CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2014, 06:04:22 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.
97148 Posts in 11687 Topics by 4578 Members
Latest Member: ronhill
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 22
256  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Owner's Manual - 3rd Edition, 1969 on: May 13, 2013, 04:31:11 PM
Thanks Ed, I now assume my manual is a reprint since those pages are not present, nor do they appear to have been torn out.
257  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Owner's Manual - 3rd Edition, 1969 on: May 13, 2013, 03:54:34 PM
Also the official Reproductions do not have the Helm order form at the rear.
What's the Helm order form Brian?
258  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Owner's Manual - 3rd Edition, 1969 on: May 13, 2013, 05:00:32 AM
I'll look today and add what I find.
Thanks Gary, appreciate it; I have a reproduction around the place somewhere too, but darned if I can find it to check. Must be in that "safe place" along with all the other stuff I can't find.....
I seem to recall the reproductions (reprints) are all the same edition/revision/version, so maybe that will help determine if it is original or not, too?
259  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Owner's Manual - 3rd Edition, 1969 on: May 13, 2013, 02:49:07 AM
I have a 3rd edition (April 1969) Owner's Manual, and would like to know if there is any way to determine if it is original, or a reproduction?
Not concerned with value, just original or not.
Any help much appreciated.
260  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Correct 69 Z/28 Coil Springs on: May 12, 2013, 04:00:26 AM
Some good reading on spring rates and suggestions on replacement spring part numbers HERE. I put Hotchkis 1907F springs in my car, but the engine and trans are currently out, so I can't confirm what the ride height is, relative to stock. However, they are 2" lower than stock on paper, so probably not what you're looking for.
261  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Is it a real SS on: May 11, 2013, 01:52:55 AM
You're looking for where the speedo cable penetrates the firewall, either in the Muncie location or the non-Muncie (i.e. if the car originally had a Saginaw trans) hole:
262  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Is it a real SS on: May 10, 2013, 02:47:01 AM
Well since it's an early build car, the 'economy' ratio (2.73:1) non-posi 10 bolt could be original to the car if it's an L30, but as Paul said, it seems to be dated too late for the trim tag date......
Probably the biggest clue remaining is whether the firewall is penetrated for a Muncie or Saginaw cable, also as stated above.
263  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: WHAT IS A CLONE CAR? on: May 09, 2013, 03:58:45 PM
I was on another site, and some thought if you don't have original paper work, original drive train, then it's a clone as far as they were concerned.
What they probably mean is that if someone is selling a car that is badged as, say an SS, but it is missing some or all of the original drivetrain, and it has no original documentation (POP, sales contract, verified broadcast copy etc), then there is no way to prove the car is what it appears to be. Therefore it might be valued as a base-model V8 that has been cloned into a more desirable/valuable car.
264  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Is it a real SS on: May 09, 2013, 04:56:26 AM
OK, the concern over the balancer indicated you thought engine was original. As far as I know, with the exception of a very limited number, all 4P cars (either L30 or L48) should have a 12-bolt rear, so looks like the car is missing original engine, trans and rear end. What's the rear end assembly stamp from the front of the passenger-side axle tube?
265  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Is it a real SS on: May 09, 2013, 04:34:29 AM
Based on the tag info, it's either an L48 or an L30, as you're probably aware; However, the engine block is a 327 application from a '68 Camaro, assembled at Norwood not LA - so not original to your car. If the suffix code is 'ME', it's originally a '68 327/210hp engine; 'EE' would be an L30 327/275hp, but the photo looks more like 'ME' on my screen. Engine pad stamp shows a Flint block assembled November 27, 1967 with a partial VIN assigned to a Norwood Camaro assembled in December 1967.
266  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69' Camaro Z28 purchase help PLEASE on: May 08, 2013, 09:14:12 PM
Tag looks consistent with VN-assembled cars, including mine.
267  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Jerry Lagod Trans-Am Camaro on: May 08, 2013, 03:30:36 AM
Very cool car and thread!
268  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69' Camaro Z28 purchase help PLEASE on: May 08, 2013, 03:18:07 AM
Looks like a nice car, although it's a pity about the repaint and the incorrectly-done rear stripes.
269  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Non dripper valve cover questions. on: May 05, 2013, 04:07:05 PM
Not sure about how much the reskinning costs, but maybe a previous owner gave your valve covers a buff/polish? I don't think reskinned covers would detract from an otherwise unrestored car, JMHO, in fact pretty sure that i read somewhere that JohnZ's were reskinned too. If you go down that path, Jerry M is the go-to guy.
270  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1967 "Pilot" cars on: May 03, 2013, 07:11:07 PM
Ed, thanks very much for posting all the details of these cars - makes for fascinating reading!
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 22
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 0.077 seconds with 18 queries.