CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 20, 2014, 09:26:52 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.
107554 Posts in 12507 Topics by 4812 Members
Latest Member: oldbop88
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 35
16  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Bracket on Driver's Side Trunk Floor on: December 14, 2014, 01:47:51 AM
When I started tidying up the trunk floor area of my ex-drag car, I came across a bracket (or remains of) attached to the driver's side of the trunk floor, just forward of the body plug hole - pictured below. It looks as though it was one piece at some point, and was then cut to leave the two sections connected to the floor pan. It doesn't look factory to me, and I haven't seen another one either in the AIM or in pictures of other similarly-optioned cars. But before I cut it off, thought it best to make sure that nobody here recognises it as something I've overlooked.......
If it does seem likely the original owner (and racer) of the car did add it, any idea what it could've been for  Huh

17  Site Comments / Discussion / Site Comments/Discussion / Re: CRG Decoder Program on: December 12, 2014, 03:57:49 AM
Thanks Bryon
18  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Craiglist ad 18 1st gen Camaros on: December 10, 2014, 03:03:10 PM


19  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Craigslist camaro on: December 10, 2014, 06:41:56 AM
Someone got a bargain there.
20  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Service Engines (CE coded) on: December 09, 2014, 03:47:11 PM
Thanks Bryon.
I realise that the CE blocks were used across all models, not just Camaros or even passenger cars. Based on the stamp number of the 512 block I posted a pic of above, by early December 1968, almost all of the 30,000 sequential numbers assigned to Flint V8 had been used. So it seems likely that the theory that the numbers were rest back to 20000 with the addition of an 'A' prefix (CE9A), then on to 'B' (CE9B) when that run of 30,000 was used up, is a valid one. But that's a lot of warranty replacements.......
I'm not at all interested in the value question of having a CE 302 in my car, it lost the original DZ so it'll never be a numbers car. But I'm curious about whatever documentation is referred to, and how anyone with a CE could determine if it was the one the dealer fitted to their car.

