CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: 707dog on January 06, 2017, 04:59:16 PM
-
hello i'm a newbie to this site and real love great info that CRG has been supplying, i know 67 camaros some what documented cars but most of my findings have been point on with my vin and cowl tag. i bought 2 owner 1967 rs camaro v8 4 speed car that has been sitting since 1974 very solid and complete car minus motor and trans( spun a bearing in 74 motor went MIA in some shop after hubby died) where i'm a little lost is the car's drivetrain options it a v-8, 4-speed according to tag but no 4-5 line letters on tag ( have to check speedo location for type of trans muncie or saginaw) but has a 1967 12 bolt rearend 3.07 ratio,mono leaf springs with some kind of trac bar that's rear facing and sits about 1/2 inch off the leaf spring, 4 piston disc brakes up front and drums with heavy duty looking springs in the back, all the info i found on those options point towards some of the z28 options...is it possible my RS had some z-28 options installed at the dealership or by the lady who og bought it??
* it had 2 owners both ladies from the sacrame
-
You need to post a picture of the trim tag and tell us the VIN. We really can't do much without at least those two things.
Pictures of the transmission stamping and the rear axle stamping would also be of great help.
Ed
-
vin
-
Your car (VIN 124377L148760) started life as an LF7 (327/210) with an M20 Saginaw 4 speed manual transmission, RPO D55 Center Console and the RPO Z22 Rally Sport option.
The car was built the 3rd week of March, 1967 and was painted Tahoe Turquoise with black standard bucket seats (no head rests).
Ed
-
no trans in it clutch pedal and all hardware still there even have the shifter
rear end - G QO 0423G1 E
-
Can you post a picture of the axle stamp? GQO doesn't show up in any of my references. QO is a 3.07 non-posi, but the G shouldn't be there. Also check the casting date on the pumpkin. QO was used in 1967 and 1968 so we need that to narrow it down. Also note that your axle is dated 0423 (April 23rd) so it's not original to the car.
Ed
-
sorry it was a C not a G
-
sorry it was a C not a G
That's not a Q either!! It appears to be a capital "O" and a zero with a line through the O (like they do with zeros in the military), but I have no clue what that axle is originally from. What's the casting date on the pumpkin??
Ed
-
ill slide under there tonight and get some pumpkin info, i appreciate all the info it's my first camaro build so any info i can dig up works for me.
what is your take on the front 4 piston disc brakes have delco moraine part #'s and look to be untouched for a very long time
-
what is your take on the front 4 piston disc brakes have delco moraine part #'s and look to be untouched for a very long time
RPO J52 Disc Brakes (which also included Rally wheels) were an option on any 1967 Camaro, and 14,899 people chose to purchase them. RPO J52 (power assist) was also an option on any 1967 Camaro, and 24,549 people decided to go that route.
HERE'S A PDF PAGE (http://www.camaros.org/pdf/options.pdf) showing what options were available, how much they cost, how many were produced, etc...
Ed
-
that is great info thanks for the RPO list...is that heavy duty braking system worth rebuilding or better to update it with newer style system disc in all 4 corners? ( comparing to the CPP systems)
-
OP wrote (in part)... "but has a 1967 12 bolt rearend 3.07 ratio,mono leaf springs with some kind of trac bar that's rear facing and sits about 1/2 inch off the leaf spring,"
IIRC, 67 Camaros with single leaf springs (usually 327/4sp cars) had a major issue with wheel hop, and when they were taken back in a 'kind of traction bar' was installed to help alleviate the wheel hop issue.. I remember seeing one on a '67 Camaro owner in 67 or 68, but I don't recall any specifics.. just that he had wheel hop issues and GM 'installed' one...
Is that what is on this car??
Also, the 'C' prefix would seem to imply 1970 model rears (or very late '69's).. Is it a possibility that the wheel hop issues destroyed the original rear and a GM replacement was installed during late '69 or '70 MY??
-
it a possibility that the wheel hop issues destroyed the original rear and a GM replacement was installed during late '69 or '70 MY
^^^^this could have happen the og motor spun a bearing or maybe some other damage that's why it was pulled, hotrod hubby n wife
-
IIRC, 67 Camaros with single leaf springs (usually 327/4sp cars) had a major issue with wheel hop, and when they were taken back in a 'kind of traction bar' was installed to help alleviate the wheel hop issue.
Gary, all 67's came with mono leaf springs and the radius rod (traction bar) was installed on all 12 bolts after December of 1966. However, the OP's LF7 would have come with a 10 bolt and no radius rod. More info HERE (http://www.camaros.org/radiusrod.shtml).
Is it a possibility that the wheel hop issues destroyed the original rear and a GM replacement was installed during late '69 or '70 MY??
