Messages

76

Restoration / Re: Correct '69 L-78 front springs?

« on: September 15, 2007, 09:34:23 PM »

... there is really no such thing as a big block L78 or L35 or L48 spring.  In 69 springs were selected by a computer
based on the vehicle type (coupe or convertible), engine type (L6 or V8) and the options added to the car.  ....

Mark,

How can that be?  L/89 engines were easily 100 pounds lighter than L/78 engines.  L/34 & L/35 engines with A/C must
be at least 100 pounds heavier than non-A/C equipped Camaros.  There's at least a 200 pound difference there.  There
must have been more spring options.  I see so many BBC Camaro's with incorrect front ride heights.  There must be more
to spring selection.........

Steve, any experience with L/89's with the spring vendor you identified?

Steve A.

77

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Odd rear code on '69 Z/28

« on: September 04, 2007, 01:59:01 AM »

Also,whats the deal with the X3 mark behind the rear seat back?

The X3 was to signify an X33 car.

78

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Odd rear code on '69 Z/28

« on: September 03, 2007, 04:07:41 PM »

Well,

It's starting to look like maybe this rear may not be original to the car.

Indications I'm getting from members here is that one month is too long
to sideline a car - for a rear.

So, that leaves me with this question:  If a rear failed under warranty,
would a complete rear be ordered, or just the components to rebuild it?

Jerry, did you ever hear of an original rear housing failing that early in the
cars life ( one month )?  I've seen where an axle tube broke under hard
acceleration, but this was a COPO car.  Did/do the Z/28's have that kind
of torque? 

I'm just trying to explain the existence of this rear in the car at this point in time.

Steve

79

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Odd rear code on '69 Z/28

« on: September 01, 2007, 04:40:03 PM »

Can a 04C body have a 05/15 rear installed from the factory?Could the car have been sidelined due to an unavaliable 3:31 axel?Can someone tell me from the VIN when it(the VIN)was issued?
[/quote]

Steve,

Your VIN places production in or around the 3rd week of April '69.  As has been discussed previously here, production would be +/- one week from that.
04/69 Norwood VINs were in the 628000 to 635000 range ( close approximation ).

Nuch

80

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Odd rear code on '69 Z/28

« on: August 25, 2007, 01:46:18 AM »

Steve,
If you send me the VIN and full axle code, I'll take a look at it.

But a 3.31 axle in a Z is very unusual.....

Kurt,

You should have my email by now.  Sorry for the delay.....

Steve

81

Decoding/Numbers / Odd rear code on '69 Z/28

« on: August 13, 2007, 02:48:34 AM »

Guys!

I'm looking at a 04/69 built Z/28 that appears to be original ( except for the original blown engine ). 
Odd thing is that the rear has an 05xx assembly date and is a BS code ( 3.31 posi ).  I'm at a
loss as to why the axle assembly is the month after the assembly of the car.  Could this possibly
be legit?  I've heard of cars being sidelined for "repairs", but the entire rear assembly.  Any thoughts
on the matter would be appreciated.  One possible clue is that the axle tubes were later welded to
the center casting in some sort of strengthening or repair operation.  3 owners back said it was like
that when they owned the car.  It also looks like driveshaft loops were on the car at some point as well.

BTW, the M-20 is the original per the matching partial VIN.  There is no POP or documentation available.

Lastly, how unusual was the 3.31 posi in the '69 Z/28?

Steve

82

Restoration / Re: Transmission detailing question

« on: July 31, 2007, 03:28:42 AM »

http://www.camaros.org/drivetrain.shtml#TransmissionNumbers

Thanks Kurt!

Now, if you can assist me - where exactly did that CX-THM400 image ( posted in the archives ) come from?  I am particularly interested in getting
an exact reproduction of that "CX" ink stamp.  Do you happen to know who it belongs/belonged to?  I'd like to do a follow-up on this.......

That's the first time I've seen a "CX" ink stamp on one of these.  I have a "CX" here ( lucky me  ), but the case is oxidized ( actually brown ) and
no such ink stamp is visible.

Anybody know if the location of the ink stamp, in the image in question, is the "typical" location for this stamp?

