Camaro History On Display Tomorrow Evening

[Steve Shauger]

This car is historically significant and I appreciate that it's being discussed. I sense this thread is starting to get personal, so lets keep it on topic and informative.

[the427king]

Here is a pic of a 67 camaro trunk gutter[quarter]I owned Date code is last week June 66 [30th week]. Trim tag was a 08D and the vin and body number were around 30 and 80..... trunk lid and other sheetmetal was dated as well. Car was a gold/gold 3 speed on tree, 6 cyl

[black69]

what I think is cool, is the back of the raw rough trunk lid, it looks like they had some custom work done to get access to the emblem pins. There is just enough material left in those pictures as a clue (curved around the pins, not straight like the restored pic), that shows this car was unique, as if done by hand so you could put nuts on). I almost feel like they had to make the emblems work on a decklid that never had the cutouts for the emblems in the superstructure, because it was a pilot. But all that pilot info maybe was lost when they cutout the superstructure to make it a drag car. Very cool!

Love this car!

[GaryC]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paceme</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This car is historically significant and I appreciate that it's being discussed. I sense this thread is starting to get personal, so lets keep it on topic and informative. </div></div>

X2. Way toooo many extremist nitpicking at everything these days until it turns into a big damn highway or my way fight. Can't we all just enjoy what is left in our life whether it's restored or not? Geeze.

[67rs/ss]

I think it's great the car was restored as the owner wanted. Look at the re-bodied super cars and pace cars. They caused a lot of debate the way they were done. I have no problem with the way this car was restored, just never thought about it being restored this way.
I have 2 questions.
Was the front subframe replace to the correct early version?
Should the rear light housing be black? In the early promo pics they look to be not painted.

[Kurt S]

I am the person the prior owner of the car first contacted when he realized he had #1. I don't question the car - it's real. I'd suggest posting some in-process pics of the original fenders and quarters to allay the naysayers.
I highly suspect this car got a much better resto than the #1 and #2 Firebirds got.

Tag - no, you never mentioned it was a new computer system. It's original, but strange.
Decklid - that's actually the 2nd version of the lid. The first version has no access holes (what were they thinking?) and is only on very early cars. Looks like the original was cut as black69 noted, but there wasn't much to go on.
Sheetmetal - not surprising they were tagged and not stamped. Bet some were stamped (because they are part of the die design), but many stamps are hidden and hard to find.
Block should be stamped.

Posts like Tom's aren't helpful to the conversation, IMO.

[70 copo]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kurt S</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am the person the prior owner of the car first contacted when he realized he had #1. I don't question the car - it's real. I'd suggest posting some in-process pics of the original fenders and quarters to allay the naysayers.
I highly suspect this car got a much better resto than the #1 and #2 Firebirds got.

Tag - no, you never mentioned it was a new computer system. It's original, but strange.
Decklid - that's actually the 2nd version of the lid. The first version has no access holes (what were they thinking?) and is only on very early cars. Looks like the original was cut as black69 noted, but there wasn't much to go on.
Sheetmetal - not surprising they were tagged and not stamped. Bet some were stamped (because they are part of the die design), but many stamps are hidden and hard to find.
Block should be stamped.

Posts like Tom's aren't helpful to the conversation, IMO. </div></div>

Looks like the thread has been educational to a degree then...also nice to see that we seem to agree that the #1 car has been found and has had a proper restoration. Excellent.

[iluv69s]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kurt S</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am the person the prior owner of the car first contacted when he realized he had #1. I don't question the car - it's real.
</div></div>


enough said..thanks Kurt

[iluv69s]

So,I am here at my office discussing this car and thread with my Dad and he mentioned a very interesting memory from back then. The story goes like this.

My Pop and our family was visiting with my Godfather (must have been in 1966). I was born 1962. Then my godfather, who was some kind of a manager type at GM, told my Dad about the all new car Chevy was coming out with for the 67 model year. Then he came out of his bedroom and showed my Dad an IBM type printout (with the holes on both side). He said it was Chevrolet's list of 'possible names for thier new car soon to be released&quot;. My Dad remembers very clearly this conversation because he says that my Godfather was very in favor of the name &quot;carrera&quot; which was on the list.. (not sure on the spelling). This is because my Godfather's last name was Carriero.

Last we heard from my Godfather was about 1985? when he gave a reference for my younger 18 yr old brother to get a job at the Fisher plant in Trenton. NJ..At the time my godfather was plant manager at a GM plant in Buffalo NY.. (not sure which). And beleive it or not, lil bro is going to retire from GM this September...4 GM plants and 30 years later !!


I'd sure like to see that list now !! I am going to try and see if he is still around.. maybe there are some more memories that he could share.

BTW....Awesome car !!! Thanks for saving and sharing history !!!!!

[Mark_C]

I don't think anyone is outright critisizing to car, or the restoration directly, its just an attempt to find out how it was originally made, how much of it was original when the previous, or current owner got it and where it is now. It's only when people step in and either try and deflect the question, or feel the need to stick up for someone else that things start to turn awkward. Lets just stick to asking and answering questions to the best of our ability and eventually everyone will learn something. If we start bickering over that that and the other thing the opportunity to learn something about this car, and the other pilots will be lost.

This car is unique, and beyond being a hand built pre production car it has several oddities about it. I don't think anyone is questioning the realness of the car, we just want to know how it got to where it is today, either now, or back in 1967.

For example the car has an 09B dated cowl tag (ok its been explained it was pulled from a body scheduled for september build), other very low VIN cars have way earlier tags including at least 1 that has an 05B dated tag which line up with the actual dates the pilots were assembled.

This car has a later version trunk lid on it now as the very early cars don't have the holes for the emblems, and it looks like the original substructure in the original pictures may have been hole sawed (later?) to add the deck lid emblems. Because this car was originally wired for 110V power, maybe it had to be returned to Norwood in September(?) to get that wiring removed, maybe it got a new trunklid at that time with the emblem holes at that time. Who knows.

You can't exactly go looking for NOS parts for a pre production car, maybe they are the same, maybe they are not, so saving as much as possible from whatever he had should be admired. Some people don't like seeing welds in the trunk or floor, well when they buy it they can replace the floor pan, it doesn't bother me that much, but then I wouldn't have had the cash to do it anyways.

In the words of the late Rodney King &quot;Can't we all just get along&quot; at least for a while. Ask your questions, give an answer if you know it and we'll all learn something.