CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => Originality => Topic started by: Camarocards on July 17, 2015, 03:47:35 PM
-
According to the AIM (U17 A3), the oil line fitting for an L35 that goes into the block utilizes item 6 (Bushing p/n 444030) and item 5 (Elbow p/n 444052). I've determined that the "Bushing" is nothing more than a reducing union and the part of this union that screws into the block is 3/8" NPT.
I ordered the Elbow from HBC and while I can't say I'm surprised (:)), the end of the Elbow has been machined for 3/8" NPT threads. While functionally this would work just fine and would clearly eliminate the need for the Union (Bushing), technically it's not correct unless the Bushing is a 3/8" to 3/8" Union which would make absolutely no sense. It seems that ALL of the Camaro parts suppliers offer the same "incorrect" fitting. Since my goal is to restore this car exactly the way it was originally built, I'd rather not eliminate the Bushing.
So, my question is, does anyone know what size either the Bushing or the Elbow is suppose to be? I could easily have the end of the Elbow machined down to the correct size if I know what size it should be. Hopefully someone has already gone down this path before me and could provide a little bit of insight.
BTW...this is for a '68 just for reference.
Thanks!
Bob
-
I have a '67 L35 and will take a look. The motor is out of the car at the moment so it's easy for me to remove the fittings and check.
It should be the same as a '68 L35. I should have an answer and some pics sometime tomorrow for you.
Mike
-
Thanks Mike. Much appreciated!
Bob
-
I noticed the elbow fitting in the AIM is the same for L35 and L78 engines. The L78 blocks are drilled 1/2 NPT for the oil fitting hole. I assume the bushing is used for the L78 blocks only.
-
I'm not so sure the elbow is the same for L35 and L78 engines.
BHC sells a kit that looks like it includes the bushing but the elbow appears to be different. I'm not saying this kit is correct but they also list the bushing separate and it does seem to be different than the L35 elbow.
http://www.heartbeatcitycamaro.com/store/product/25439/Camaro-Oil-line-kit-all-BB-396-375hp-1967-1968-1969/
http://www.heartbeatcitycamaro.com/store/product/16662/Camaro-Oil-line-adaptor-396-375-COPO-1967-1968-1969/
You may be on to something though. Paragon sells a 1/2 x 1/8 NPT fitting for use with Hi-perf 396 and 427 engines.
https://www.paragoncorvette.com/p-356250-oil-pressure-adaptor-fitting.aspx
They also sell a 3/8 x 1/8 NPT fitting.
https://www.paragoncorvette.com/p-356251-oil-pressure-adaptor-fitting.aspx
So maybe (?) the L35 Elbow has a 1/8 NPT thread and all of the Repop suppliers are incorrectly offering it as 3/8 NPT to eliminate the bushing???
Where did you find in the AIM that the Elbow fitting is the same for the L35 and L78 engines? The fitting (item 4) is certainly the same. I looked in the L78 section of the AIM but unfortunately there is no reference to the oil fittings. Now I'm beginning to wonder if the Elbow that is being advertised for use on the L35 is really correct??
-
Wow! Is this ever confusing! Did some more homework.
The 67 AIM (U17 A4) doesn't call out the bushing, elbow and fitting separately. Item 4 is listed as p/n 3906194 which from what I can gather is the Elbow shown in my first post.
The 68 AIM (U17 A3) now calls out the bushing, elbow and fitting separately BUT the Elbow (item 4) part number has now been changed to 444052 and the bushing part number has now been added (444030)
The 69 AIM (U17 A3) utilized a different oil line set-up BUT still shows the use of same Elbow and Bushing as in the 68 AIM.
Sooooo, the big question is what is Elbow part number 444052 and Bushing part number 444030 and are they same regardless of whether the application is L35 or L78?? From the previous post, the bushing can't be the same for both engines since the L78 uses a 1/2 NPT and the L35 uses a 3/8 NPT for connection to the block. Was the Elbow part number changed from 3906194 to 444052 from '67 to '68?????
Bob
-
Hi Bob,
Here are photos of the '67 L35 block oil line fitting. I included a closeup of the stampings. The stamps look like a "W" so I suspect it may have been made by Winters. There is no reducing bushing. My block casting number is 3902406 (not sure if that matters though).
Let me know if you need any additions photos.
Mike
-
Mike,
Thanks for the taking the time to shoot a few pics!
Is it safe to assume that your car is a survivor?
So even though the AIM shows what appears to be a Bushing, it looks like for at least in '67, one was never used and agrees with what HBC sells (http://www.heartbeatcitycamaro.com/store/product/25438/Camaro-Oil-line-kit-1967-396-325hp-1967/)
It also looks like the design changed from '67 to '68 (and also carried over to the '69 model year) since the AIM now calls out the use of the Bushing and the Elbow.
