THE LAST??? 1967 Z-28

[Kurt S]

[ QUOTE ]
Kurt,

It has become clear that you are here on this site to supress free speech and push your CRG "agenda".

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, so supporting my arguments with facts somehow suppresses free speech? I'm not following.
I'm talking, you're talking, and we're not swearing.

And what exactly is the CRG agenda?
The CRG site says it's "Accurate, Objective, Useful Content".


[ QUOTE ]
Since you are no obsessed with the firebird issue Lets go there shall we?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not obsessed with it. It was the only thing that you responded to.

[ QUOTE ]
These gentlemen were specific on the TT change in '68 to ready fisher for Firebird production, because this is what they were told by supervision at the time. Despite the fact that Fisher Norwood was ready - Market forces and firebird sales did not require the Production start for firebird there until mid '69.

I do not think it is productive to insult the retired workers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting. So you're saying the tag change that occurred in 68 across all Chevrolet (and GM I believe) models and plants was due one new product coming to Norwood, one that didn't happen until mid-69? Thought you said it happened in 68? Never mind that Pontiac used the same style trim tag in 67.
I'd say it was a corporate wide change due to changing federal regulations (the conformance text on the tag).
Market forces weren't even a factor. It was a production issue - they needed to prep LOR for the Vega. And it took a month of work to prep NOR for the Firebird.
Oh, and just how did I insult anyone?
[ QUOTE ]
You have an opinion based on your 15,000 car d base of which you are not really clear on what % is 1967 exclusive....

[/ QUOTE ]
67's - 8,700 out of the 15,500 in the db.

[ QUOTE ]
Your statement simply confirms what I have said previously on this topic and is what the Retiree's told me happened at the hole on the Chevrolet side.

[/ QUOTE ]
That part is explained in the assembly article. And you stated it above too. It causes a little bit of variance, but only by a maximum of 50-100 VIN's (normally much less than that). Not enough to be evident or significant to any of us.
Almost noone in the plant looked at body #'s or VIN's anyway. If you go out in the plant and asked about a VIN or a body #, they would look at you funny. The rotation/sequence # is all that mattered.

[ QUOTE ]
We can keep chatting on this till the web dies or the moderators shut it down - you are not going to change my mind because what you and I believe is really not that far off the mark. I believe the Fisher Body unit number did matter in 1967 and thus the Trim Tag was relevent and you do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

The trim tag and all the info on it was relevant and important or it wouldn't be there!

I agree, we are saying close to the same thing.
But you made two statements that are in conflict with what I said:
"The Camaro bodies at Fisher were sequentially built in 1967."
" ....the staging lines .... explains why the VIN's appear to be out of sequence compared to the body build up."

No, the bodies were not built sequentially by the body #. Fisher used a rotation # to built the cars. Cars could and did get pulled out of order for repairs. This rotation # is the # that is written on alot of original firewalls. I can provide more examples if that will help.

Chevrolet then used a different rotation # when the car hit the Chevrolet side. This is the # on the broadcast sheets.

Both rotation #'s had the same purpose - tracking the car and it's subassemblies.

The issue with this car being out of sequence is mostly due to 07C being produced for a very short time. Cars got mixed around on the Fisher side (mainly in the body shop), so 07B and 07C cars could be and were interspersed. It's not uncommon to see but it's much more prevalent here, presumably due to the end of the year.


Could you please detail exactly what you think is different in the 67 process than the 68/69 process? Seriously.

Still don't understand the suppression of free speech thing...