Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Discussion / Re: White trim tag
« Last post by 68camaroz28 on Today at 11:44:55 AM »
I just always assumed Kurt it phased out since (using the 68 Camaro for example) there really was little information on the trim tag to begin with and JohnZ has mentioned how the plants were pushing employees to utilize the build sheets. But agree it would be interesting to know what happened. Maybe an employee put in the suggestion box to eliminate and the money saved in both time and spray bombs. :)  Talking to one of the retired line workers at MCACN last November he told me he made a lot of money with the suggestion box!
2
Originality / Re: 1968 console light bulbs
« Last post by Mr 396 on Today at 11:40:26 AM »
Thank you . The 194 just seems too long and touches the gauge when it comes through the whole when plugged in and does not want to align properly. That is the problem I'm running into.
3
Test Drive / Test - signature showing/not showing
« Last post by My68SS on Today at 09:09:17 AM »
Test for sig ok/not ok

edit: seems ok, had noticed it not showing in a couple of posts - no probs
4
Originality / Re: 1968 console light bulbs
« Last post by 1968RSZ28 on Today at 07:47:53 AM »
Thank you. Looked at the owners manual and it said 1445. That was what was confusing me. Still unclear as both fit. Also looking for the bulb # for the low fuel indicator light. Cannot seem to locate it anywhere.

What console bulbs are you talking about? Like I said above, the 1816 bulbs are used to illuminate the U17 console gauges. The 1445 bulbs you mention are used to illuminate the D55 automatic transmission gear selector panels. There is also the courtesy lamp bulb at the back of the console, a different bulb than the other two.

As for the low fuel warning lamp, if you have U17 it is a 194 bulb (GM part #9421330). See the '68 AIM, UPC U17, Sheet A1.

Paul   
5
Bryon, no, unfortunately they are not members. I've know the guys and their cars for many years and know the cars are validated. I thought I would just mention them in case you wanted to include them. If not I understand. I don't want to confuse things.
6
Len, are any of those two friends or your brother members on the site?  It would help if at least one was.  You can put in up to 5,  but since you already voted once, that would limit you to 4 more.  One way or the other we will get it figured out.
7
I have two local friends and my Brother that have 6 "real deal" 69 Z's between them. Two are factory RS Z/28's and the other four are not. One of the RS Z's is a Daytona Yellow with yellow houndstooth deluxe interior (POP, numbers car that has been in the area since new) and the other is an Azure Turquoise with white houndstooth deluxe interior, JM certified.
I have already added my non RS Z car to the poll.
8
General Discussion / Re: This SS seems worth pursuing
« Last post by 6667ss138 on Today at 04:39:56 AM »
Tim posted this car over on a Team Camaro thread... I like it... No $ or room but if everything were to check out as advertised, I wish it were mine.

http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=342337
9
General Discussion / Re: This SS seems worth pursuing
« Last post by 69Z28-RS on Today at 04:21:57 AM »
That appears to be the same car as was advertised in the TC for sale a couple of years ago..  Sure appears to be a great solid car for a restoration!
10
Originality / Re: 67 Van Nuys standard seat belts
« Last post by KurtS on Today at 04:17:04 AM »
Leon,
Does the trim tag have 5Y on it or not?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10