Camaro Research Group Discussion > Research Topics & Reports
67-69 Bumper Jack Design
ZLP955:
I need your help to determine original bumper jack design differences between NOR and LA built cars.
My car's jack is MIA (no surprise, not much use on a race car) and so I have been trying to source an original 69 Camaro jack mast to fit my 04A build date (so aiming for '9C' on the rivet).
A member on another forum contacted me and stated that LA built cars used a different design jack to NOR cars. He advised that LA cars had a square section jack mast, and had no date stamp. I've only ever noted 1st Gen jacks with a trapezoidal section mast (and corresponding base) and a date stamp on the lever rivet. There has been some previous discussion about markings on the jack bases too, some owners have reported them blank, or with 'U', '69' or 'U69'.
The owner of a survivor early LOS Z/28 (09D of 1968) provided the following pictures of his car's jack, so a square mast design may have been used by at least some LA cars. Also note the end of the mast appears to have a date code ('8J' in this case, which fits with a body plate build date of 09D).
However, one data point alone means nothing, so I need more info from you guys - and photos (especially of the base) would be great! May as well open this up to all three years too.
What I'd like to know is:
Plant: LOS/VN or NOR
Model Year: 67, 68 or 69
Body Plate Build Date:
Jack Mast Section: square or trapezoidal
Jack Base: any letter(s) or number(s) stamped
Mast Date Code: location (rivet or mast) and actual date stamp
So here goes for the car to which the jack pictured below belongs:
Plant: LOS
Model Year: 69
Body Plate Build Date: 09D (1968)
Jack Mast Section: square
Jack Base: nothing stamped
Mast Date Code: mast, 8J
And for the sake of clarity, here's a picture showing a jack base with the trapezoidal mast section (also note it is stamped 'U69'):
1968RSZ28:
Tim, have you read this CRG thread?... http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=3681.0
Paul
KurtS:
At least 3 different bases were used.
ZLP955:
Paul, yes I have. But that thread is old, certain links are inactive, and many of the contributors don't seem to be around still to provide all the info in a consistent format, hence why I started this.
blackss69:
Between this post and the old post there will be a lot of really good information. What would it take to make this a "research project" and get all the information together? I'm sure it would be a lot easier for everyone to locate the correct information.
Thanks
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page