CRG Discussion Forum
Camaro Research Group Discussion => Decoding/Numbers => Topic started by: tim69camaro on March 12, 2007, 01:22:53 AM
-
Do any 1969 L35 (396, 325 hp) have a single fuel line? I believe I have a 1969 RS/SS and everything seems to check out except the lack of dual fuel lines. It does not have any evidence of dual lines at the sender or along the attachment points under the body.
Also this is great site with a lot of information. I greatly appreciate all the hard work that goes into develping and maintaining it.
-
Nope, the only big block with a single fuel line is the L78. The other two (L34, L35) have two fuel lines.
-
Is there a reason someone would change the fuel line and tank sending unit? The car was modified significantly in the 1970's with aftermarket aluminum intake, headers, holley carb., etc.. It seems like a lot of trouble to go to remove the lines and replace them with an original looking single line. Everything else appears valid including JG engine code and block casting # 3955272. Any other thoughts?
-
No reason, most people don't give the fuel lines a second look. Every small block except the LM1 and L48 and both the L34, and L35, have a single fuel line. It's much more likely that the engine is not original than to find an L35 with a single fuel line. When was the engine assembled? How about the stampings on the tag on the pasenger side of the TH400 transmission. Whats the rear axle ratio, and assembly code on the rear axle? On the front end, where is the bracket for the front disc brakes rubber lines going to the wheels, on the top of the frame, or on the side?
-
I assume this is the date stamped on the right front. It reads T1130TG which would be Nov. 30 1968? The block date cast date code is K 1 8. I am not certain the heads are original as they have a date code of K 29 8. Would it be odd for the engine to be assembled the following day? I am very new to these codes and only know what I see on CRG. The transmission was replaced in 1980 when I purchased the car, my dad later discarded it. No one seemed to mind changing anything else from original so I would be suprised it someone went to the effort of restamping the VIN on the block. The rear axle ratio was 3.07:1 the guy I brought the car from gave me the original ring and pinion. It has 4.11:1 right now. I can't find the rear end codes written down anywhere, I will have to get it from the car later. I have never paid attention to the location of the brake line bracket, I will check that also. Thanks.
-
Block cast on nov 1 1968 assembled on Nov 30th 68 with November 29th cast heads. Yes blocks and heads can be cast on one day and assembled into a motor the next, or even the same day if they were cast early in the day and assembled late in the day so thats not to odd. So can we assume that this would be a 12A Norwood car (Is it a Norwood Car?) at the earliest? 3.07 is one of the standard small Block SS axles (economy, I beleive) as that is what I have in my car. Not sure if it was one of the standard ratios for a big block or not though.
Have you looked for a crayon marking on the front of the rear package support, behind the back seat? You may find an X code back there, like X1, X2 or a combination of exterior color and X code together like RG2 for Rally green X22. The codes were pretty common in the November time frame on Norwood cars anyway.
-
Thanks Mark.
First to answer the remaining questions from the prior post. I checked a few things tonight. The rear axle BR 1130G1 it has an E below. BR so that is a 3.07 positive traction 12 bolt, all checks. 1130 November 30th which also seems to check to the date of my car. G=Detroit, 1=first shift and E=Eaton positive traction unit. The front brake line brackets are on top of the frame.
I also looked at the heater core and verified the hose exit location for a big block.
Yes, it is a 12A Norwood car. I will need to remove the back seat and check for x codes, I don't recall anything like that from previous times the seat was out.
-
Mark, He stated that among other things the carb was replaced with a Holly. Would that make it necessary to replace two fuel lines with one and the sending unit too, or could you keep and use both lines?
-
i have a car that sould have a single fuel line, but it have two
my car was modified significantly with aftermarket aluminum intake, headers heads, by the original owner a few years after he got the car new maybe he owned both our camaros and switch the fuel lines
maybe
jay
-
Mark, He stated that among other things the carb was replaced with a Holly. Would that make it necessary to replace two fuel lines with one and the sending unit too, or could you keep and use both lines?
When that swap is made, most folks just cap off the front end of the return line; no other changes are necessary.
