1968 Camaro Coupe rear subframe

[montgomg]

   I recently acquired a 68 SS Camaro and it is a coupe. been stored since 1972. Car had been hit in the rear, not bad but will need to be on a frame machine to pull out a bit. Original paint and interior so worth working with.
   I have checked the Fisher body manual (Chapter 3) for both the 68 and 69 Camaros for factory dimensions of the underbody. I find a 3 to 4 inch difference between those two years on vertical dimensions f and g in the manual and these are essentially the kickup part of the rear frame.
   According to some of the vendors 68 and 69 take the same rear frame. Given the variance of the critical dimensions in the manual I don't see how the same part number would work for the 2years.
   Can someone lend some clarity to this matter? I would much appreciate.

[1968RSZ28]

Read this...  http://www.stevescamaroparts.com/tech-posts/2014/11/10/camaro-unibody-frame-dimensions

Paul

[montgomg]

Thank You, Paul. This helps a lot. I thought misprints could explain the discrepancy but did not know which dimensions were correct.

[HawkX66]

Read this...  http://www.stevescamaroparts.com/tech-posts/2014/11/10/camaro-unibody-frame-dimensions

Paul

How has that info been verified? I'm not trying to slight stevescamaroparts, but I don't trust everything I read on the net. This is the first time I've seen this one. I'm going to be re-installing my subframe soon and if I shouldn't be using the specs in my 69 AIM I'd like to get a warm and fuzzy on the specs I'm using.

[montgomg]

  Hawk, where exactly in the AIM are you getting frame alignment numbers?
  What I did is look, online, at the 67, 68, and 69 Fisher body manuals and specifically Chapter 3 (Underbody) and reference to figure 3.8 and with dimensions and descriptions.
There are clearly discrepancies in the manuals among these 3 years.
Steve's diagram seems to have smoothed these issues out a bit.
I will be looking at Steve's work as well as the 68 Fisher body manual for my work.
As I stated in my first post above the Fisher manual shows a 3 to 4 inch difference in the rear frame kick up over and behind the rear axle between the 68 and 69 Camaro and there can not be that much difference and in fact I understand there should be no difference.

[CVKUEBER]

I actually used the trunk floor assembly out of a 69 for my 68. It was a perfect fit.  frame rails were identical. Rear trunk floor to taillight panel was slightly different.

[HawkX66]

  Hawk, where exactly in the AIM are you getting frame alignment numbers?
  What I did is look, online, at the 67, 68, and 69 Fisher body manuals and specifically Chapter 3 (Underbody) and reference to figure 3.8 and with dimensions and descriptions.
There are clearly discrepancies in the manuals among these 3 years.
Steve's diagram seems to have smoothed these issues out a bit.
I will be looking at Steve's work as well as the 68 Fisher body manual for my work.
As I stated in my first post above the Fisher manual shows a 3 to 4 inch difference in the rear frame kick up over and behind the rear axle between the 68 and 69 Camaro and there can not be that much difference and in fact I understand there should be no difference.

Sorry, typo/flaked on the AIM... Although Steve's diagram smoothed out the issues, how he smoothed them out is what I'm trying to figure out. I agree there are differences between the manuals, but what makes Steve's the correct version?

[montgomg]

I am not saying Steve's is the correct or incorrect version. Maybe others with more experience can weigh in.
This is the first gen 1 I will have put on a frame machine so I am not a fount of knowledge and experience.
I fortunately have access to a 68 L48 one owner untouched car to measure from as or if needed.