CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 23, 2014, 03:44:29 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.
105697 Posts in 12340 Topics by 4754 Members
Latest Member: Jake
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 39
496  Model Specific Discussions / 6-cylinder Camaros / Re: Nothing been going on......... on: November 09, 2013, 05:24:38 PM
Boy, you robbed the cradle! Marrying a 3 year old. LOL  Seriously, A real nice car. Keep it original. I would say it was worth marrying into that family for that car. All I got was my in-laws '66 Mustang Vert. Man, I should have held out for a Chevy family, but my wife was extremely pretty and busty, I guess a Ford will take up valuable garage space at my house.
497  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Help ! 69 without a protectoplate on: November 05, 2013, 02:11:29 PM
Correct VIN for future searches:  124379N651234

June 1969 car
498  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Help ! 69 without a protectoplate on: November 05, 2013, 08:38:26 AM
Are you referring to the tag or plate that is found on the firewall, under the "bonnet"? This is known as a "trim tag" or "cowl tag" here in the states. Whereas the protectoplate is the small plate that was attached to the warranty book and is easily and frequently separated (lost) from the car. Both tags would give pertinent information like: color, trim and date of build. The cowl tag may or may not indicate if the car was 396 equipped. This would depend on the build date starting with 2nd week of December 1968,when X codes were used for production line trim ID. Protectoplate data would give much more information regarding engine, transmission, carburetor, etc...These topics are covered thoroughly in this site elsewhere that you can look up yourself. Without those tags, very little, if anything, can be discerned about your car. Your VIN # is were I would start. At least you could determine when the car was built. Pictures to the site of different areas, like engine compartment would help others ID equipment specific to a certain option, engine, transmission etc.... lastly, looking behind rear seat on bulkhead (part that rear seat back attaches to) may give a clue as to what car is if a marking is still present or perhaps finding a build sheet on top of gas tank (one place they have been found). Hope this gets you started in right direction my UK friend. Most all topics regarding ID'ing a Camaro have been covered in nauseum on this site and can be found by doing a search of the site by topic.
499  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 Camaro deluxe door panels - Quality? on: November 02, 2013, 09:58:19 AM
Those belts (Jims69) kinda reminds me about the repro bumper jacks. They are not to be used, but are "for display puposes only". I wonder how long it will be before a facsimile Camaro is offered. It will come in a big box along with an xacto knife and a 5 gallon pail of Testors model cement (glue).
500  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 63K mile '69 Sport Coupe on: November 02, 2013, 09:27:12 AM
Hey guys,
I can sympathize and understand both view points. Flowjoe, I, too, would like to have some avenue to sell stuff that insures it goes to a "good home". I don't mind helping the true hobbyist and would give them a "deal",per se, just to be of help and assure my stuff was not butched up or sold off only that someone else could profit. Unfortunately, there are some who would capitalize on one persons generosity and the deal you gave them would be up for sale a week later at a price you could have probably gotten. Also, not everyone shares the passion for correct original cars as you point out. Again, I would probably take less money for my car knowing it was going to someone who always wanted a original, you fill in the blank, car. It never seems to fail, the reality might be and usually is,that the buyer is not as passionate and can't wait to get the torches out and ruin what you preserved.
 Bullitt65, I see your side too. We all have inquired on a car or part, just to be jerked around like a pawn in a game to "see how bad you want it". that is why most will be forthright and want pics and a price up front. That way ,we are not chasing down countless leads that never pan out. An analogy I like is a steak dinner. A $50 steak dinner will get my scrutiny more so than a $10 one. Why? Because I expect more as the price increases and perceive a bargain with the less expensive meal. The pics are one element, but without a price we cannot conclude:A)"Man! That's a deal." B)" Ahh, that seems about right from my experience on price." Lastly, C)" That guy is dreamin' if he thinks he'll get that."
So, no one needs to be upset about advices given. Both of you were being "normal" in your perspectives and had good intentions from both sides.
501  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 124379N561026 in database?? on: October 31, 2013, 08:37:31 AM
One other thing, (it was late when I posted last) The FUEL line. Yes, that pesky fuel line detail. I looked again at the pics for evidence of X55 this time looking at fuel line. A mystery here again. It is a single line and appears untouched? Hmmm...I guess the plot thickens
502  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 124379N561026 in database?? on: October 30, 2013, 10:58:54 PM
I feel somewhat responsible for getting this whole thing going on your car. If it were not for the fact that this is a 12B car, which is why I was looking at ebay ad, because I have a 12B car and my memory of what I had seen doing research on this site, I may have missed out on this car's earlier life. I said to myself, I remember that Vin on CRG and looked it up. After all that has been said and after looking at your pics(ebay and this site), I feel your car is an X55 car and not a Z.  I must say, for someone who never had seen this site, you are knowledgeable about 69's based on what you took pics of and what you state. The reason I feel it is an X55 are based on a few things I see in the pics, namely: car has 5 leaf springs, trim tag X55 looks real to my untrained eyes and heads are 041's without screw in studs or guide plates which point to 300 HP heads although these castings can be found on a Z they would have those screw in studs if they were true Z heads along with 2.02 valves. That being said, I am assuming these heads came with the block and based on block vin,which looks legit, it looks like a 300hp block (4 bolt mains). The pistons in the box look like 300HP flattops also.. Block was decked (you say) enough to re-stamp DZ (my opinion) as it was obvious by the fake X77 tag that efforts were made to make this into a Z. I am sure loose tag was from being re-attached and perhaps someone gave up on the Z transformation when it was determined the cowl tag was no good and they probably spent some good coin getting the tag and found out it was not that easy to fool the experts. This is coming from someone who owns 2 real SS cars, one a 350 car with those same heads and block. This site is a place were enthusiasts strive for the truth and better understanding of all 1st generation nuances to accurately preserve and restore their cars with a passion. Welcome aboard and good luck uncovering the facts about your car. The only puzzling piece is the trans, being a M21, supposedly not available with a SS350, but it may also be a re-stamp. I am not sure at this point to comment further.
503  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / 1969 DANZ show car on CL on: October 30, 2013, 10:00:57 PM
interesting!  check it out
504  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 124379N561026 in database?? on: October 30, 2013, 09:15:37 AM

