Opening this new thread as a spin-off from my restoration chrono... link: return to previous

quote:

Originally posted by festival: (w/minor edits/CM)

...wondering about design and install intent being different. If the pad is oriented under the tire then the jack mount punch out matches the mount exactly. On the other hand if it is installed on the top then the circular edges match the drain holes.

...And compare the cut angles at the example I posted (at the circular ends) against the examples that mike posted. ... That’s a entirely different punch cut design.

...in addition to the radius being circular on Design #1 also on Design #2 end is also squared to a 90 degree angle at the top.

...Finally look at the difference in cut curvature from top to bottom. Definite difference from end to end.

-------------------------

For discussion sake... I merged and aligned the subject photos from the original thread... And added another for additional comparison?

I may be wrong (has happened before... just ask Mrs.)... but my $0.02 worth is they may not be that different?

The 'Design #2' views are captured at a very long angle, which (I think) may be creating an optical illusion? Also in the back (far left when rotated) the rearward portion angles up in 2 places? ...where in the 'Design 1' photo maybe 90% is laying on a flat plane & facing the camera?

Further, the cutoff (or torn?) portion at right side (nearer the camera) COULD(??) be a crude improvisation to accommodate notch in floor pan? (I think the spring shackle is underneath?)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Charley Maule,

In...

03C commitment fleet example.

04C and potentially all LA?

Norwood?

LA?

If I had to guess I would say that there’s two separate things going on here.

Likely 2 suppliers for the trunk anti-squeak which would explain the difference in the cut and angles, and a difference in the interpretation of the ODS for placement where Fisher Body ran Norwood and LA was transitioning to GMAD.

One thing strikes me straight on... the square hole in the pad makes no sense whatsoever in the manner installed in the LA cars, however if installed as shown on the 03C example it makes total sense.

This photo from CRG (credit: NoYenko George) provides measurements I used as a starting point. I found '67 a little different (at top and at upper left)...

CRG link: http://www.camaros.org/forum/i....msg155239#msg155239

Phil, you are way ahead of me... I was still working on post #1 (mega merge mashup)...

https://camaropacecars.com/eve/...733902797#8733902797

the main point being; I'm not sure the mats (#1 & #2 above) are that different?

Re: radius curves at bottom (left?): Photo above has the key dimensions... 5.5" x 3" (radius 2.4"), which was right-on.

I found the '67 a little different;
(1) Upper left corner squared-off, where '68-9 are rounded off. The trunk pans are different, I think to accomodate the shock absorber design change?
(2) Also I believe the '67 height s/b 10", where the '68 example quotes 9". When cutting, I allowed an extra inch (10" height) "just in case"... Glad I did, 'cause that turned out to be right on the nose.

The 03-C mat from Norwood has pointed 90 degree top angles that are similar to the NOYenko George sketch but the original 04B mat from LA has rounded top angles.

Just to be clear I am talking about Fisher Body ODS correct application for Verts not the assembly application in general.

Now, here is another possible twist.

2 different anti squeak mats. One for a convertible another for a coupe.

Perhaps the Workers were inconsistent in installation, (on the occasional Camaro Convertible build) and simply used the same instillation method and mats for both at LA.

To make matters even more complex LA was a multi style assembly plant in 1967.

i took yet one more shot at this... added overlay matching-up the creases in the trunk pan

quote:

Originally posted by festival: (w/minor edits, & refs added/CM)

(A) the square hole in the pad makes no sense whatsoever in the manner installed in the LA cars, however if installed as shown on the 03C example it makes total sense.

(B) The 03-C mat from Norwood has pointed 90 degree top angles ... the original 04B mat from LA has rounded top angles.

(C) another possible twist... 2 different anti squeak mats. One for a convertible another for a coupe.

(D) Perhaps the Workers were inconsistent in installation ... simply used the same method and mats for both at LA.

(A) No disagreement. (Ref. item D observation & comment below). Seems like for '68 they had even more variation (discussed below);

(B) If you can tell a difference, your eyes are sharper than mine... Allowing for 50 years wear-n-tear, the top corners look much the same to me?

(C) suppose it could be possible? ...but to me (IMHO), i'm seeing more similarity than difference? (though been wrong before)

(D) I think consistent inconsistency is a given! I would guess they missed the memo in L.A., and slapped 'em on the same way for Camaros, Caprices, Impalas, Novas, and whatever else rolled down the line...


Here's further craziness (thankfully not 1967)--

Here's (Photo below) a 1968 SS-396/RS Coupe (LOS build) currently in the shop. To note: (1) 2 tire hook cutouts (like the photo from George). (2) This car has the tire hook in the upper position. Where George's photo shows his in the lower position. Why the difference? Maybe NOR vs. LOS? Maybe diff. location for space-saver spare? No idea (never seen one), also don't know whether George's car was NOR or LOS? (3) Rounded upper left corner (which seems characteristic for '68-'69). (4) Couple other holes; one looks like tear/damage (upper right), but another (upper center) looks intended for some unknown purpose.

The back panel has dimples in several locations for mounting all sorts of thingies (more to follow)...

quote:

The back panel (my '67) has dimples in several locations for mounting all sorts of thingies (more to follow)...

also... Linked photo at CRG shows an original mat (1969) with some holes cut-out; and also some pre-scribed but not punched-out... Trunk mat holes (1969). It also shows a few that don't appear to have been part of the design, but that's not the point...

And one last comment for tonight...

quote:

Originally posted by Charley Maule (post #1 above):
...the cutoff (or torn?) portion at right side (nearer the camera) COULD(??) be a crude improvisation to accommodate notch in floor pan?

Have to correct myself on this one. I recall there was a photo from the Hoffberger car (posted by Tom D in 2013)... link: Original Trunk Mat. This shot pretty clearly shows that the nearly-intact mat touches only minimally upon the notch in the trunk pan (by comparison to Phil's "Design 2" photo)

Did all 67 Camaros come with this mat or what is for certain trim levels ?