CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2015, 05:45:22 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.
111362 Posts in 12823 Topics by 4913 Members
Latest Member: devodave
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 40
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67-69 Bumper Jack Design on: March 27, 2015, 10:23:07 PM
Paul, yes I have. But that thread is old, certain links are inactive, and many of the contributors don't seem to be around still to provide all the info in a consistent format, hence why I started this.
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 67-69 Bumper Jack Design on: March 27, 2015, 09:28:31 PM
I need your help to determine original bumper jack design differences between NOR and LA built cars.
My car's jack is MIA (no surprise, not much use on a race car) and so I have been trying to source an original 69 Camaro jack mast to fit my 04A build date (so aiming for '9C' on the rivet).
A member on another forum contacted me and stated that LA built cars used a different design jack to NOR cars. He advised that LA cars had a square section jack mast, and had no date stamp. I've only ever noted 1st Gen jacks with a trapezoidal section mast (and corresponding base) and a date stamp on the lever rivet. There has been some previous discussion about markings on the jack bases too, some owners have reported them blank, or with 'U', '69' or 'U69'.

The owner of a survivor early LOS Z/28 (09D of 1968) provided the following pictures of his car's jack, so a square mast design may have been used by at least some LA cars. Also note the end of the mast appears to have a date code ('8J' in this case, which fits with a body plate build date of 09D).

However, one data point alone means nothing, so I need more info from you guys - and photos (especially of the base) would be great! May as well open this up to all three years too.

What I'd like to know is:
Plant: LOS/VN or NOR
Model Year: 67, 68 or 69
Body Plate Build Date:
Jack Mast Section: square or trapezoidal
Jack Base: any letter(s) or number(s) stamped
Mast Date Code: location (rivet or mast) and actual date stamp

So here goes for the car to which the jack pictured below belongs:

Plant: LOS
Model Year: 69
Body Plate Build Date: 09D (1968)
Jack Mast Section: square
Jack Base: nothing stamped
Mast Date Code: mast, 8J





And for the sake of clarity, here's a picture showing a jack base with the trapezoidal mast section (also note it is stamped 'U69'):

3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Trunk Lid Identification on: March 26, 2015, 03:27:34 AM
You can see the date stamp in my 3rd picture above, to the right of the jack instruction label. There is often another stamp in the center, below the jack label, but it's often fainter (less defined) like the one visible in that same photo.
4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 Z Harmonic Balancer or not ? on: March 20, 2015, 07:37:29 PM
Should have a casting number on the back (recessed) face.
5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Trunk Lid Identification on: March 19, 2015, 06:38:12 AM
Here is another one, this is an 04C survivor X77 that was posted for sale (IIRC) a few years ago by Stefano over at sYc. The third picture shows the trunk lid date stamp, not so easy to make out last digit but it's definitely T A1x, so has to be week 10 or later - up to 3rd week of April, week 16 or thereabouts.





6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Trunk Lid Identification on: March 19, 2015, 03:31:45 AM
Do you know the stamp date?
Can't find it in my notes, so probably didn't document it...... was a few years ago.
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Trunk Lid Identification on: March 16, 2015, 08:55:36 PM
This is a picture from an 03E NOR X77 survivor, GM of Canada-documented car that has a production date of April 7, 1969; I noted it because the rear spoiler nuts are of the acorn style:
8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 ce 302 short block on: March 13, 2015, 04:54:28 AM
It is a complete short block
Are you the seller?
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Tinted Glass versus Car Color Scheme on: March 10, 2015, 06:30:53 AM
Thanks for the response Mark, like I said I never gave it any prior thought that it might clash. Hopefully it won't!
I did a bit of searching and found an older thread over at sYC (yenko.net) which had pictures of another Z28 with the exact same combination (CS exterior, 715 interior, AO1 and even has VE3 and flat hood too), really didn't seem to be an 'off' combination to me, although I do have color vision issues.......
Here's the link to that thread in case anyone's interested: http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/303196/5
10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Tinted Glass versus Car Color Scheme on: March 10, 2015, 04:04:51 AM
I was talking to a fellow Camaro owner today about my resto, and happened to mention that I am planning to put Soft-Ray tinted glass in the car (mainly due to the harsh Australian sun, to reduce glare). The car originally came with (still has) clear LOF glass throughout, although none of it is suitable for reuse. I have tracked down all original tinted glass with matching 1969 date codes. He raised something that I just hadn't considered before.

My car is Cortez Silver with black stripes and a dark blue (715) interior.

Question: will green Soft-Ray glass look wrong against a silver on blue car?
My buddy seems to think that combination would be terrible. I can't really picture it...... so, what do you guys think?

If it doesn't work, what other color combinations would clash with Soft-Ray?
P.S. I am red-green colorblind, honestly  Undecided
11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 ce 302 short block on: March 07, 2015, 11:29:26 PM
The add states 302 short block
Agreed. But the wording is not totally clear, and only the block features in the ad photos. I've contacted a number of sellers in the past only to find they think a "short" block means "bare" block.
So I would also not assume seller has 8 pistons and 8 rods too.
12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 ce 302 short block on: March 07, 2015, 10:06:32 PM
Not 100% clear if the $1800 asking price is for the block, 1178 crank and pistons/rods (how many?), or just the block. Might even be a Tonawanda block.
13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Which was done last, Cowl white or firewall blackout on Z on: March 07, 2015, 10:02:06 PM
No, it appears that there is a black (more DEEP chocolate) paint or some type of coating applied before the grey primer and before paint, thus would have been before any final finishing, some cars do not appear to have had a final black out done to the firewall.
See it here under the gray primer and black overspray.
Isn't that the phosphate coating described in JohnZ's assembly process article?
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: TRICO Wiper Blade Design Changeover in 1969 on: March 07, 2015, 07:59:18 PM
Was it common practice back in the day to just replace the rubber insert once it was worn? Just wondering how sure one can be that the blades are original to a car.
When Dad and I (as a kid) were servicing our family cars, we often swapped the blade and rubber insert together as a unit, especially if the blade got scratched or bent.
15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Trunk Lid Identification on: March 07, 2015, 05:00:24 PM
Need to correct what I posted above, seems the emblem holes were drilled through a fixture, rather than punched.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 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 0.568 seconds with 18 queries.