1
1969 - Orphans / Re: 1969 DZ ENGINE BLOCK 19N651239
« on: February 15, 2025, 03:32:42 PM »
Very nice result. Love to see success stories.
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.
3
Restoration / Re: 1969 standard silver grille
« on: December 27, 2024, 03:35:29 PM »
Doc.
Original silver grills are painted silver with lacquer.
The plastic is a kind of bone color; a bit off white.
I bought a GM grill over the counter in 1976. It was all black plastic. GM chose to make all the replacement grills out of black plastic. You could not buy a light color grill by 1976.
I painted it with white epoxy primer after applying an adhesion promotor for plastic parts. Painted the surround black lacquer (my car is black lacquer), and the grill silver. The first time I painted it, I used a lacquer from a company who guaranteed me it was an exact factory match acrylic lacquer. It wasn't. Way too dark. I repainted it a few years ago, and used Imron from a local paint store. They got the color right. Yes, I know it isn't lacquer, and I know it isn't the highest quality enamel. But it IS the correct color, and it is MORE durable than the lacquer used from the factory. Had to paint the headlight bezels at the same time.
I have no idea how the repop silver grills are made, what color the plastic is, and whether they paint it with lacquer.
Original silver grills are painted silver with lacquer.
The plastic is a kind of bone color; a bit off white.
I bought a GM grill over the counter in 1976. It was all black plastic. GM chose to make all the replacement grills out of black plastic. You could not buy a light color grill by 1976.
I painted it with white epoxy primer after applying an adhesion promotor for plastic parts. Painted the surround black lacquer (my car is black lacquer), and the grill silver. The first time I painted it, I used a lacquer from a company who guaranteed me it was an exact factory match acrylic lacquer. It wasn't. Way too dark. I repainted it a few years ago, and used Imron from a local paint store. They got the color right. Yes, I know it isn't lacquer, and I know it isn't the highest quality enamel. But it IS the correct color, and it is MORE durable than the lacquer used from the factory. Had to paint the headlight bezels at the same time.
I have no idea how the repop silver grills are made, what color the plastic is, and whether they paint it with lacquer.
4
General Discussion / Re: 124379N576051 1969 L78 on BAT
« on: December 23, 2024, 11:28:23 PM »
Engine pad stamp in pic #91.
Look legit?
Look legit?
5
General Discussion / Re: 124379N576051 1969 L78 on BAT
« on: December 23, 2024, 05:17:09 PM »
I also don't think he showed the casting date on the block, but I have not combed over that auction carefully since posting.
Could be doing himself a huge favor posting both the casting date and the pad stamp.
I think he already posted the casting number for the block.
Could be doing himself a huge favor posting both the casting date and the pad stamp.
I think he already posted the casting number for the block.
6
General Discussion / Re: 124379N576051 1969 L78 on BAT
« on: December 23, 2024, 05:15:27 PM »
The car looks legit; although, he has yet to post a pic of the engine pad stamp. Could be a $20k shot which might swing either direction. I am not certain if he is just evasive because he has been told it was a restamp or if he just can't figure out how to get the pic.
7
General Discussion / Re: 1969 ZL2 Undehood Insulation
« on: December 22, 2024, 03:57:48 PM »
Guessing the point is to see if there is a decent repop?
Is there?
Is there?
8
General Discussion / Re: 124379N576051 1969 L78 on BAT
« on: December 22, 2024, 03:53:26 PM »
Don't know the car. Seller is not at all knowledgeable, but does at least SEEM to be transparent. I told him the WS was a fake.
Early on he stated the WS was "1000 percent" legit and correct. William pointed out a bunch of errors. Pic of WS is now gone.
Has been asked for a BUNCH of pics, but EITHER he does not know what they are asking, or he is being evasive.
Unless it has been posted recently, he has not posted the engine pad assembly stamp. Also, still needs pic of the casting date to make sure it lines up.
Biggest problem with on line auction cars, is that one rarely has a chance to go inspect the car. Biggest problem with BAT is the morons who think they know all about first gen Camaros, and then post resentful comments about those of us who point out real problems. My screen name there is Camarolynn. In reference to a 69 Z/28, a guy recently posted "let’s all hear it for @camarolynn he read a book about camaros!!!" That's what I get for trying to be helpful. Funny thing is the guy spent $1300 having someone inspect the vehicle (he didn't buy it) and he still couldn't say what the casting date on the block was. He was present during the inspection, so he obviously doesn't know enough to verify these things himself. He claimed all the numbers "lined up" except the fake engine stamp, even thought the trans was out of a 1965 model year car. I probably forgot more about first gens than he will ever know; and I don't claim to be the most knowledgeable guy on first gens. But I did buy my first Z/28 in 1971, and still have the one I bought in 1976.