Steve

83

Restoration / Re: Transmission detailing question

« on: July 29, 2007, 05:37:09 PM »

I just finished doing one for my car. I hade Jerry re-skin it same as the block, heads, and intake. Beautiful job. Their is also a 2 letter application code ink stamped on the upper case. I have seen it near the bell housing edge and also in the middle of the case. The code is the same as on the ID tag riveted on the side of the case. Their is a very good picture on this site of a CX trans which is the high up-shift, high horse useage. CC is the middle horse code.The color of the stamp and tag vary with year. I did an art work of the tag and had it reproduced by a local trophy shop. I came out OK as it is very dificult to see when installed in the car. I couldn't find anyone to screen print it as the originals. Pan was natural steel as was dip tube and dip stick. The modulator cover was zinc plated. All other bkt's and clips were natural. I believe the inspection cover was semi-gloss black. Bolts were gray or black oxide.I talked to several people that worked on these when they were new and this was the info I got. Hope this helps...
Sam

Sam,

Care to post an image of that stamp on the trans case?  I'd like to see it.

Steve

84

Restoration / Re: Transmission detailing question

« on: July 24, 2007, 08:54:24 AM »

The THM400's did not receive engine orange overspray because they were not attached at the time of painting.  Manual transmission applications did get overspray
on the bell housing as they were actually attached prior to painting.  I have pictures of engines traveling down the assembly line @ Tonawanda and you can clearly
see no THM400's were attached but bell housings were.  If you are referring to the clutch inspection cover when you wrote "pan", I believe that was not yet installed
either - at the time of painting. 

Natural aluminum for the THM400.....

Steve

85

Decoding/Numbers / Re: VIN sequence is off by two weeks

« on: July 24, 2007, 08:47:05 AM »

Yes Gary,

But with 912 cars finished per day, how far can it possibly be off?

Steve

86

Originality / Re: N/66 option phase-out for 1969 Camaro production

« on: July 24, 2007, 12:34:30 AM »

John,

I can understand that.  So, how do all the Supercars fare in judging?  They are all dealer modified

Do they judge Yenko's, Dana's, B-M's, Harrel's, etc. in a different way?

Steve

87

Originality / Re: N/66 option phase-out for 1969 Camaro production

« on: July 23, 2007, 12:44:06 AM »

Jerry,

Do you happen to know exactly when in Dec. that car ( the one you're referring to ) was built?

I am considering the restoration, and about correctness, you know my response to that.

BTW, as a Judge, where do you stand on "documented" dealer installed options ( eg. N/66, D/80, hood pins, etc. )?
Let's say someone purchased a '69 SS off the lot and wanted to add spoilers or the N/66 Sport Wheels.  If the owner
has paperwork that shows that the dealer installed these options prior to delivery ( to the customer ), would you
accept them as "documented"?  Just wondering....

Steve

88

Originality / Re: N/66 option phase-out for 1969 Camaro production

« on: July 22, 2007, 04:42:07 PM »

So Kurt,

Should I then infer that any post 1/69 Camaro's with N/66 were basically owner installed? 

I've gotten into some interesting exchanges with SS Camaro owners over this subject in the past. 

Clarification please:  "no later cars have been documented"  - Does this take into account dealer installed N/66 wheels, or just RPO's?  Do dealer installed N/66 wheels
count anyway?

Steve

89

Decoding/Numbers / Re: VIN sequence is off by two weeks

« on: July 22, 2007, 06:02:57 AM »

Yeah Kurt, I saw that but sort of put it in the back of my mind for some unknown reason.

On a somewhat similar note, why don't we have VIN vs. build date information for the LA built cars?

Steve

90

Decoding/Numbers / VIN sequence is off by two weeks

« on: July 21, 2007, 11:27:41 PM »

I'm doing some VIN research to determine the build date of a car I'm considering.  I went to the archives ( here ) and got the "Ending VIN #" for the previous month,
then added the daily production rate ( per production day ) to work my way up to the VIN I'm researching.  Using the previously agreed to figure of 912 cars per day,
I come up with a build date that is two weeks later than the build date on the trim tag.    Is this possible?

A couple issues need to be clarified:

1) If a build month ends on a Wednesday ( let's say April 30th, 1969 for this example ), that would be a 04E build date.  The following month starts on the next day,
    Thursday in this example.  Would Thursday & Friday count as 05A?  What if there was only one day ( Friday ) left in the week that starts the new month?  Does
     Friday count as 05A?

2) How accurate are the "Ending VIN" numbers GM supplied ( listed here )?

I had done a similar VIN research on my current SS and it worked out to late 10D, or possibly very early 10E - so my 10D trim tage code is very close.  As I mentioned
earlier, the potential car is off by two weeks ( later than the code on the trim tag ). 

Am I missing something here?   Or, is this within the acceptable tolerance for VIN research?

Steve