CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 25, 2014, 06:19:30 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.
106594 Posts in 12427 Topics by 4790 Members
Latest Member: gmein
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 39
226  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: rear end for my car dating info help experts please on: May 02, 2014, 11:46:32 PM
My experience tells me that date would work. I have posted this info before, but my 3E (5th week of March) car has a rear axle dated April 7th!  Top that !?
I , like others, try to extrapolate information based on what we know about build dates. Using the 912 a day production quota (going by memory, so forgive me if I am off), I use the CRG page http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#HowMany comparing end of month production and calculate my vins accordingly with days of production to calculate build date. This calendar year, 2014, some may have noticed, is the same date/day corespondence as 1969, so today, Friday 5-2 also fell on a Friday in 69. Not relavent, but just pointing out a fact. Anyway, I'll point out a caveat about 3E being only one day, Monday the 31st of March, which I feel in reality 3E must have encompassed the first week of April. The ending Vin for March according to the chart for Nor. plant is 62,3587. My car is 62,84XX almost 5000 past the supposed last March Vin. This would point to my car being built using the 912 per day formula as about 5 days into April, I figure. Considering there were 4 working days after the Monday 4-31 and then the weekend, I surmise the car was rolling off the line about April 7th or 8th. BAck to the rear, it has a build date of April 7th. I wonder too how it could be this close, but it is. As pointed out in other similar topics, the TT date is loosely in line with calendar dates, so maybe the car was completed more like on the 8th or 9th of April. Nonetheless, I can use what I do know and I have no reason to believe the rear is nothing but the born with component and conclude that some components can be very close. As a comparrison, My 11D car has a 11-22 axle, but so does my 12B car, same date, same BS code. If anything, I may have question about the 12B being Born with, but it has always appeared as untampered basd on brake lines etc..and has been that way at least the 35 years I have owned the car. So, one car is within a month of build, one within a week and one within a day(s).
227  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: rear end for my car dating info help experts please on: May 02, 2014, 02:00:57 PM
My experience tells me that date would work. I have posted this info before, but my 3E (5th week of March) car has a rear axle dated April 7th!  Top that !?
228  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Your Friday Photo on: April 30, 2014, 10:38:50 PM
Thanks for added insight Paul and Amen Gar!
229  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Your Friday Photo on: April 30, 2014, 08:04:30 PM
Beautiful angle and pic of your car Phillip! That Caddy  (1912) was the first car to have a starter. Thanks to Charles Kettering and Henry Leland. And you guys thought I only knew Camaro facts?!
230  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z/11 L78 Pace Car "Unrestored survivor" on: April 29, 2014, 07:33:09 PM
Hi Roy,
Thanks for jumping in and telling what you know about this car. Your account and willingness to clarify helps give some credability to the statements made regarding this car. I was having, and still am having, a hard time wrapping my head around a couple of things specifically about the block. I really find it hard to accept that the block used for this car was 9 months old as pointed out. Not saying it is not possible, mind you, or in any way trying to discredit a claim, but I study and review many block stamps and castings here and elsewhere. And although there anomalies and anything, I suppose, is possible, I wonder how that could have happened? And then the decking. it is incredible that no one rebuilt the engine, per se, yet they pulled the motor at some point and dismantled the entire assembly and had it decked, or so it would seem by the description, and then put it back together. They were fortunate the vin stamp by filter is so strong as most are not as noted. I am NOT saying the car is tampered with, so please do not think this is an indictment of sorts. I would have to really look at things in person and a POP would certainly help me make sense of the cars history. The car is real interesting and I do love 69 BB Camaros and try to check each one out and evaluate each based on what I know. Yourself, having acquired the car in 2006 would leave over 25 years of history that would be nice to know a little clearer. If you have contacted previous owners and you say you have, they may shed some light as to what and why it is like it is. Wink
231  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Chrome trim options. on: April 28, 2014, 02:29:40 PM
ZLP (Tim) is correct, a lot of owners probably went to the dealer to add the trim ...
... the only critic you have to please is yourself! Wink

Bullitt, good observation. Lately, I realize more and more when you factor what the dealer did or may have done to sell a car, many unconventional combinations are possible.
Your other thought: Right on about pleasing yourself...I think Ricky Nelson had a song about that. Early on in a body person search, a guy looked at my car. He asked what model it was? I told him SS. He said he did not think it was an SS because it did not have spoilers or a Tachometer?! Needless to say, he was not the guy I chose. I was irked that he acted as if he would not do resto if it were a more "common" car, I just got  that opinion by his questions. His lack of Camaro knowledge about details could have been overlooked provided that he agreed to consult me or CRG on specific details, but he said he did not consult the internet for anything and info there probably would be wrong anyway. (I don't think he trusted my expertise (loosely) as he did not believe I knew what my own car was).
232  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Tornado Weather time.. :( on: April 28, 2014, 02:16:42 PM
Prayers go out to you and ALL the others affected by this storm season.   ...I knew that snow season would be missed too soon. PM me Gary with your exact home 20. Thanks and G.bless.
233  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Had Camaro out first time on: April 28, 2014, 02:11:29 PM
What's not to like, cool place to cruise and car looks great! When we would cruise at a drive-in, BITD, We would back into the spot to show off our ride and, I'll add, be ready for a match race out front of the Big Boy on the long straight 2 lane. Sigh! Those were the days. Wink