Yellow L78 car is here: https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1969-chevrolet-camaro-ss-49/
By the way, I am getting ready to drop some big $$$ (at least for me.... I know some guys drop six figures on six cars in a year, but I am still a working man) on a TriFive Chevy. Even though the car is 2000 miles away, Sherri and I are going to lay eyes on it right after New Years. I believe the seller to be honest and transparent, but still, it only makes sense to go inspect in person.
Early on he stated the WS was "1000 percent" legit and correct. William pointed out a bunch of errors. Pic of WS is now gone.
Has been asked for a BUNCH of pics, but EITHER he does not know what they are asking, or he is being evasive.
Unless it has been posted recently, he has not posted the engine pad assembly stamp. Also, still needs pic of the casting date to make sure it lines up.
Biggest problem with on line auction cars, is that one rarely has a chance to go inspect the car. Biggest problem with BAT is the morons who think they know all about first gen Camaros, and then post resentful comments about those of us who point out real problems. My screen name there is Camarolynn. In reference to a 69 Z/28, a guy recently posted "let’s all hear it for @camarolynn he read a book about camaros!!!" That's what I get for trying to be helpful. Funny thing is the guy spent $1300 having someone inspect the vehicle (he didn't buy it) and he still couldn't say what the casting date on the block was. He was present during the inspection, so he obviously doesn't know enough to verify these things himself. He claimed all the numbers "lined up" except the fake engine stamp, even thought the trans was out of a 1965 model year car. I probably forgot more about first gens than he will ever know; and I don't claim to be the most knowledgeable guy on first gens. But I did buy my first Z/28 in 1971, and still have the one I bought in 1976.
Yellow L78 car is here: https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1969-chevrolet-camaro-ss-49/
By the way, I am getting ready to drop some big $$$ (at least for me.... I know some guys drop six figures on six cars in a year, but I am still a working man) on a TriFive Chevy. Even though the car is 2000 miles away, Sherri and I are going to lay eyes on it right after New Years. I believe the seller to be honest and transparent, but still, it only makes sense to go inspect in person.
9
1969 - Orphans / Re: 1969 DZ ENGINE BLOCK 19N651239
« on: October 04, 2024, 10:53:55 PM »
If it has a 400 crank, it doesn't likely have correct 69 Z pistons. Would have had to use a REALLY short rod to get things where they belong.
Because you posted the partial vin, assuming it is stamped on the rough area down by the oil filter. Is that correct?
Pics would help.
Because you posted the partial vin, assuming it is stamped on the rough area down by the oil filter. Is that correct?
Pics would help.
10
Decoding/Numbers / Re: Does this Date stamp look correct DZ 302
« on: September 19, 2024, 10:39:23 PM »
Really hard to tell with all that paint on it.
11
Decoding/Numbers / Earliest known casting date for 3970010 block?
« on: September 19, 2024, 10:38:40 PM »
I have never seen a 3970010 block cast before April 15, 1969. Obviously, that doesn't mean there aren't some out there.
I have never seen this discussed.
Anyone have (or see) a 3970010 block cast before 4/15/69? If so, what was the date? Please post a pic if available.
I have never seen this discussed.
Anyone have (or see) a 3970010 block cast before 4/15/69? If so, what was the date? Please post a pic if available.
12
General Discussion / Re: A very rare Camaro indeed
« on: September 02, 2024, 03:53:20 AM »
Yeah, meant 292. Damn fat fingers.
13
General Discussion / Re: A very rare Camaro indeed
« on: August 31, 2024, 09:28:42 PM »
You could bore a 392 chevy .060 and get very close to 302. Just round up. 301.15
14
Maintenance / Re: Balancing flywheel and clutch assembly together?
« on: July 16, 2024, 02:32:02 AM »
"We all ways zero balance the flywheel, then bolt on pressure plate and make any changes just to the pressure plate, that way everything is zero neutral balance."
Perzactly!
This is the ONLY way that makes any sense.
Perzactly!
This is the ONLY way that makes any sense.
15
1969 - Orphans / Re: 69 M20 FB in OH 19N6?2804
« on: July 03, 2024, 09:15:33 PM »
Would guess 19N682304