, 2014, 10:18:54 PM
One update per week is not 'bugging'..  it's staying abreast..  Smiley
Yep, agree. I guess if there was something to report, he would have let me know. He could have sold it for all I know. Its probably in an Arab country right now,lol. No, I know its in good hands and when I hear something, you can bet I will keep you all informed. Will have been gone a month this Sunday the 11th
107  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68 and 69 Camaros for sale..... :) on: May 08, 2014, 10:15:50 PM
Too many doors on that 55 (sic 56)....

Actually 4 doors are pretty neat; they are quieter, don't rattle so much, are more rigid, and actually have a back seat one can use (actually 3 can use).. Smiley  you can actually carry your family to the car show and be comfortable..  so that is NEAT too.. especially when the car is as neat as a 'classic '55-'57 chevy.. Smiley

Probably more than one family started in those back seats too...if you know what I mean?
108  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68 and 69 Camaros for sale..... :) on: May 08, 2014, 10:14:10 PM
Nope. No news on the progress yet. Promissed myself that I would not "bug" the guy, so I have kept my word so far. Thanks for asking though.
109  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68 and 69 Camaros for sale..... :) on: May 08, 2014, 10:03:32 PM
I know you and I know you knew better, and I know you know your cars and I regard you as an authority being truthful and knowledgable. Sorry, should have let you edit. I don't know how many times I post and quickly have to edit.
110  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68 and 69 Camaros for sale..... :) on: May 08, 2014, 09:58:45 PM
56
111  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: HOLLEY 4053 CARB on: May 08, 2014, 08:08:13 PM
If memory serves: ID number on the plate is 12R-4770B and the butterflies have "172" stamped on them the bore diameter is 1 5/8". Vacuum secondary. From searching the internet I believe the replacement is the 112-117. You may want to read on this site under carb section about a engineering change done around 72 to the plate giving it more "beef". A purist is going to want to find an era correct piece.

If function over form is your preference, meaning you do not care how it looks, welding can be done. Make sure you run a file over mating surfaces to true them up afterwards.
112  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Now that you know what dealer originally sold your car.... on: May 08, 2014, 07:26:01 PM
Gar, I, too, in the day, would have removed or stipulated that no insignias/placards be placed on my car(s). In the case of my old cars, with the desire to preserve and add a little nostalgia these days, my mind has me leaving or even adding some of the dealer embellishments to give the car some uniquness and a look of an untouched "time capsule". So, count me in on these small added feautures like a decal, placard or license frame. Some close friends gave me a license frame and a placard for the closed down dealer that was in our small town where I live now. I know or am real sure my car did not come from this dealer, but since I don't know and may never know, this will have to do.
113  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Muncie Transmission tag (pn?) on: May 08, 2014, 02:17:32 PM
All covered in the AIM- M20-A1 I had asked about this sometime back about the difference in the part numbers for different RPO's. M20 was either 3950356 or 3946797 for 1969 depending on RPO and Gear ratio. Might as well put other #'s while I am looking at page-M21= 3950316 or 3946798, M22-3950318
114  Model Specific Discussions / 6-cylinder Camaros / Re: Slowly starting the 6 cylinder RS build from Hell on: May 07, 2014, 10:30:42 PM
Sounds like you've been around the block a few times Alex! You have had some real nice sounding, fun rides. Welcome. I know you will do fine and are a good asset to the site. You can always use the PM feature to send more personal info in the future. It will take some time to learn how to do searches and looking up guys is not too hard. Chilli R is in 6 cyl. section. Give him a PM. I am in S.W. Ohio East of Cincy.
115  Model Specific Discussions / 6-cylinder Camaros / Re: Slowly starting the 6 cylinder RS build from Hell on: May 07, 2014, 04:58:00 PM
Not trying to chastise you about your profile because no one else seems to put that(location) in their profile either, maybe purposely. Many on here also have accounts on the other sites, including me. I frequent this site the most as I am obssessed with original, correct and/or day two type cars. This site seems to bring out the same type of enthusiasts. If I wanted to know what the best tremec kit or if an intercooler is needed or if velvet interior was an option, I would go to TC. Just too many goofy non-original topics for me. You sound like more the CRGer. I hope to read and help in your quest of details. Nothing wrong with a Six. Sometimes, I wish mine was a six, especially when putting gas in it and when buying parts...much less expensive for engine pieces. You should contact chilli R. He is in Marion, Ohio. He came down to my place a few weeks ago and talked me out of my 69 250 six.
116  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stripe delete on: May 07, 2014, 01:34:02 PM
DW, thought you were going to tell me tag is FAKE...still remembering last time you messed with my head Grin Grin Roll Eyes
117  Model Specific Discussions / 6-cylinder Camaros / Re: Slowly starting the 6 cylinder RS build from Hell on: May 07, 2014, 01:02:43 PM
Great news! Too bad you do not have your location on your profile, then we could have had conversed and you could have helped me with part finding and, likewise, I could have helped you. You are missing out on another great resource of part acquisition by forming relationships (networking) , here, on the site. Best of luck and can't wait to see pics of your progress.
118  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct engine paint suggestions please! on: May 07, 2014, 12:55:42 PM
This photo shows what looks to be either a way to manipulate the engine for painting or part of the mask for the end of the water pump and the by pass hose is this correct?

