CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 31, 2014, 12:40:21 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.
105859 Posts in 12353 Topics by 4762 Members
Latest Member: HarryQ
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  Restoration
| | |-+  1968 Camaro sheet metal stamped off original GM tooling? WORTH IT ???
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: 1968 Camaro sheet metal stamped off original GM tooling? WORTH IT ???  (Read 3514 times)
DAVEN1256
Member
***
Posts: 174


View Profile Email
« on: July 12, 2009, 12:03:08 PM »

I have seem some of the parts catologs advertising '67 '68' '69 fenders, inner fenders, and radiator support frames that are stamped off of original GM tooling. They are about triple the price of standard repro stuff...............I am trying to find out if these are worth the money.................. I am currently restoring my '68 and this is a first time project for me. I have never hung front end sheet metal before. I hear stories about how the standard repro stuff doesn't fit right out of the box and has to modified to make it fit.

I am trying to find out if these pieces are the same thickness and metal quality as original GM. And if these will bolt up with out modifications.

I have also heard that the tooling GM was using before it ceased production of these pieces was pretty worn out and that the last of the NOS pieces didn't fit very well. Are these companies using this old tooling to make their pieces?

                                                 Thanks,
                                                 Dave
Logged
qwertyme77
Member
***
Posts: 94


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2009, 07:06:40 PM »

i sincerely hope it is as i have spent big $$ on quarters and fenders. haven't put them on yet though. however from what i have read, the repro stuff needs to be "massaged" to fit right. of course who would buy both repro and nos and trial fit both to compare them?
Logged
Oregonjam
Member
***
Posts: 209

68 ss350


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2009, 08:13:07 PM »

A friend recently ordered a repro core support for an El Camino because he was in a hurry. It was barely 1/2 the guage of the originals. I could bend the welding tabs with my thumb. It was supposed to be a good replacement aftermarket. He ended up straightening the original.

I also used a repro fender on a 69 but only needed one fender. To be fair, perhaps it would have fit better if the other side was replaced as well, but matching up to the original sheetmetal with one fender was very difficult even when resetting the whole frontend.

I go original when ever possible. I never used anything that was off the tooling your described and knew it. Only new old stock or repros.
Logged

68 07D SS350
John
rat pack
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 222



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2009, 08:15:52 PM »

I can tell you this when it comes to fenders, both NOS GM ones and the repros have to be fitted to the car. The worst are GM 67-8 models driver's side rs or non-rs. I am not sure what they got out of place, but almost everyone has needed to be "pie cut" on the inner rear brace in the middle just to get them to fit to the door. The repros for the 67 & 8's are not the best in the world but will fit with some work, less work than the GM ones. The 69's are a great fit, that is if you buy the ones from Goodmark directly, or one of their vendors such as Year One, Camaro Central, Ricks, etc. There are some junk early ones that were produced with the wrong front leading edges and they will not fit the car period. They are usually sold for around $100 - $120 ea and come from either NPD or the Paddock. There are some issues with the 67-68 full rear quarter panel on the passenger side so I highly recommend that you do not remove any of the trunk jamb or the area where it is welded to the tailpanel. Somehow the die got damaged and the stamper for Goodmark decided they would fix it themselves w/o telling anyone stateside. They have it off in the jamb and tailpanel area. All of the others have no fitment issues for any 1st Gen. I know you must use the repro outer wheelhouses on the 69's as there is a slight difference the shape of the quarter panel just behind the rear wheel when compared to an original. It is so slight that it is not easily recognized w/o a template from an original 1/4 panel in that area.

As for the ones stamped from GM tooling....the only ones I know of that have been actually done that way are the 70-72 Chevelle 1/4 panels, and they are as bad as some of the last ones GM produced. The body lines are horrible! Depending upon the type of car I am building, and what the customer wants to spend, I would probably go for the repro stuff except for the 67 & 8 fenders.........JMO..........RatPack................
Logged

Just keep livin......L I V I N .............
Buddy
Member
***
Posts: 154


hurcousa
View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2009, 08:06:27 AM »

Original dies are worn, they use thinner sheetmetal and the stamping press has a fraction of the original tonnage.  Prepare to do alot of massaging. There is NOTHING better than the original pieces. Get them while you can because they are getting very scarce. I can't believe how cheap you can still find them. I picked up a pair of 67 rear quarters a guy had in his garage since 1975 for $1200......I thought that was a steal and they fit perfectly with hardly any work.

To answer your question IS IT WORTH IT?  It is probably a wash...Price verses labor. One is cheaper with more work the other is expensive but still will require a bit of work. If you are doing the work yourself get the latest Goodmark pieces.

2-cents
Buddy
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.078 seconds with 17 queries.