Bryon are you interested in compiling data on these blocks from members contributing their dates and stampings like Charlie did?
21  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Service Engines (CE coded) on: December 09, 2014, 06:20:29 AM
Such a confusing subject; I found THIS thread over at TC, in which a different John ('Vintage 68') stated that CE long blocks were available under Warranty:
Quote
CE units were supplied in three (3) levels;
1.) "Assembly" = what we would normally term a 'Long-Block'. (less; I & E manifolds, flywheels/flexplate, distributor, carb., oil filter assemblies, fuel pump, pulleys or fan, starter, bracket assemblies & etc...) - needed District approval to order. These 'assemblies' were normally available only for standard performance claim work - Special HP engines under warranty required Zone approval and were usually* serviced with only 'partial' and 'fitted' parts.
2.) "Partial" = what we would call a 'Short-Block'. (included; block, crank, rods, pistons, cam & timing assembly) - needed Zone approval.
3.) "Fitted" = a block casting with fitted pistons, rings and a matched bearing set. needed Zone approval.
He also wrote in the same reply that:
Quote
Warranty Service parts were ordered AFTER the need arrose - not 'Stocked' or Warehoused beforehand.
Dealers entered warranty service parts requests for CE or CT needs through the Zone Representative for their area and they were shipped direct from supply plant to the dealer.
22  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Service Engines (CE coded) on: December 09, 2014, 04:31:21 AM
John's info that they were not held in inventory is a surprise to me.
Yes, that's what I had thought based on this reply:
"When the liability for replacement of 5/50 warranty engines expired in 1975, I'm sure there were a lot of "CE" short blocks in inventory, and those went into the parts system as out-of-warranty and over-the-counter short blocks."
From http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=1635.0;all
Maybe things had changed by 1975 and GM maintained a stock of them?
23  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Service Engines (CE coded) on: December 09, 2014, 02:15:12 AM
Thanks for the further comments. I'm intrigued by this subject, as there must've been literally tens of thousands of CE blocks issued annually, yet not much is understood about them.
For example, I recently spoke with the owner of a 3959512 Flint block with casting date K 29 8 with this pad stamp CE946309 (not keen on the funky paint color though....... must've been a 70's customisation thing). So it was cast in 1968 for the 1969 model year. But being the ~26,309th Flint service block stamped, if it was machined and stamped soon after casting (on 29th November 1968) then that'd mean a bunch of Chevy engines needed to be replaced relatively early in the new model year, even considering all the Chevy models. Especially as the Service Bulletin detailing the CE format to be used was dated September 19, 1968. 26,000+ blocks replaced under warranty in a little over 2 months seems a lot, and doesn't include Tonawanda figures.
24  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original front spoiler for a 69 on: December 07, 2014, 02:37:15 PM
Thanks for the pictures Steve!
25  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original front spoiler for a 69 on: December 07, 2014, 05:08:34 AM
A guy on e-bay was selling one awhile ago and it had numbers "ink stamped" in yellow.  Number was : GM# 3938689   That's what I have here...hope it helps you.    Don
That's the correct number according to the 69 AIM, UPC D80 sheet A1. You didn't happen to save the ebay photo(s) did you? Would be interested to see the ink stamp.
26  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Service Engines (CE coded) on: December 06, 2014, 08:13:56 PM
I'm sure I recall seeing a post (either here or at TC) that suggested it was possible to have a block dated earlier than the car it was fitted to, hence my question on whether blocks were set aside for service replacements, or machined, fitted with rotating assembly (if required) and stamped on demand.
Found that thread - http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=213236
It was actually Kurt who wrote the reply (#4) that I remembered:
"Any 69-74 SB with CE on the pad could have gone into the car. It could be dated before the car.... "
So surely that means that at least some blocks were held in inventory before machining and stamping?
27  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Service Engines (CE coded) on: December 06, 2014, 07:29:17 PM
Thanks guys.
Bryon, I'm curious because in several discussions on CE blocks, well-respected members and contributors here and elsewhere have stated that the next best thing to a car's original block is a CE block with documentation, then descending in order from a NOM but correct casting, suffix and date coded block, all the way down to a crate engine as the least preferred.
Therefore I am curious as to what original warranty replacement documentation was provided to the owner by the dealer, and if that documentation did not include the CE stamp number from the pad, how would one go about proving that a car still has the block that GM replaced under warranty?

I'm sure I recall seeing a post (either here or at TC) that suggested it was possible to have a block dated earlier than the car it was fitted to, hence my question on whether blocks were set aside for service replacements, or machined, fitted with rotating assembly (if required) and stamped on demand.
28  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Service Engines (CE coded) on: December 06, 2014, 03:15:17 PM
Thanks John!
So there is no way a CE block could be cast before the build date of the car it was fitted to?
Just to clarify, in point 2 above, I didn't mean would the dealer stamp the pad, but would the dealer record the pad stamp number by writing it on the warranty paperwork?
I understand that there was little margin (if any) for the dealer here, in fact recently followed a thread (link HERE) questioning if the service blocks were even painted by the dealer. Several guys who were involved in the day said not unless the parts dept supplied the paint, but some mechanics would give them a quick paint job if there was some paint left over in the clean-up area.
29  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: A Very Rusty Proposition on: December 05, 2014, 11:14:42 PM
All comments are apreciated
Is this your car, or are you considering taking it on?
30  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: "Cement" used at rear shock mounts?? on: December 05, 2014, 11:09:12 PM
UPC 0 lists out all the sealants and cements used, and sheet D6 calls 60a up as part 3765159, cement plastic seam, seal shock absorber opening in u/body.
Can't say what it was actually made of, but on my car it is somewhat like the sealant that was around the rear bumper brackets. 4.5 inches would probably be the length of sealant bead (of a given width) required to do both bracket locations.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 35
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 0.089 seconds with 18 queries.