So unfortunately, while your efforts are very much appreciated, I'm still back to the dilemma of trying to figure what the heck the Bushing and Elbow are for '68. Interestingly enough, according to HBC, the fitting shown in my first post replaces the fitting used on your engine.
Could it be that even though the AIM calls out a Bushing, one was never used??? Sure would be nice if someone had the engineering drawings for the Elbow and Bushing to see what they really are. Would also be nice to hear from other '68 and '69 L35 members to see what's used on their engine.
-
I also have a 325 hp '67, but not original engine. Could it be the AIM shows the same picture for both 325 and 375?
-
I do believe that is the case since there is no mention of the oil line in the L78 section of the AIM.
Something still doesn't add up though. In reply #3 it was reported that the L78 block uses a 1/2 NPT fitting but the L35 block uses a 3/8 NPT fitting yet the AIM calls out the same part (item 6 p/n 444030) for both engines. To add to the mystery, the L78 used an intermediate bracket with a fitting and a solid piece of tubing that then is connected to the nylon oil line to the gauge. No where in the AIM is this set-up shown.
Bob
-
Hi Bob,
Here are photos of the '67 L35 block oil line fitting. I included a closeup of the stampings. The stamps look like a "W" so I suspect it may have been made by Winters. There is no reducing bushing. My block casting number is 3902406 (not sure if that matters though).
Let me know if you need any additions photos.
Mike
Same fitting I have on my 67.. Although mine is a clone.. 8)
-
Thanks Darrell. So then maybe we've ruled out the use of the Bushing in '67 but I'm still baffled by the call out of the bushing and elbow in the '68 and '69 AIM's.
BOB
-
The L78 blocks are drilled 1/2 NPT for the oil fitting hole. I assume the bushing is used for the L78 blocks only.
I would bet you are correct. ;)
-
X2. You guys may very well be right.....used only with the L78. But boy oh boy, if that turns out to be the case, IMO the AIM is extremely unclear regarding the BB set-up for the oil line.
Maybe some of the other L34, L35 and L78 owners can check their set-up and report back. I'd like to put this one to bed and hopefully this thread may help others in the future who may go down the same path as me.
Thanks,
Bob
-
My 67 02E L-35 has the same set up "fitting & bushing" as Camarocards showed in his initial post.
-
No factual data to support this but it could be that there was a change of a supplier and drawings werent updated.. (http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/uploads/default_idontknow.gif)
-
So I guess the verdict isn't in yet. This is shaping up to be a good research project! :)
Bob
-
If 325 had a 3/8 and 375 had a 1/2 inch fitting didn't they both have the same casting number? I have a 3902406 block but it's from a '67 Chevelle.
-
If 325 had a 3/8 and 375 had a 1/2 inch fitting didn't they both have the same casting number? I have a 3902406 block but it's from a '67 Chevelle.
I can't speak for every configuration or casting Re: Same casting # used for low HP and High HP. But, I do know most engines from the 375 HP years used the same casting, just machined different for the oil fitting and of course 4 bolt mains in the high HP. Same with 427's of '69. It is a 512 casting used in low horse, high horse, and even used both for 427&454. 69 396 block, 272, was used for several HP, even a lowly 2 bbl 265 hp version and, of course the 375 hp all are 272 casting..
-
Has there been any new info on this? I'm looking for the correct info for my 69 L34 350hp. My understanding is there were two fittings. The first one below is for the 375hp and the second one is the 325 & 350hp. The second pic is of a repop. Can anyone confirm that?
(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q573/SgtHawkUSMC/69%20Camaro%20SS396%20L34/69%20Reference/69%20BB%20Oil%20Line/P52101442.jpg) (http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/SgtHawkUSMC/media/69%20Camaro%20SS396%20L34/69%20Reference/69%20BB%20Oil%20Line/P52101442.jpg.html)
(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q573/SgtHawkUSMC/69%20Camaro%20SS396%20L34/69%20Reference/69%20BB%20Oil%20Line/350hp%20Oil%20Fitting%201.jpg) (http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/SgtHawkUSMC/media/69%20Camaro%20SS396%20L34/69%20Reference/69%20BB%20Oil%20Line/350hp%20Oil%20Fitting%201.jpg.html)
-
Dave,
Never did get to the bottom of the bushing dilemma. Until something new surfaces or someone can confirm the use of the bushing in '68 L35 cars, I've installed the elbow shown in your bottom photo.
Bob
-
Dave,
Never did get to the bottom of the bushing dilemma. Until something new surfaces or someone can confirm the use of the bushing in '68 L35 cars, I've installed the elbow shown in your bottom photo.
Bob
Thanks Bob. According to the AIM and several other pics I've seen, 68-69 are the same for L34 & L35. They are both supposed to use the bushing and the one I posted in the second pic. I'll keep digging for a survivor pic.