-
john,
my car haves two lines but the tank only haves one sending line
so what's the possibility for that
jay
-
Mark: What is the significance of the location of the front brake line brackets, top or side?
Thks.:
Sam
-
Here is pic of the disc brake clamp, the metal piece on the hose is about midway along the length of the hose. The clamp uses 2 holes in the A frame to secure it. One for the bolt and the other for a tab thats part of the clamp itself.
(http://www.carsbyjim.com/storage/MiscStuff/69RSDiscBkDriveSide2a.JPG)
-
mark you say that It's much more likely that the engine is not original than to find an L35 with a single fuel line.
it only takes 20 minutes to take the return line out maybe some one didn't like to cap the line,
maybe they wanted a good job, i find your answer a little hard to believe you cant make that statement when you didnt even take the fact that it had mods done to it
you guys must remember back when these cars was new they didn't buy them because they was classics or because they was going to be worth allot of money, not even in the 80s did any one think this
they didn't, think No! i better not change any thing to the car its not going to be worth $50-80-K in 40 years from now, or that some guy on CRG is going to say its not original
in fact if you was to tell them back in the day that your car is going to be worth 50k they would tell you that your stupid to say the least
they got these cars to be driving and yes race,yha allot of cars got engine swoops but they also got carburetors changed, engines blew up and at the time of repairs they might of don eall kinds of mods and yes some people was going to put a holley on none holley cars and same people was going to put a Quadra jet on none Quadra jet cars to save on gas remember gas in the 70s was a short
so to tell this guy that, is not right when the fact is people done many deferent things to their cars for
i fund the original owner of my car and he showd me a few pics of the car when he first got it, it was and happy to say it is a real z he ghanged the carb to a quad becouse it was a better on gas and it was better on race day
all i'm saying is dont juge a car base just on factory, but on what may have been done by owners also
after all is siad and done must cars from the sixty are not all original
owners of these cars was mod crazy
-
Thanks for the photo Click (Jim). I have an 01D LA car and it is set up like this. I had thought only drum brake cars had the bkts. on the top of the frame.
Sam
-
If you were putting a big block in a car back in the day, would you have pulled out an extra fuel line if it didn't interfere with anything else you were doing? If you put a rochester carb on a 2 BBl engine would you put an extra fuel line in just because the factory did it that way? All I'm saying is that people don't usually mess around with things on a car when they are making changes to a car if they don't have to. I just use the "FACTORY" method of installation to try and figure out what a car was originally using whatever clues are available.
So far we have a big block in a camaro with a 3.07 rear axle 2 fuel lines and an automatic transmission that was replaced years ago. The assembly code on the engine is dated prior to the build date of the car, but I've not seen the stamping on the pad, so I won't use that as evidence to say that it is original until I see a picture of it. A 3.07 axle ratio is the economy ratio for a small block SS, and the standard ratio for a big block SS, so that doesn't help. 2 fuel lines were used on the L48, and the LM1 when this car was made, so thats 1 point for the car being either an L48 or LM1 originally with a big block added later.
Do we know for sure if its originally an SS at all? No, we don't hence the questions on the location of brake line brackets, and there is a difference in the bracket locations between drum front brakes and disc front brakes. Someone who doesn't change the fuel lines when the put a big block into a car certainly wont change the brake brackets. Do we know if there is a dual exhaust bracket on the driver side sub frame? For all we know the car has a small block heater cover as that hasn't been mentioned either.
It makes no difference to me if its a big block or an L6 car, I'm just trying to help someone figure out what they have. alot of what is needed to do that is visual, and if you can't see it you have to ask questions. If the evidence points towards small block then thats the way it goes, if it points towards big block its a win for the owner, but right with the info in hand I wouldn't pay big block money for this car if it was for sale. Need more info to make an educated decision one way or the other at this point.
-
Thanks for the photo Click (Jim). I have an 01D LA car and it is set up like this. I had thought only drum brake cars had the bkts. on the top of the frame.
Sam
Drum brake cars had brackets bolted to the side of the frame, and disc brake cars had different brackets bolted to the top surface of the frame. The clamps on the disc brake front brake hose that attach to the rear flange on the upper control arm came as part of the hose assembly.