Yeah,  you also backed in, so you could watch the circling cars, not only to spot 'new or hot cars', but also to spot 'hot' ladies.. Smiley
(as did I).. Smiley

Absolutely Gar!!!  and I ended up "catching" one of those "hotties" and marrying her!!!! ending my cruising days. Best thing that ever happened, plus she let me keep my car(s)...what a catch.  I'll add, she had a "feature" that reminded me of the front of an old Caddy?!
234  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z/11 L78 Pace Car "Unrestored survivor" on: April 28, 2014, 10:26:35 AM
As I have been told by more than one machine shop, Big Blocks almost always need align bore. I don't neccessarily agree as bearing wear should be a good indicator of align bore. Whether a "wives tale" or not, I have never verified what I have been told and it is this: "When Chevrolet align bored the Big Block at Tonawanda the fixtures were designed to do the Small Block and the boring bar was not long enough to do the Big Block in a single step, so the block was indexed 180 degrees and did the back two mains on a second pass coming in from the back. This is why B. Blocks always should be align bored.". Not saying this is the gospel, but how it was explained by more than one shop. I personally, do not like doing machine work for sake of just doing it, but rather, try to just what is needed or neccessary. Sometimes it is hard to know where to stop when doing machine work. Decking just to true up surface would probably leave evidence of block numbers as only .010 or .015 should be all that is needed. If I were taking more off, I would consider doing more, like making deck have zero deck height (blueprinting) and making all rods and pistons even. This would improve the "quench area" and improve combustion and full burn across top of piston increasing power and reducing detonation. If piston is clean across top (farthest away from plug) upon tear down, this indicates that fuel is not being fully burned leading to lost power. Even more critical with a domed piston. Ideal quench area (distance from piston flat on top to deck)is .030 which is achieved with a composition head gasket and zero deck height machining(this according to Smokey Yunick). I built a 350 like this once. Of course, this leads to more machining as heads have to be CC'd. So to wring out extra ponies, it gets exponentially more expensive to achieve as you approach 100 percent efficiency (not possible). Basic performance tricks and machining yield close to 80 percent and is a practical approach for most. Stack up tolerances effect so much of a builds performance and that is why two identical stockers can have such a varying difference in performance.
235  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Had Camaro out first time on: April 28, 2014, 10:01:06 AM
What's not to like, cool place to cruise and car looks great! When we would cruise at a drive-in, BITD, We would back into the spot to show off our ride and, I'll add, be ready for a match race out front of the Big Boy on the long straight 2 lane. Sigh! Those were the days. Wink
236  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z/11 L78 Pace Car "Unrestored survivor" on: April 27, 2014, 07:29:22 PM
Why would you deck a standard bore block ? If the bores were in that good of shape, the deck surface should be pretty flat. Hard to imagine a 92,000 mile block that didn't require some overbore, considering yesterday's materials. Could be wrong, but normally one might require the other. That early a casting for a May car ? One month, maybe two, but 9 is unlikely.

Regards -

Machine shops, what are they in the business of doing? Why, machining, of course!! I never and mean NEVER had an engine where the shop did not recommend it all. Regardless if I thought it needed boring or whatever after checking with my own guages/mics, the shop wanted to do everything to the engine. Two reasons: They want to insure, as much as possible, the engine lives, protecting their reputation. 2, That (machining) is their business, so of course they will sell what work they can. The material and casting/machining variances from that era, as pointed out, almost if not always guarantee boring, align boring with relatively low miles. I only insisted that the decking was not to be done to protect the numbers after some discussion with shop owner.
237  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z/11 L78 Pace Car "Unrestored survivor" on: April 27, 2014, 04:54:25 PM
Saw that car and ain't buying that claim. Car, according to Vin is late April/early May 69. Block casting is August 68. Stamp by filter looks suspicious, but will hold my comment as I have not seen that many oil filter pads. Most of my cars have had stamp on pad. Also (conveinently) decked pad, I may add. Just not giving it the "Survivor" claim stated.
238  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: How long have you owned your Camaro? on: April 25, 2014, 09:23:29 PM
Mikes 69 coupe-Very very nice! LeMans Blue-a favorite among myself and many here on site. Welcome to the site,congrats on the long "affair" with your car-nice story
Daytona Yellow Z/28- That is a sweet looking ride-Love Big Blocks! Nice to see the old pics and congrats on your long time owning and commitment.
Dino67 - Pics! need pics. Sounds like a real righteous ride. L78 Wow! Welcome to the site and keep posting to all you great guys with great cars.
239  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Front Bumper Guards on: April 24, 2014, 04:35:22 PM
My car, as well, has (had) them (front guards). I look at a lot of 69's and check out what options they have. Like these front guards in topic, I am surprised how many cars appear to have rear defrost, when it was scarce, also, according to production figures. I wonder now how many cars had several dealer installed options that ,of course, are not recorded? That may explain why seemingly scarce options are more prolific than production figures indicate. This is not considering the recent increase in adding options to restos as more and more repro parts become available.
240  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: vin numbers on: April 23, 2014, 08:36:56 PM

   . Automatic tranny.

Could you tell what kind of trans? 2 or 3 speed? TH400 could possibly indicate a SS Big Block car.There are so many things to check that may be definitive of what car is or was with TT #'s being somewhat useless as stated on a 68
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 39
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 0.093 seconds with 18 queries.