Under warranty, the dealer wouldn't replace a 10 bolt with a 12 bolt so that's not a possibility. a prior owner is more likely but we still need to see that casting date on the pumpkin. The casting number would also give additional information so take a picture of that as well.
Ed
-
We need the casting date on the center section of the rear axle. See this pic for where to look.
http://www.camaros.org/images/pages/decoding/rearaxlecastdate.gif
It will probably be something like D 7 0
COO is a 1970 Camaro 4.10 rear. Pretty rare. I thought maybe Nova too, but it doesn't show on the Nova listing.
-
I bet you're right Bryon. 1970 Camaro 4.10 posi. The traction bar comment confuses me though. Probably aftermarket?
Ed
-
IIRC, 67 Camaros with single leaf springs (usually 327/4sp cars) had a major issue with wheel hop, and when they were taken back in a 'kind of traction bar' was installed to help alleviate the wheel hop issue.
Gary, all 67's came with mono leaf springs and the radius rod (traction bar) was installed on all 12 bolts after December of 1966. However, the OP's LF7 would have come with a 10 bolt and no radius rod. More info HERE (http://www.camaros.org/radiusrod.shtml).
This was in the Fall of '66. One of my fellow engineering drawing students bought one (or his parents did?).. IT was the first Camaro I'd seen up close blue with black interior (327 I remember; 4 speed I remember; wheel hop I remember; and I also remember him telling us that when he took it back in, the dealer added some type of traction bar to one side). I don't think I ever knew if he had a saginaw or muncie and I probably didn't know the difference at that time, nor the knowledge to look at 10/12 bolt question.. :) I remember I was VERY envious of him driving his new Camaro while I was driving a '58 Plymouth Plaza as a freshman in college at the time... :)
Is it a possibility that the wheel hop issues destroyed the original rear and a GM replacement was installed during late '69 or '70 MY??
Under warranty, the dealer wouldn't replace a 10 bolt with a 12 bolt so that's not a possibility. a prior owner is more likely but we still need to see that casting date on the pumpkin. The casting number would also give additional information so take a picture of that as well.
I agree, and I see that the C OO code is for a '70 differential. Aren't the '70 diffs longer (or wider) than the first gens??
Ed
-
This was in the Fall of '66. One of my fellow engineering drawing students bought one (or his parents did?).. IT was the first Camaro I'd seen up close blue with black interior (327 I remember; 4 speed I remember; wheel hop I remember; and I also remember him telling us that when he took it back in, the dealer added some type of traction bar to one side). I don't think I ever knew if he had a saginaw or muncie and I probably didn't know the difference at that time, nor the knowledge to look at 10/12 bolt question.. :) I remember I was VERY envious of him driving his new Camaro while I was driving a '58 Plymouth Plaza as a freshman in college at the time...
Yes, from the RADIUS ROD (http://www.camaros.org/radiusrod.shtml) report:
Additionally, later in the year, a rectangular rod service retrofit kit was made available to dealers to address wheel-hop complaints. The service kit could be applied either early vehicles with no rod at all or to vehicles with the round rod.
Ed
-
A "rear-facing" traction bar sounds aftermarket, or even home-made. Must be close to the fuel tank.
-
Rearend date code D140
Once i resize the pics ill post the one with the wierd trac bar
-
Rearend date code D140
Yep. April 14th, 1970. And I'd also be willing to bet the casting number is 3969341.
Ed
-
Sounds like the camaro has some changes in its short time on the road...it spins nice no slack once im done with the subframe ill tackle that rearend area.
Well since the rearend is not the stocker ill sell off the 4 piston brake system and go with the cpp 4 wheel disc
-
here is that goofy rear bar
-
Is it just one bar or one on each side?
-
Looks like it was installed incorrectly
-
That's just the standard, optional disc brakes.
Nothing wrong with the disc brake system in 67 - it will work fine. But I'd have the calipers sleeved with stainless steel...
-
Is it just one bar or one on each side?
it's on both sides mounted the same way, they will be coming off when i install the new rear suspension
-
That's just the standard, optional disc brakes.
Nothing wrong with the disc brake system in 67 - it will work fine. But I'd have the calipers sleeved with stainless steel...
ill end up media blasting all the parts/hardware and then put them up for sale. surprisingly the hubs spin pretty nice !
-
If you are gonna throw them away Ill take them.. Ill pm you.
-
If you are gonna throw them away Ill take them.. Ill pm you.
i won't toss them they will end up on CL so i can put a couple dollars back into the car ;D
-
http://www.tractionmaster.com/index.html
-
:) hmm pretty cool so they did serve a purpose
-
:) hmm pretty cool so they did serve a purpose
But are they correctly installed? Similar designs (like Caltracs, for example) all face forwards rather than rearwards, and seem to target the front spring eye area as a load path..... Hmmm.
-
Based even on the traction master link, the bars are installed backwards on the car