-
this is the guys Q&A
Do any 1969 L35 (396, 325 hp) have a single fuel line? I believe I have a 1969 RS/SS and everything seems to check out except the lack of dual fuel lines. It does not have any evidence of dual lines at the sender or along the attachment points under the body.
Also this is great site with a lot of information. I greatly appreciate all the hard work that goes into develping and maintaining it.
I assume this is the date stamped on the right front. It reads T1130TG which would be Nov. 30 1968? The block date cast date code is K 1 8. I am not certain the heads are original as they have a date code of K 29 8. Would it be odd for the engine to be assembled the following day? I am very new to these codes and only know what I see on CRG. The transmission was replaced in 1980 when I purchased the car, my dad later discarded it. No one seemed to mind changing anything else from original so I would be suprised it someone went to the effort of restamping the VIN on the block. The rear axle ratio was 3.07:1 the guy I brought the car from gave me the original ring and pinion. It has 4.11:1 right now. I can't find the rear end codes written down anywhere, I will have to get it from the car later. I have never paid attention to the location of the brake line bracket, I will check that also. Thanks.
Is there a reason someone would change the fuel line and tank sending unit? The car was modified significantly in the 1970's with aftermarket aluminum intake, headers, holley carb., etc.. It seems like a lot of trouble to go to remove the lines and replace them with an original looking single line. Everything else appears valid including JG engine code and block casting # 3955272. Any other thoughts?
First to answer the remaining questions from the prior post. I checked a few things tonight. The rear axle BR 1130G1 it has an E below. BR so that is a 3.07 positive traction 12 bolt, all checks. 1130 November 30th which also seems to check to the date of my car. G=Detroit, 1=first shift and E=Eaton positive traction unit. The front brake line brackets are on top of the frame.
I also looked at the heater core and verified the hose exit location for a big block.
Yes, it is a 12A Norwood car. I will need to remove the back seat and check for x codes, I don't recall anything like that from previous times the seat was out.
you got it all wrong
dud you really need to read before you give your advice 1 point taken back!
all im saying if you cant say it is a big block then dont say it not
jay
ps if your going to remove the tank to change the sending unit to a single i know i would take the line out like i said it just takes a few min
-
mark you say that It's much more likely that the engine is not original than to find an L35 with a single fuel line.
it only takes 20 minutes to take the return line out maybe some one didn't like to cap the line,
maybe they wanted a good job, i find your answer a little hard to believe you cant make that statement when you didnt even take the fact that it had mods done to it
I agree with Mark. I've looked at hundreds of cars and unless the car was restored, the fuel lines are one component that is *almost* never changed. He didn't say it was absolute, but just likely.
-
kurt,
base on what tim said about his car numbers and codes is it fair to say most likely its not?
-
Your right I don't know if the car was originally a big block or not, just like you don't know it was.
I do know that no L35 made during the 69 model year was equipped with a single fuel line. GM would not send a car out of the factory that required two fuel lines equipped with a single line. The dual fuel line was there for a reason and it wasn't for looks. There was no engine fuel lines that would have connected the fuel pump to the rochester carb that didn't have the return line on it. The only big block with a single fuel line was the L78 which used a holley carb. We know its not an L78 because the engine has and L35 assembly code. The Holley fuel line will not fit onto a rochester, and the guys on the line really weren't in a position to be making up parts to make a car with a mismatched fuel system work. If the car mistakenly came down the line with a single fuel line it probably would have taken them 15 or 20 minutes to get the dual lines installed if the car needed it. Could some previous owner have pulled out the dual fuel lines and the tank pickup and sender assembly and replaced it with a single line setup the day after the car was bought, sure they could have, but I would say the chances of that happening is way less than 1%. Could some previous owner have put a big block in a small block car, and a big block heater cover, sure they could have. Which of these two events do you think happens more often changing a fuel pickup and fuel lines or putting a big block in a small blcok car?
