1969 Brake Booster

[tim69camaro]

I am thinking about buying this booster. I once read that the early boosters had a smaller font than the later boosters. I can't find this information now and I don't know if the source was accurate. Does anyone have information or a link to font size information? Is there any problem with this code? If you perfer send me an e-mail instead.

[1968RSZ28]

I am thinking about buying this booster. I once read that the early boosters had a smaller font than the later boosters. I can't find this information now and I don't know if the source was accurate. Does anyone have information or a link to font size information? Is there any problem with this code? If you perfer send me an e-mail instead.

Tim -

Here's the CRG thread with the info your looking for...  http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=1632.0

Paul

[tim69camaro]

Thank you. I did a search but did not find this thread. I need an early small font version so the search continues.

[rich69rs]

What's your appliation?  Power assist drum brakes used a different booster than disc.  In '69 the discs used booster 9204, drums used booster 3972.

See the following:  http://www.camaros.org/suspen.shtml#Brakes

Your fist pic has number 321 on the tab which doesn't agree with any usage listing for any 1st Gen Camaro in the CRG table shown in the above link.  The second pic with number 920 would be '69 power disc brake application (booster 9204). 

On the original booster from my '69 RS with power drum brakes, the front of the tab on the booster has 397 indicating the 3972 booster for power drum brakes.  On the back side of the tab is the julian date code of 013 (Jan 13, 1969).

[tim69camaro]

321 is the back side, date code for the same booster. You can see the start of the 4 on the 9204 on the front. I did not buy it since it had the large font and was a very late 1969 model. I have disc front and drum rear brake system on a 12A dated cowl tag.

[Jerry@CHP]

This booster was made in late 1968, not 1969.  I have added info on the fonts in the new 4th edition Camaro fact book,

Jerry

[fireZ]

I have a 68 Z with a build date of 02E out of LOS. The booster on it has a 8515 on the tab and a 292 on the other side. Any idea if this is correct for the car. Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving to our friends to the south of our border.

[Jerry@CHP]

Could be, don't have enough data on LA cars to know for sure.  I know that my 11E 68 Z survivor has an 8515.  I suspect that it could be original to the car..........find more original cars in your area.

Jerry

[fireZ]

Thanks Jerry I am in Canada so I hope some California guys might have some info. Great looking 67 Z you are running now, boy what a time for your first time out with the Z.

[Jerry@CHP]

Here's a couple of photos on some 10.60 passes.

Jerry

[tom]

When are you running it here in NJ?

[fireZ]

As always Jerry your expertise in these 302 cars shines through. Great pics on your site also of the new car.

[tim69camaro]

Thanks Jerry,

Page 52 of your book. I got it backwards and thought the small font was early. Thanks again.

[Jerry@CHP]

Will be in NJ Spring of 09, Atco and Englishtown for sure.  Might go to FL in March and try and set the record in D/Stock.  A lot depends on the economy for next year.

Jerry

[1968RSZ28]

I have a 68 Z with a build date of 02E out of LOS. The booster on it has a 8515 on the tab and a 292 on the other side. Any idea if this is correct for the car.

Could be, don't have enough data on LA cars to know for sure.  I know that my 11E 68 Z survivor has an 8515.  I suspect that it could be original to the car..........find more original cars in your area.

Paul & Jerry -

My 02C Los Angeles built '68 Z/28 has a 9078 brake booster in it with a date code of 343.

Paul

[fireZ]

Our cars probably met in the parking lot at LOS and seem to have some of the same dated componets and some differant dated componets. I suspect parts were not looked at as far as dates but rather if it was the correct part it was installed as the cars went down the line. As new stock arrived i doubt it was put to the back of inventory until the older parts were used.

[JohnZ]

I suspect parts were not looked at as far as dates but rather if it was the correct part it was installed as the cars went down the line. As new stock arrived i doubt it was put to the back of inventory until the older parts were used.

That's correct - nobody in the plants paid any attention at all to part dates, and inventory control was minimal; whatever was on the line (whether it came from off-line storage or a just-arrived truck or rail car) got put on cars. Not true these days, but it was then.

[fireZ]

Thanks for chiming in John. I am more suspect of cars when all the dated parts are very close together compared to a car with sparatic dates. My Grandfather worked at Oshawa GM for years and he use to laugh when I got talking about all the parts on these cars should be within 4-6 weeks of the cars build date. He said the same as you that parts were used as they came to the line not by the dates stamped on them.

[KurtS]

That's true, but look at the Tarrytown plant pics again. Those parts were getting used up at one a minute. There wasn't inventory control, but sheer volume dictate that a lot of the parts were fresh. Not all, but a lot.
LOS also was a lower volume plant, so that affected inventory more than at NOR.

[JohnZ]

And almost all the parts used at Van Nuys had to travel 2500-3000 miles by rail to get there (other than gas tanks, seat foam, and carpets, which were sourced locally), and they maintained a huge "buffer" warehouse and rail receiving facility next door to protect material flow from occasional inbound transportation failures. The escalating costs of inbound freight were the prime reason for eventually closing the plant (along with all the other GM, Ford, and Chrysler California assembly plants).

[1968RSZ28]

And almost all the parts used at Van Nuys had to travel 2500-3000 miles by rail to get there (other than gas tanks, seat foam, and carpets, which were sourced locally), and they maintained a huge "buffer" warehouse and rail receiving facility next door to protect material flow from occasional inbound transportation failures. The escalating costs of inbound freight were the prime reason for eventually closing the plant (along with all the other GM, Ford, and Chrysler California assembly plants).

That's OK because we're building hi-performance cars once again in California...  http://www.teslamotors.com/

 

Paul

[tim69camaro]

The seller wants $150 plus shipping for it. Has anyone purchased one recently? Is this a reasonable price?

[Jerry@CHP]

An original 9204 for $150.00.  What's wrong with it.  They sell in the $450-650 range for a nice original one.  Something does not compute here.

Jerry

[tim69camaro]

It needs to be replated and rebuilt.

[Jerry@CHP]

We replate and rebuild for a wopping $130.00.  Like I said, what's wrong with that booster?  When it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Jerry

[tim69camaro]

Now I am concerned it is not an original booster. The photos are shown in the first post. Do you see a problem with the stamp or the date?