1
General Discussion / Re: New Decode pages
« on: March 11, 2007, 01:45:45 AM »
Kurt,
Great job and thank you for all your effort here on CRG.
Great job and thank you for all your effort here on CRG.
News:
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Classified ads are not allowed on the forum.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Decoding/Numbers / Re: Warranty Engines
« on: March 10, 2007, 01:18:51 AM »
to bigblknmbrs:
I'm very curious. What is your background in the automotive world?
I'm very curious. What is your background in the automotive world?
3
Originality / Re: Could a sept 69 built camaro have block 3935440 dated july 1968
« on: February 16, 2007, 04:06:36 PM »It is a sept 1968 built car. I could be wrong but isn't that only 30 to 60 days. Bill
Your post was "Sept 69 built Camaro" made me also think the car was built Sept 69, not Sept 68 as you indicated in the follow-up post.
What is the engine casting date and engine build date?
4
Restoration / Re: stickers on core support and fan shroud 0f 69 z/28
« on: February 15, 2007, 05:54:55 PM »In this thread regarding firewall painting, there is a picture of JohnZ's original Z. There are two stickers on the core support. Any idea what the 2 stickers are?
The one on the driver's side is the emission/tune-up sticker, and the one on the passenger side is a coolant sticker; you can also see the GM of Canada oil change recommendation sticker where the heater hoses clamp to the inner fender; the car was sold new in Canada, and has the original GM of Canada documentation.
Thanks. I was wondering if this was the reason.
5
Restoration / Re: stickers on core support and fan shroud 0f 69 z/28
« on: February 14, 2007, 06:00:27 PM »the coolant sticker on the pass side.
The coolant sticker belongs in the drawer. Not used on US sold 69s.
In this thread regarding firewall painting, there is a picture of JohnZ's original Z. There are two stickers on the core support. Any idea what the 2 stickers are?
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=1608.0
Here's a photo, but you can't really see the separation due to the dark body color - it's generally along the sealed seam between the cowl and the floor pan, just below the cowl tag.
6
General Discussion / Re: New CRG Research Report - Bellhousing Alignment
« on: February 09, 2007, 11:41:43 PM »
Jerry,
Excellent report!
Excellent report!
8
General Discussion / Re: Cowl Tags from the B-J
« on: February 02, 2007, 01:13:49 AM »I'm certainly no expert...but how can you tell they are fake tags (other than the newer rivets)....if someone went to all the trouble to create a fake tag...why wouldn't they reproduce the correct rivet?
If this is the case that they are fake and not disclosed as fakes, there should be hell to pay.
It is accepted practice on this board and others not to openly talk about the specifics of repop tags.
Email me and I will talk with you there if your interested.
I am no expert on the law part of this, but I do not think messing with cowl tags carries them same weight as messing with Vin #'s.
Having said that most real car people do not like the repop tags at all. That's why we as a group keep reporting and posting them. Same goes for the real tags for sale on places like E Pay.
Mike
Mike
But it may be fraud selling the car as a Z if if never was a real z
9
Decoding/Numbers / Re: crayon marks behind rear seat
« on: February 01, 2007, 01:21:42 PM »
I have an X77 Hugger Orange Z and have an X7 on my bulkhead, and found "ORN" or "ORG" on the firewall. My memory is a little fuzzy this morning.
10
Originality / Re: Is my DZ motor a phony?
« on: February 01, 2007, 01:18:58 PM »
For what it's worth, I have an 68 11A build Z, 535xxx, V1029DZ stamp, and my VIN is also down by the oil filter. If memory serves me correct, my 86 block was cast very late September, which was about 4 weeks prior to the assembly date.
I sent pictures the engine stamp to Kurt S of this board and he was fine with my stamp. Kurt thought it was slightly unusual (or words to that effect) that my early Nov VIN stamp was by the filter.
Edited: 2/5/07 Had wrong engine build date of 10/12-Engine build date is 10/29.