At the moment we know the car has an L35 engine, a big block heater core, a replacement transmission, a 3.07 posi 12 bolt axle power disc brakes, and a single fuel line. Throw the JG engine code out and most people would say its an L78 as thats the only big block that could have a single fuel line. Add the JG code and most people would say its a clone because no L35s came with a single fuel line. As I said before theres not enough info to make a definative judgement at the moment, heck we don't even know the VIN or trim tag info beyond its a 12A Norwood car. It could be an L78 that someone put an L35 in for all we know. The only thing thats sure is the parts in the car right now, don't match what left the factory, be it the fuel lines, or the engine.
-
mark
i never said it is an original engine car
I'm not saying i know more then you when it comes to camaros or any body here for that matter
but i do know common sense and i use it often
no body said the original owner change the line the next day the chance of that is 0 but some one could have a few years lather if they wanted a Holley and you do agree that if only one line from tank comes out then the tank came down right an if they went that way then why not take the line out right?
your say you know its not an L78 because it a L35 code so your saying it is a L35 car im confuse
all im saying is don't make a bold statement if your only guessing
mark, you asked Which of these two events do you think happens more often changing a fuel pickup and fuel lines or putting a big block in a small blcok car?
let me asked you, Which of these two events do you think is alott more easier that should answer your question
-
Your just not getting it. The is no reason to remove that return line when you put a holley on the car, or even if you removed the stock fuel filter whcih is where the connection to the vent line is located. Lets take a poll of all the people on this forum who have put a holley on a car equipped with 2 fuel lines, (L48, LM1, L34 and L35s) and see who pulled that second fuel line out just for a carb and or engine change. I had a holley on my car 15 years ago and I still have both lines. Good thing cause I have a stock rochester on it now.
The real problem is that the engine is coded as an L35 and the date is correct for the cars build date. If the car was an L78 originally and some previous owner put an L35 in it because the original engine blew up, is it very likely that the he (or she) would have gone thru the effort to find a correctly dated Camaro L35 block, or would he have just put any old big block he could find and build it the way he wanted it? If someone puts a holley on their car they just make a new fuel line, they don't have to buy one from GM, but they could buy one from an L78 if they wanted to. There is still no reason to remove the return line from under the car, most people would just leave it alone, and at most put a cap on the end of it.
Its the date coded L35 that is the root of this problem. If we can accept the fact that GM would never let a single fuel lined L35 out of the factory, and assume that 99.9% of all camaro owners would not replace the fuel lines when they put a holley carb on an engine we end up with the conclusion that that engine does not belong in this car. We then take the next step and then assume someone attempted to clone a matching numbers big block from something else. There are very few 69 Camaros that had a 3.07 axle as one of its three standard ratios (economy, standard and performance) and those cars are the LM1, L48, L34, L35 and L78. Four of those have dual fuel lines, one has a single fuel line. Thats not to say someone couldn't order it as an optional ratio on any car but the 3.07 is not exactly something you would pick if you were selecting an optional axle ratio. So if we further assume that the axle is original, the single fuel line is original, the car had power front brakes then the car begins to look like an L78. BUT is has a date coded L35 in it and theres the problem.
I'm just playing the odds that while engine swaps are extremely common in these cars over the past 36 years, people swapping fuel lines is extremely rare unless the car is being totally restored which it sounds like this one hasn't been. Thats why I rely more on the fuel line being original than the engine code being original.
So do we have someone (previous to the current owner) attempting to make a matching numbers big block out of a big block and just not being smart enough to know they were replacing an L78 with an L35, or do we have someone just a little smarter and they replaced (or restamped) the engine transmission and rear axle with correctly dated parts and putting it in this car. I don't know, everything is speculation atthis point with the info we have at hand.
-
I have been out of Town for a couple of days. Thanks for all the information. I did not intend to create a debate.
What Mark has said makes a lot of sense to me. I originally thought this may have been some type of glitch at the factory. Reading through the assembly process and knowing the subframe and engine come late in the process it would really be impossible to get this mixed up. It would have forced a manual change and there would have not been factory parts available to connect a quadrajet with a single line. So I have my answer to the original question. I will continue to look for evidence the fuel line was changed next time I get the car up so I can look very closely.
There is seems to be a question about my car and I would like to find an answer.
