CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2014, 05:15:52 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.
105581 Posts in 12330 Topics by 4753 Members
Latest Member: stpatrick
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 39
76  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: My New '68 Camaro Z/28 Butternut Yellow on: August 08, 2014, 09:12:25 AM
If the cam is a wild grind and vacuum is low, try cracking secondary throttle plates open a little. This is done by removing carb, flipping over and a small screw on bottom by plate on pass side below Vac. diaphram. this allows a little more air flow and allows primary plates to be closed more. If primary plates are opened too far, it uncovers idle bleeds causing poor or no idle circuit to work.
I'd also go back to checking with timing light to see if advance weights are opening too soon as mentioned in earlier post (too lighty spring). If vacuum guage is steady, not ticking back and forth, this would rule out valve train IE sticking valve,burnt, spring broken etc...Exhaust clogged is checked by holding at, say 3000rpm with Vac guage and see if it starts to drop after a minute or two. My 2 cents.
77  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Do You Still Have Your First Car? on: August 06, 2014, 03:14:09 PM
For some reason, that I still don't know today, I was conservative when I first learned to drive in '73 so my first car was a '66 Buick sports wagon. Exciting, eh?
Anyhow...when I first felt a '67 396 Camaro under my derrière around 1978, I have since changed my car ownership habits :-)

Good one. Mike,lol. For me, it was the seat back springs pushing into my back when I unleashed that Big Block torque! B.I.T.D.
78  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Caveat Emptor on: August 02, 2014, 09:27:21 PM
Congrats Bentley, another HERO is born.  Wink
Now, if I could say the right words to get Ed back, I'd feel like a real HERO. Thanks guys.
79  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Caveat Emptor on: August 02, 2014, 02:39:14 PM
Looks like someone gave me an opportunity, thanks G.W. and goes!!! Rest of you will just have to figure out what these last 2 posts mean. Hint: Change in my status here on CRG.
80  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Caveat Emptor on: August 01, 2014, 09:16:14 PM
It's Back
81  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Anco Aero Wiper Blade ID on: August 01, 2014, 02:46:23 PM
The "Aero" (wing) feature was only on aftermarket blades - none were ever used in production.

Admittedly, I have never seen a RPO number or have seen them offered as an option, but I was led to believe otherwise. Thanks for the clarification John. Anyway, got a set now. Just something else I bought but did not need. I guess $10 was not too bad though?
82  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: ebay 302 on: July 31, 2014, 09:42:37 PM
Id be running from this 1. Stamp is V0610DZ and its a "618" block with a C-12-9 cast date?
Sorry, I do not see a "V" in the stamp. but a "T" as Gary points out. Very rare, must be out of one of the 40,000 made after the first 20,000,lol.
83  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Anco Aero Wiper Blade ID on: July 31, 2014, 02:45:40 PM
Scored a set of what I believe are oriiginal Aero wiper blades off a guy's 69 SS. Can someone tell me how to confirm they are OEM? Either by pics or PM. I can't post pics right now. Thanks.
84  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: AX coded Mirror on 1969 on: July 31, 2014, 02:40:22 PM
Old thread, but... thought I would share for database info and tracking. I just acquired an AJAX K-AX-8 off of a 12C Nor. car. Guy down the road has a X22 vert. Keeps replacing all the original stuff with reproduction parts. His loss, my gain,IMO. He is making a Pro-Touring car out of it, WTF? His plans are to replace all the GM sheet metal with new repro. Hope to score some more stuff. No pics right now as my laptop is down. Got other parts to post later.
85  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.
86  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.
87  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.
88  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).
89  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
90  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.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 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 0.123 seconds with 18 queries.