Change wording on # of weeks prior to engine build date to casting date. Had 6 weeks-now 4 weeks
I sent pictures the engine stamp to Kurt S of this board and he was fine with my stamp. Kurt thought it was slightly unusual (or words to that effect) that my early Nov VIN stamp was by the filter.
Edited: 2/5/07 Had wrong engine build date of 10/12-Engine build date is 10/29.
Change wording on # of weeks prior to engine build date to casting date. Had 6 weeks-now 4 weeks
11
Decoding/Numbers / Re: IS my car a real Z???
« on: January 23, 2007, 01:34:11 PM »No X codes, To early. Check for the single 3/8 fuel line, 7000rpm tach, 507 and 508 frame mounts, speedometer cable should come from the trans tunnell area at like an angle toward the passenger side. (Muncie) Does it have the original radiator? Should have a 3 core with the passenger side tanks having the C B code on them. Manual steering pitman arm should say 3953227 for the fast ratio steering. If the power disc brakes are original the booster should say 9024 on the little flag tag and the master cylinder should say 309. My car is 11D. #547891 so we are REAL close. Buy Jerry MacNeishs book. A lot of good info. Sam
Just a couple of notes. A tach is not a good indicator for a Z, as early builds did not require the installation of a tach.
On the radiator issue, the CB will at least indicate a small block radiator, so look to see if has the UH radiator tag.
http://www.camaros.org/coolingsystems.shtml
Pull the back seat and look for the yellow partial X code on the passenger rear seat bulkhead. This and the other items should give you a much better idea on what you have.
Good luck on your findings!
12
Originality / Re: 1969 Z/28 proportioning valve
« on: December 29, 2006, 03:34:30 PM »
http://www.camaros.org/TopicsofResearch.shtml
I have a 11A 68 built and I do not have.
A portion from the link:
Usage of the valve was not consistent. 1967 Camaros receiving the valve were all models with C60, all SS396 models and NOR-built Z28s (at least the later ones). However, the 1967 LOS Z28s did not get the valve. At the start of 1968 the C60 rationale was dropped and the application of the valve generally changed to all models with 12-bolt axles. One exception is that starting in mid-1968, NOR Z28s stopped using it for a year, starting again in mid-1969. And note that usage of the valve on 67-69 Camaros was apparently not related to J52 disc brakes.
Different opinions have been expressed on whether or not it was effective at reducing stoping distance but CRG has not seen any comparison braking data. If it was effective, why wasn't it used on all models, and why was Z28 usage irregular?
Several have suggested that this valve might have been a reaction to a consumer lawsuit in prior years, and therefore, it's application on vehicles may not have been entirely rational. This remains undocumented speculation. In the meantime, we are searching for more data on this valve and on cars that have it (and don't).
I have a 11A 68 built and I do not have.
A portion from the link:
Usage of the valve was not consistent. 1967 Camaros receiving the valve were all models with C60, all SS396 models and NOR-built Z28s (at least the later ones). However, the 1967 LOS Z28s did not get the valve. At the start of 1968 the C60 rationale was dropped and the application of the valve generally changed to all models with 12-bolt axles. One exception is that starting in mid-1968, NOR Z28s stopped using it for a year, starting again in mid-1969. And note that usage of the valve on 67-69 Camaros was apparently not related to J52 disc brakes.
Different opinions have been expressed on whether or not it was effective at reducing stoping distance but CRG has not seen any comparison braking data. If it was effective, why wasn't it used on all models, and why was Z28 usage irregular?
Several have suggested that this valve might have been a reaction to a consumer lawsuit in prior years, and therefore, it's application on vehicles may not have been entirely rational. This remains undocumented speculation. In the meantime, we are searching for more data on this valve and on cars that have it (and don't).
13
General Discussion / Re: 1967-1969 Camaro Original Trunklid Value?
« on: December 19, 2006, 03:53:47 PM »
I'm not sure on value, but I think there are differences between the different years. Others will chime in on this.
15
Originality / Re: X77 Cars
« on: November 15, 2006, 01:15:10 PM »
But an X-77 could have the Z21 option, right?