I still believe I have a big block RS/SS car but I am not certain the right engine combination. Here is a link to photos of the engine stamped codes. I have not changed them. I have known the car since 1979 and owned the car since 1980. If the engine was changed, it was prior to that time. http://www.kodakgallery.com/BrowsePhotos.jsp?UAUTOLOGIN_ID=44858550610&collid=44858550610.297065621110.1174259933433&page=1&sort_order=0&navfolderid=0&folderid=0&ownerid=0 Do these appear to be correct or restamped?
I think it is a big block car for a variety of reasons. Not only do the stamped dates match for the car, the cast date codes put it in the right time frame. Everything else about the car appears to be correct. It has a big block heater core, tach, gauges console, disc power brakes, multileaf and 12 bolt. The rear end was very dirty at the stamp and if some restamped that it was a long time ago. The date code is right on the rear end. The car also had the hockey stripe and black rocker panels hidden under the repainted surface which I found in the 1980s. This fuel line is the only thing that raised a question for me. I don't ever plan to sell the car so I am not trying to create a clone, I just want to determine the original origin of everything.
I need to check for the exhaust frame bracket sometime soon.
I don't know what else from the cowl tag would help as it has no X codes. But here is the rest awatway. 12A,ST69, 12437NOR193935BDY,TR715,53 53 PT. The VIN is 124379N553662.
I appreciate the feedback on things like brake brackets that I was not aware of to narrow down the possibilities.
-
your photo link needs name and password. it wont open for us.
-
I could not attach them because of the file size limit of 128K. Any other ideas?
-
I changed to resolution on the camera to the minimum file size. Here are photos of the numbers.
-
Looks like they are a good set of stamps to me.
-
Looks like its a 396/325hp car and that sometime in the last 38 years someone messed with the fuel lines.
At one time, this car had 2 fuel lines. No doubt about it.
-
One more possibility. Have you ever seen the hidden VINs on this car? If so I would assume they match the VIN on the dash and block. If not, have a look. If they match then I would have to say that someone, for some reason removed the return fuel line (and sender?). You did say the fuel sender is also a single line version as well didn't you?
-
The VIN on the cowl matches. I have never had the heat box out.
It has a single line sending unit also. The car did have the rear tail light panel replaced, this is the only panel that was changed before I owned it. I think it may be possible that the accident that caused this panel to be replaced could have also resulted in tank filler neck damage. It could have been replaced with one from a junk yard.
-
Yesterday I was able to get the car out with some better light. It appears the car did have dual fuel lines at one time. Some of the fuel line brackets obviously have extra room for the small return line. The bolts and clips have been out because a few clamps were not repositioned in the same spot, a mark was left from the original position on the undercoating/dirt. Also one small clip is near the rear where the small line was attached directly to the larger line.
The sending unit was also removed from the tank at some time previously. The retainer ring is really banged up.
It also has the bracket attcahed to the rear floor for dual exhaust.
I could not make out any crayon marks behind the rear seat. It has what appears to be a lot of glue for the rear package shelf cover. Much more glue that I have seen in other photos.
Thanks for all the great comments. I learned a lot.
-
Tim the bracket attached to the rear floor?? Original dual exhaust coupes have an extra bracket welded to the 'frame' itself not the floor. Its behind the real wheel at about 1 o'clock on the frame rail with 2 holes thru it. If yours is just a bracket bolted to the floor, its not original dual exhaust.
-
I saw the one on the floor. I will look for the one on the frame rail.
-
It has both the floor bracket and the bracket on the outside of the left rear frame rail.
-
Just want a clarification. I looked in the AIM book. Is the J50 option power drum brakes? It shows the brake braket on the side of the frame. If this is correct, is this the only application that this side mount was used? Was there any difference of the mounting bracket location between small block disk and big block disk cars?
Thanks
Dean
-
J50 was just power assist added to the standard (drum) brakes; both manual and power drum brakes used the bracket on the side of the frame rail. J52 Power Disc brakes used the bracket on top of the frame rail, regardless whether they were on a small-block or a big-block. The type of brake (drum or disc) determined the location of the bracket, not the engine.