CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2015, 12:03:43 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.
112138 Posts in 12882 Topics by 4931 Members
Latest Member: Euclid
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 47
46  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Round 2: Going to see a '68 Z/28 - Need some help w/pics on: December 21, 2014, 01:18:30 PM
I've attached a pic of the carb and stamped code.  Buyer got back to me about the distributor.  He said that the # is 1111467, which would make it the correct distributor for the engine.

Not trying to nitpick; carb center section is good, but the front bowl is not right (no bowl vent for the Z's, only L78's), plus the dashpot is later (vacuum tube is curved on originals). Probably assembled from parts.

Check the date on the 467 distributor - should be pretty close to the build if it's an original (finding one date coded correctly is not an easy task).

Point being: Everyone mentioned this before - don't take it for granted that correctly coded parts that are with the car guarantee originality. I know that's kind of redundant, but '68's are easy to pass off as originals to the unsuspecting and the enthusiastic would-be buyer. Keep your caution intact -

47  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Round 2: Going to see a '68 Z/28 - Need some help w/pics on: December 20, 2014, 03:25:07 PM
About all I'd like to add is it's similar to my '68, which is a documented car, with external sheet metal work done but in the wrong color. A lot to do from here, but I did buy it for a lot less than the your find. NOM, but has an original MO dated correctly ready to go back in.

I agree with all of the responses ahead of me - everything looks and points to it being what the seller is advertising. The only thing left to consider is the distance between what your final negotiated price and the market value of the car. If you can complete the car under the market value, I'd say go for it. Prices hold pretty steady on first gens, regardless of the economy (outside of a few fliers now and then). I don't think $32K is unreasonable, but it would be even better for less - I'd buy it unless it turns out to be a real Flintstone mobile. 
48  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: cracked dash? on: December 17, 2014, 07:31:39 PM
I've never personally used them, but you can try Just Dashes in CA, , (800)247-3274. Been around a pretty good while -

49  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: owner history? on: December 13, 2014, 07:17:31 PM
is there a way to get all owners history for a pre-1981 vehicle with the VIN?  i tried my county clerk but they would only give me last owner the vehicle was registered to.

I should have mentioned - if you are close to Nashville, go to the DOT office in Metro Center with a title, and request the history from them. They'll give you what they have up to the limits of the computer, and the names/addresses will be redacted, but at least you might be able to tell how long it's been in the state. My '68 was sold new in TN, had a lot of owners, but went all the way back to the dealer info, options, MSO, all of the owners. 1/2" thick stack of documentation for $15.00. I was lucky -
50  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: N40 with C60 on: December 13, 2014, 06:34:39 PM
Pain it is.

I found the two this afternoon - please see the pics. If you have dealer close, have them run the 2 part numbers through the locator and see if anything is still around. Occasionally, dealers will dump obsolete inventory and list things that they've had on the shelf for years (and then again, sometimes they just dump them). Worth a shot -

BTW - AMK sells the 3841724 bolt under AMK B-10162, looks great. Page 15, carriage and hex bolts.

51  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: owner history? on: December 13, 2014, 06:16:09 PM
tennessee but 1 of the owners may have moved out of state.

Up to a few years ago, Tennessee DOT would give you every piece of paper associated with the car from the time it entered the state, including title history, registrations, dealer paperwork if it was sold new in state - for a $5 fee. It moved some time ago to $15; they started redacting the names, and now they won't go to the archives and look (they say we don't have the manpower or overtime to do it). You can still get current title history, but no look up in the microfiche files. Bummer -

The state gave me two of mine over the years, both Z28's, complete right back to the dealer invoices and MSO's. I researched many other cars over the years, and really hate the fact that the State quit providing the old histories.

Regards -
52  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: pad stamp? on: December 12, 2014, 10:47:23 PM
Sorry, I was looking at the V0417MO pad when I said that!

The V0604MO pad is fine.


Thanks for clarifying - I started to question my eyesight.

53  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: N40 with C60 on: December 12, 2014, 12:11:56 AM
Yep, I do, and yes, there is. I think I got the last NOS one from GM after it was discontinued (found on the locator) about 15 years ago. Takes a particular exhaust bolt for it, too, which I also have NOS (it may be available yet). I'll have to dig it out tomorrow and get you pics of them with the part numbers.

If you can't find one, I'll give you a sketch with dimensions if you want to fabricate one.

BTW, the car is my L48 Pace Car, power steering w/ A/C, TH350 -

54  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: pad stamp? on: December 11, 2014, 11:49:27 PM
I'm a little surprised -

I helped buy this block for a friend nearly 20 years ago. It's not a match to my '68 Z, but very close in date. I built the long block myself, plus sourced every part going into it.

Block was standard bore when I bought it, deck had never been touched up or resurfaced in any way prior to going to the machine shop. Block was bored .030, fitted with 1st design factory TRW ('67 thin rings)pistons purchased from the same guy, who also included the manifold and original distributor. .010/.010 original 1178 crank, pink pressed rods. If you're concerned with the pad surface around the stamp, it looks like it was scraped - no milling feed lines on the rest of the surface. Surface is completely flat, no signs of tampering or filling. My thought has always been not to try and pass this off as my original; it's someone else's block, but it's an MO, rebuilt with GM original parts.

I asked if this car's VIN was in the database sometime back - the response was negative. If the car should show up, I would gladly entertain a transfer to the owner (otherwise it will power my '68 for the rest of my life/ownership).

Regards -
55  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Craigslist camaro on: December 09, 2014, 11:54:36 PM
Didn't last very long -
56  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: pad stamp? on: December 09, 2014, 11:51:52 PM
Note VIN and engine code line mismatch -
57  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: pad stamp? on: December 09, 2014, 11:35:39 PM
it looks like the date code is made with gang stamp and vin was stamped individually because they're out of line.  is that right?

Correct. VIN and engine code are stamped separately. Note the positioning and fonts in the following pic -
58  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: pad stamp? on: December 08, 2014, 10:51:24 PM
i don't have a picture.  i'm trying to buy one and don't want to get burned.  is this some secret code or something?  seems there could be a few clues explained?

Post a pic. I've got a known original MO stamped block to compare it to, plus a good rule of thumb is to look at the block deck surface - milling feed lines from decking or surfacing that run at a tangent to the stamping are usually a dead giveaway that it's probably restamped. Too clean a surface is also an obvious. After that, font size and character shapes are clues that "sumting wong" -
59  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Issue with argent silver wheel paint on: December 07, 2014, 10:31:34 PM
My 12A L78 is equipped with a matched set of N66 YA rallys - unrestored, had Goodyear Polyglas matched tires on them until I sold the tires year before last. Definitely not bright silver, Argent with charcoal gray insets, putty or light gray backs.

I restored a set of AO's a couple of years ago for my '70 LS5 Chevelle - all original to the car, identical to the set of N66's on my L78. I found the Details SS inset color to be spot-on, that's why I included a pic of it. Charcoal, not black -

I used PPG Ditzler Argent for the '70's - pretty darn close if I do say so. I couldn't bear to put the trims on before it left - I was proud of the way the rims finished out (did not want to scratch them !).
60  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Front Spoiler to Lower Valance Bolts on: December 07, 2014, 10:14:43 PM

Page 354 AMK '69 Body - listed at $8.00, G-4320 28pc. kit.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 47
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 0.087 seconds with 18 queries.