CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 20, 2014, 05:28:40 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.
107551 Posts in 12507 Topics by 4812 Members
Latest Member: oldbop88
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 40
106  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Caveat Emptor on: July 26, 2014, 08:49:22 PM
I am not sure I would even pursue this car in light of what William discloses. Further, I would not deal with someone with no eBay history like this seller. Some are scams (I have seen exposed over on sYc).  Not saying this seller is a scam, but with no selling/buying history...well lets just say, I have been burned numerous times and that is with 100% Positive feedback history from sellers. I would not proceed with caution, but run away while you can. My .02 cents.
107  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: any of you ever sued over a car you bought on: July 22, 2014, 08:30:23 PM
Hate to see anyone "taken advantage"of in this hobby, but you are not the first, nor last. Like Kelley King said, I'd chalk it up to the price of tuition for the harsh learning experience. Of course this does not teach the guy a lesson, as it is normal to want justice in our culture. The reality is that even if a settlement was reached and that is presuming a case can be made, the lawyer gets most of the funds as his pay, hence his/her incentive.
I know this is hindsight, but I don't like to buy something that was "restored" by someone else unless proof and documents showing work to support claimed work are present. I usually get untouched cars were all that is wrong can be plainly seen. I would put my energies into either fixing car right or abandoning the project, cut your losses, and find another car. Coming out on top in legal matters are the exception , rather than the rule, at least from my experiences.
108  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: N34 Rosewood Question? on: July 20, 2014, 10:06:42 PM
In another post, I posted pics of my 69 Walnut Wheel,fyi.
109  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Trim Tag D80 question on: July 12, 2014, 11:58:32 AM
Bentley, I wasn't clear on your original posted question/statement..   

Did you mean that your 11D car had the D80 spoiler and the D80 code on the cowl tag when you purchased it, OR that it had the spoiler only?   
The CRG info states...  under the 1969 Norwood Camaro cowl tag data section...

" Additional 1969 Norwood Fisher codes that could be combined with the X-codes include:
   D80 - signifies the car was equipped with D80 spoilers, but the code was not always used."

I got an answer already. My question was: should my car have had the D80 on the tag...assuming all spoiler equipped cars had that on tag (proof of real D80). I learned that all tags did not have D80 if so equipped (early cars did not as pointed out in post answers).
110  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Trim Tag D80 question on: July 12, 2014, 08:14:03 AM
Boston-Nice clear pic-thanks a ton. I think that answers my question. ALL reponses I received answered well my question and are deeply appreciated...thanks especially to Tim.
Please, make ALL further responses in the form of a PM as some Tag info is confidential Wink Wink Wink
111  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / 69 Trim Tag D80 question on: July 12, 2014, 05:21:38 AM
My 11D Nor L48 (blue car for those that know) has/always had D80 since I owned the car. I have never had any reason to believe that it was not on the car since new. In other words, original D80 car. It could have been dealer added, I realize.
My question is: Would ALL D80 factory equipped cars (69) have that, D80, noted on the trim tag? Was the D80 notation added later in production or on there from begining of model year?
I am sorry, I did not do a search first if this has already been discussed.
112  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Words on back of sail panel (67) on: July 11, 2014, 09:50:13 PM
I think you are on the right track, at least that is my guess too(IMO). There were probably a stack of cut panels in addition to the uncut parts. This pair may have been the top of the stack and indicated that there were a 100 pair to the stack of this modified piece for lights. Makes sense to me anyway.
113  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Rear seat bulkhead #8 and #1 yellow chalk marks on 69 camaro on: July 10, 2014, 08:30:43 PM
Hi, Still looking for anyone with any suggestions to what these numbers could decode to. I seen on another forum a early 69 z28 had a LG7 on the bulkhead and the owner said it had a rare light green interior color which would maybe confirm the LG (light green) and he said the 7 decodes to z28 without style trim,  and I am not sure of the validity of that. Also another owner chimed in and said he had a LG1 on his bulkhead and his would decode as LG (light green) with a 1 meaning car with style trim or RS. So I was wandering if my 8 and 1 could mean z28 with style trim for my car which would be correct. Just throwing that out there. Thanks, Michael
If you have not already done so, go to the "search" feature and put in "bulkhead" or "crayon marks" or "bulk head". Quite a few posts on the topic regarding the RH crayon marks. No one knows about your LH marks or they would post (at least no one yet has replied). This info in the search explains what you ask regarding the LG7 and other codes found.
114  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Cowl Tag Codes Sep 68 vs Sep 69 on: July 10, 2014, 05:27:17 PM
  Since the '69 was a long model year run (July '68 to Nov '69) is there any difference in the date code for a car built in Sep '68 and a car built in Sep '69?