Yup, that's correct.
JohnZ-You mean both? Manipulate engine and/or mask?
119  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stripe delete on: May 07, 2014, 12:42:08 PM
Going back to Darrell's post (#45) the footnote (4) regarding LeMans Blue says that only White stripes have been observed...Hmmm...makes me even more curious what could have caused my tag to be - - ? Does the color look like 71? This is a real curiosity to me that I thought KurtS settled, but perhaps not. Only other thing that was different about car are the XT rims seemed to be painted Argent and I do not know if this was done after car left factory. There is blue under the silver, but whoever painted them, did so with tires off as there is overspray on inside surface where tire mounts. Just because there is blue under the silver could be someone at Nor. did not see notes and corrected to what order said? Just speculating at this point. Would like to hear what others have to say and this is nothing against Kurt's expertise, which I respect deeply, but I have never been real sure about this TT's meaning.
120  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stripe delete on: May 07, 2014, 07:13:30 AM
Z28's would show the "-" special paint code on the cowl tag so that Fisher wouldn't paint the trunck stripes, but all other stripes we GM's to paint and they didn't use any of the codes on Fishers tag to determine what options went on the car.  Heck the front end wasn't even near the rear body tub when it was painted, it was in a separate paint booth, and was never near the body until it was installed.

If he's got an L78 with a dash paint code it has to have been be a non standard color originally, or a color paint that was discontinued earlier in the model year.
If I understand your point, Mark, you are saying the dash(s) on the TT only pertained to work performed by Fisher (cowl on back), so that front striping delete (non-Fisher work)would not show a dash on the TT. Correct?
First, I am not sure that I agree. Having said that, I am certainly no expert on any of the ordering, building, selling or any other operation involved with production of early Camaros. I do have a 69 L48 car with 2 dashes on tag where paint code is located. I wondered why this was the case as the color appears to be standard color (LeMans Blue) and, in my case, no stripes were deleted. KurtS pointed out that the dashes are probably because the D90 stripes are white, but the car has a black vinyl top, the default color shows a black top would get black stripes! Now, I am not sure were the default color change (dashes) affected the top or the stripes? I mean, was it ordered with a black top (default stripe color was black) and a requested the white stripe or was it ordered with the white stripe and a change in V. top color? The later example would point to the Fisher end of production. This would support what you say, but , in fact, is this the case?
The second point: The last sentence regarding the L78, being this is a Big Block car, couldn't the paint delete be the tail panel black(Fisher side)?
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 33
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 0.088 seconds with 18 queries.