I suspect the X55 tag could be real. X77 isn't.

Could an X55 have had that M21 trans? Thought that was a solid lifter and 396/350hp only?
505  Site Comments / Discussion / Test Drive / test on: October 29, 2013, 07:17:14 AM
506  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 124379N561026 in database?? on: October 27, 2013, 10:31:02 AM
Thought someone may want to know the latest morph on this:
507  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Late post August 69 BB power steering bracket on: October 24, 2013, 10:45:02 PM
Saw a restored SS Big Block car that was a late production (post August 69)car. It had a power steering bracket like the 1970 model year type. Is this correct? Or, did they use the 1969 bracket setup the entire run?
508  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z on: October 23, 2013, 02:47:30 PM
I will let the experts chime in. Based on my serial number of my 12B car and using the 912 cars per day built that has been established and using published end of month production serial numbers I can surmise: My car was completed probably on the 18th of December. The car could have entered the assembly side of plant on the 13th and 2-3 days later,as said, exited plant, putting it around 18th. If you look at my other example, my March 3E car: If it hit the plant on 5th week (one day=31st) of March, It had to be completed after April6th, because the rear in that car is dated April 7th. That is my point and why I feel it is possible. The trim tag date "loosely" corresponds with calendar as I have understood.
509  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z on: October 23, 2013, 02:09:14 PM
I would say yes. I have a 12B and it has a 1122 (Nov.22) original rear. I also have a 3E, 5th week of March, which has a 0407 (April,7) original rear!
510  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: anyone see this ?? on: October 23, 2013, 11:08:25 AM
I believe this was noted last week. Here is a link to that thread:
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 39
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 0.084 seconds with 18 queries.