Funny, the question was about Trim Tag date code-NOT X codes or markings on seat backs!
115  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Clutch Lower Push Rod Alignment & AIM? on: July 09, 2014, 08:26:07 PM
What I don't like is if you install as per AIM, it trys to push the fork off the bellhousing ball, and it wears out the fork clip. JMO again.
I agree. I don't care what AIM shows, if it works better the other way, that is how I would put it. It is just practicle engineering that would have a straight line positioning.
116  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Cowl Tag Codes Sep 68 vs Sep 69 on: July 08, 2014, 12:14:38 PM
No. In your example, 3rd week of September (09C), it would be the same on a 1968 tag and 69,70 etc....So, a Sept.68 and Sept.69 would both show 09C on the TT. Also, remember, the tag size changed between those two example dates. Make sure the VIN corresponds with the time frame of the TT.
117  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Do You Still Have Your First Car? on: July 03, 2014, 07:50:42 PM
Nick-That is a real inspiring story of "keeping the faith" and never giving up. Through thick and thin, trials and tribulation, a truly encouraging long relationship with your car.

George-Love that Caddy. Is that in Florida? Guessing by the house color and style. Like you love the old pics and stories.
118  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Happy Birthday 69Z28 on: July 02, 2014, 09:52:58 PM
congrats to you too, Gary W. You are a good looking Devil and the Mrs. is a real Peach. Nice pics.
119  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Chicken or the Egg? on: July 02, 2014, 06:39:35 PM
I knew better than to even get up this mornin'.!!

Hey Daniel, glad you got out of bed this morning. Glad to see you posting. it's been a while.
Is it just me? Are you getting old Gary? Ya only been 61 a day now. It has been awhile because that post is from Jan 2011!!!??? Huh Shocked Cheesy Embarrassed Tongue
120  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / 7/4 Happy Anniversary BULLITT65 on: July 02, 2014, 06:53:29 AM
11 Years??!! That woman has to be a saint Grin Grin
Dear Tech Support,
Last year I upgraded from Boyfriend 5.0 to Husband 1.0 and I noticed a distinct slowdown in the overall system performance, particularly in the flower and jewelery applications, which operated flawlessly under Boyfriend 5.0.

In addition, Husband 1.0 uninstalled many other valuable programs, such as Romance 9.5 and Personal Attention 6.5, and then installed undesirable programs such as NEWS 5..0, MONEY 3.0 and FOOTBALL 4.1.

Conversation 8.0 no longer runs, and House cleaning 2.6 simply crashes the system.

Please note that I have tried running Nagging 5.3 to fix these problems, but to no avail. What can I do?


Reply From Tech Support:
DEAR Madam,

First, keep in mind, Boyfriend 5.0 is an Entertainment Package, while Husband 1.0 is an operating system.

Please enter command: ithoughtyoulovedme. html and try to download Tears 6.2 and do not forget to install the Guilt 3.0 update. If that application works as designed, Husband1.0 should then automatically run the applications Jewellry 2.0 and Flowers 3.5. However, remember, overuse of the above application can cause Husband 1.0 to default to Silence 2.5 or Beer 6.1.

Please note that Beer 6.1 is a very bad program that will download the Snoring Loudly Beta. Whatever you do, DO NOT under any circumstances install Mother-In-Law 1.0 (it runs a virus in the background that will eventually seize control of all your system resources.)

In addition, please do not attempt to reinstall the Boyfriend 5.0 program. These are unsupported applications and will crash Husband 1.0.

In summary, Husband 1.0 is a great program, but it does have limited memory and cannot learn new applications quickly. You might consider buying additional software to improve memory and performance. We recommend: Cooking 3.0 and Hot Looks 7.7.

Good Luck Madam!
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 40
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 0.082 seconds with 18 queries.