CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 04, 2015, 10:17:12 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.
110434 Posts in 12758 Topics by 4891 Members
Latest Member: Sixgun17
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 39
331  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Headlight Switch on: January 25, 2014, 06:27:02 AM
I have 2 headlight switches, one has 175 and the other has 173 on it. Can't say which one was originally on the car, which is a non-RS with factory console gauges. Research here indicates that 1995173 is correct for this application, but the AIM doesn't appear to call up this with RPO U17. The AIM does however specify different part numbers for console/non-console RS cars under RPO Z22. The earliest documentation I could find 1995173 in is the 1972 P&A catalog.
I'm going to use the 173 switch, based on research and advice here, but can anyone confirm if it is an assembly line correct part #?
332  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z/28 Barn Find?? on: January 25, 2014, 03:31:38 AM
Must have been hot in that barn, because the rear stripes shrunk! I call BS on this one
Well to be fair, the seller does say it had one repaint in 1981, which explains the incorrect rear stripe layout.
But I think I smell what you're calling on this one, at least on the story.
333  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Rosewood Wheel on Ebay on: January 24, 2014, 02:51:39 AM
Other than the shallower dish, was there any other difference between the early 1969 model year N34 walnut (pre-rosewood) wheel, and the 1967-8 version?
334  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69' Z/28 on eBay... What a Car! on: January 23, 2014, 07:14:13 PM
So in your opinion do you think it is a $88k car?
Personally, yes. Fantastic looking car. That said, and meaning no disrespect to the current owner or restorer (James has done an incredible job), I find it perplexing that so much effort has been spent in meticulously replicating all the original factory finishes, including all the paint runs, coverage issues and variations observed on true survivors, and yet they used a BC/CC paint system.
Perhaps this is due to state environmental regulations preventing lacquer use?
335  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Rosewood Wheel on Ebay on: January 23, 2014, 07:02:53 PM
John, was your car originally Canadian-delivered?
336  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: photos of my 69 build, on: January 23, 2014, 06:53:05 PM
You wouldn't have known except for stripping it down
May not have realized the full extent of issues, but have another look at the front of the roof above the windshield trim in picture #1 of this thread for a hint of what lay beneath.....
337  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69' Z/28 on eBay... What a Car! on: January 23, 2014, 04:35:29 AM
So, no PTB stamp on Van Nuys cars? I learn something new on here every day!  Grin
Correct, but if you want to verify it yourself, it is stated in JohnZ's article on the first-gen assembly process, located HERE.
The relevant quotation is "followed by a final inspection (at Norwood, but not Van Nuys, "P", "T", and "B" ink stamps were applied to the body for Paint, Trim, and Body inspection OK), and the body was shipped up the ramp to Chevrolet. "
338  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Who would be interested in buying a replacement passenger seat cable? on: January 23, 2014, 04:32:38 AM
I'd be in for 2 gray cables (assuming of course that you'd be happy to post the to Australia at my cost?).
339  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: photos of my 69 build, on: January 23, 2014, 04:29:42 AM
Kerr, I admire you for persevering with this build, you certainly seem to have kept your humor despite how the car turned out to be....... hang in there, the good folks here will be able to offer advice and encouragement. Plenty of good threads over at Team Camaro too, for motivation and neat ideas! Good luck
340  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Rosewood Wheel on Ebay on: January 22, 2014, 06:23:43 AM
It does look very dark, but I suspect it's just the lighting when the pictures were taken. May also explain why the grain is hard to make out, as you noted.
341  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Who would be interested in buying a replacement passenger seat cable? on: January 18, 2014, 05:32:09 AM
I see no evidence that my original seats in my late '69 production car ever had them.. ie. no holes in the seat covering for the pivot pin.
They were only fitted to the passenger side bucket seat, but feature in the Fisher Body Manual (see Fig. 15-47) for all 'F' and 'Z' body styles, with bucket seats. Can you be sure it's the original seat cover? Cables snapped over time and were junked, hence why they're not often seen nowadays.
342  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: wheel trim rings on: January 18, 2014, 02:57:50 AM
my trim rings are original as well with the fingers all the way around.
Thought the originals were the 4-clip design, and dealers were later issued with the all-round design to swap over during service, after the first style started falling off everywhere? Or did this change occur by mid-production?
On the original question, I put several laters of clear around the wheel rim, to limit the inevitable scratches from getting through to the argent silver, or even the primer.
343  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: factory 302 emblem on 1969 Z-28 on: January 15, 2014, 03:51:53 PM
Or they put the Chevelle 'COWL INDUCTION' emblems on the hood instead of the '302'......
344  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: factory eqiiped headlights on: January 14, 2014, 04:46:02 PM
Let's see..    TWO Z28s with the same type of replacement HL bulbs?   After only 45 yrs?... and a bit over 20,000 '69 Z28s?    and a small handful of manufacturers who made these bulbs over that time frame??    hmmmmmmm...   quite a coincidence..  Smiley
Gary. Nobody is trying to draw a conclusion based on just 2 cars, simply looking to find out if anyone else had these on their car too. Others are welcome to contribute, preferably positively.
345  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: factory eqiiped headlights on: January 14, 2014, 06:05:19 AM
Tim, i uncovered the Z and it has a sealed beam identical to the one you have, the one that does not say "DOT" i will post a pic, the font is the same too. it`s even on the same side of the car, passenger side  Smiley  so maybe it`s factory, hard to say but being the T3`s and Powerbeams say guide most likely not ? food for thought i guess being 2 z28`s have them.
Wow! Thanks very much for checking, and it's really interesting that your passenger side headlight is the same as mine (I assume your car was missing the driver's side light when you got it?). Maybe they are factory after all, possibly even a substitute part for one that had supply or quality issues? I see your car is 03E and mine is 04A, so they could have been fairly close if yours is a VN car too.
Anyone else got this type?
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 39
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 0.13 seconds with 18 queries.