Did all '69 Z/28's come with the tall rear bumper guards?

[Fred Mertz]

Or were they part of the X33 trim package?

[william]

Z/28 equipment included the taller V32 rear bumper guards, presumably to comply with federal bumper height requirements.

[Z282NV]

Z/28 equipment included the taller V32 rear bumper guards, presumably to comply with federal bumper height requirements.

Wouldn't all Camaro's need to have then if they had to comply with the federal standards? I always thought they were just part of the appearance package? But I am no expert. 

[bcmiller]

I do not know the exact reason. But they were part of the Z28 package.

I always listen to william.

[ZLP955]

I recall reading somewhere years ago now, that the rear ride height of the Z/28 model put the rear bumper height about 1" lower than on other Camaro models, thus requiring the large rear bumper guards.
However, the chart in 'Trim Heights' in the 1969 AIM (UPC0/A10) shows that other models (notably those with E78 x 14 and F70 x 14 tires) shared almost identical 'shipped' and 'curb' ride heights at the rockers (locations J and K) as the Z/28. Those models did not come with the V32 bumper guards, yet would have had comparable or even slightly lower rear bumper height to a Z/28.

[Kelley W King]

My Z sets beside my BB SS in my shop and the Z is lower but not enough to need the "tall" bumper guard in my opinion. Is there any evidence of the federal regulation?

[william]

Z/28s had the lowest 'D' measurement; cars with G31 special rear springs had the highest. G31 also included V32 rear guards.

[ZLP955]

I started off looking at the 'D' measurement but since that's taken between the top of the axle tube and the rear frame rail, the overall tire diameter affects the distance to the top of the axle tube above ground. The height of the rear bumper above ground will be determined by the ride heights at 'J' and 'K' and if those measurements give an upwards or downwards rake towards the rear.
The ride height specs at those locations are also each subject to a tolerance of +/-0.38" which suggests that the rear bumper height can't have been that critically close to not meeting federal requirements, if no other model than the Z/28 had V32 bumper guards standard.

[169INDY]

15" wheels & its effect on bumper heights?

just a random thought.

JIM

[X33RS]

The E70-15 tires that all 69 Z's came with are very close to 27" tall.  Some give a spec of 26.9 inches.

The typical factory F70-14's hovered right around 26 inches.  Some specs show 26.2 inches.

So at most you might be looking at roughly an inch difference in circumference which would equate to about a 1/2" in effected ride height.

As William stated, Z's did in fact have a lower ride height than other Camaros when measured at "D"    Pretty sure the assembly manual also showed differences at the rocker measurements "J" and "K" and that includes the minor tire height differences as far as I can interpret.

I don't know if all this means that's why all Z's got bumper guards, but they did.   

[z28z11]

Remember, that extended back to '68 Z's, too. One of the first indicators you should look for when scoping out a potential '68, as the holes in the tail panel are overlooked occasionally when someone "recreates" a '68 -

Regards,
Steve

[ZLP955]

Sometimes I use too many words and people don't read them.
So here are the specs from the '69 AIM to explain my point.
Compare curb height at J and K; if a Z's bumper was too low, so was every car's with E78x14 and F70x14 tires.

[Stingr69]

Typo in AIM I believe.  I remember this from an older discussion.

[ZLP955]

Typo in AIM I believe.  I remember this from an older discussion.

Typo on which dimensions? The trim height tables in the '67 and '68 AIMs are far more complicated, but look very comparable figures to the '69.

[X33RS]

I've read that too Stinger and it would seem to make sense when you look at J and K and D and  pay particular attention to the tire sizes.

The only other lowest ride height are with the E78-14 tire which doesn't make sense, because the 78 series tire is 26.7" tall, nearly the same height as the E70-15's on the Z/28.   Yet it's giving a lower height measurement on the E78 car at K but a lower height measurement at D on the Z/28.   The measurement at D is more than 2 tenths difference.   So how can the Z clearly have a lower suspension measurement but the E78 car has a lower rocker measurement when they both have nearly identical tire height?  Clearly anyone good at math can see there is a discrepancy given the known tire heights.