Messages

226

Originality / Re: carb heat shields

« on: March 28, 2006, 11:13:27 PM »

John,

That matches what I've heard over the years.  One other was they were a California car thing. 

Just for kicks & giggles, there was a topic on the NCRS.org site about a 1970 tri-power 427 Corvette engine ( designated he LJ-2 )
that never was due to production problems.  One member reported he has an original tri-power heat shiled destined for this car.
If the shield wasn't going to be producction based, why would it exist as a service item even before the car was built?

Steve

227

General Discussion / Re: cloning

« on: March 27, 2006, 01:14:10 AM »

I almost jumped on that band-wagon years ago.  I had my hands on a nice 230ci 69 Camaro.

No one thought it was even worth the trouble to restore it.  What do you do with it once
you are finished?  It's a two-minute conversation piece, then on the the next Z/28 on display.

Steve

228

General Discussion / Re: Cosmolene wrapped bumper

« on: March 26, 2006, 06:03:29 AM »

I bought new GM bumpers for my 69 back in 1981.  They didn't show up looking like this !

Steve

229

General Discussion / Re: Vinyl or Not?

« on: March 26, 2006, 06:01:57 AM »

My 69 SS had a black vinyl top originally.  They were quite popluar back then and certainly a sign of the times.

When I installed my new quarter panels with the sails, I couldn't bring myself to drill holes for the vinyl top
trim.  Sooooo, off the vinyl top came.  I was very happy when I finished the car.  As time went by, I started
to look at the vinyl top Camaros differently ( perspective of time ). I came to realize that the 69 vinyl top
was really differernt in that there was the 1" reveal ( painted body color ) all along the drip rail molding.  This
was totally unique and really set the top off quite nicely.  It didn't take long to add the top back on.

If you keep it out of the rain, it really shouldn't rust.  Besides, how many of us leave our restored cars out in
the rain?  My Camaro has not seen rain in 25 years.  See my point?

Steve

230

General Discussion / Re: cloning

« on: March 26, 2006, 05:53:01 AM »

By and large, most here seem to feel that a cloned car is OK as long as there is full disclosure.  I agree totally with that. 
Look at the total number of cloned Yenko, COPO, SS, Z/28, etc. cars out there today.  It boggles the mind.

I will never see myself getting a true ZL-1 Camaro, but I'd love to own one.  Could I be coaxed into building a "tribute"
ZL-1 car?  Absolutely.  In fact, I'd love to build one like the design staff did for Vince Piggins back in late 1968
( black w/gold stripes ).  What an awesome car !  But, I won't make the mistake of buying an original ZL-1 block for
$10,000 then add all the goodies and a BE rear.  I'd get a new ZL-1 block ( far superior so I hear ), and build a BE rear.

In summation, build it that way you would have wanted to buy it if money was no object.  However, if you have a special
Camaro to start with, then this is a much tougher issue to ponder.  Hell, all those 6-banger Camaro's got to be good for
something - right!

Steve

231

Restoration / Re: 69 dash pad

« on: March 22, 2006, 11:45:55 PM »

Me too !

232

Originality / Re: 041 / 041x heads 1969 350

« on: March 22, 2006, 11:44:00 PM »

"X" coded heads are reported to be experimental type heads.  I'm not into small blocks, but many here are.

Perhaps others can help you with what might be different about the "X' 041 head.

Steve

233

Originality / Re: Where to find NOS or original style bolts/nuts for 1969 Camaro 12-bolt rear

« on: March 22, 2006, 11:41:55 PM »

i have gotten all of my hardware needs from ground up restorations www.ss396.com they are a primary sponsor of the camaros.net
site. give them a call they help us camaro owners get together on discussion forom like this one exchange info and such.

I checked this site.  They do offer a bolt & nut combo for the backing plate application, but they are not technically correct.  I am real picky
about the hardware side of things as this is where a lot of restorations run into difficulties.  If I can't find them elsewhere, I'll go with these
for now.  THANKS !

Here's their offering:




Steve

234

Restoration / Re: 250 Fender Emblems

« on: March 20, 2006, 02:58:27 AM »

Thank God somebody is keeping their car original !  Good man......

235

Restoration / Re: 69 Z28 rear springs...what is correct?

« on: March 13, 2006, 04:32:47 PM »

Gambitt,

Do you have the original 4-leaf springs?  Or, do you need a wholw new set?

Steve

236

Originality / Re: Correct finish(es) on 69 12-bolt Camaro rear

« on: March 13, 2006, 03:48:08 AM »

Paul?

Are the THM400 u-joint end-caps of a slightly larger diameter that the standard ( smaller ) u-joint end-caps?

Is your THM400 driveshaft original?  I'd love to see one of those u-joints in detail.........

Steve

237

Originality / Re: Correct finish(es) on 69 12-bolt Camaro rear

« on: March 13, 2006, 03:38:12 AM »

I just received these images from CRG member "Tinkerr" and posted them at his request.

Thanks for your assistance Paul !

Steve

THM400 driveshaft ( left ):



THM400 driveshaft ( bottom ):

238

Originality / Re: 69 Camaro Disc Brakes

« on: March 12, 2006, 05:43:05 PM »

Do you own Jerry MacNeish's 'The Definitive 1969 Camaro Z/28 - SS396 Fact Book'?  This should be your first place for answers.

An early build SS Camaro would have 2-piece rotors, single piston callipers.  My 10-D-68 build SS Camaro has a '309.  That is the number
you should be sticking with.

Steve

239

Originality / Re: Correct finish(es) on 69 12-bolt Camaro rear

« on: March 10, 2006, 03:59:09 AM »

My "over-restored" example:



I know, grey drums and incorrect vent

dave

Dave,

I would like to see more images of the complete rear if possible.  I am particularly interested in the wheel cylinders,
the brake drum mounting flanges ( with 5 lugs ), the detail of the brake assemblies, and the brake lines.  BTW, did
you use SS brake lines? 

What finish treatment did you apply to the pinion flange and its dust shield?  Or, are they just natural?  They look
good. 

Lastly, can you take an image of the one of the brake backing plate mounting bolts?  I need to know if the nut is
facing to drum or the differential.

Thanks,
Steve

240

Originality / Re: Correct finish(es) on 69 12-bolt Camaro rear

« on: March 10, 2006, 03:48:13 AM »

My 68 BB turbo 400 12 bolt has the large flange and straps.I was of the mind that 10 bolts used the u bolt design and 12 bolts used the straps.I've also read that BB and heavy- duty applications recieved the strap design.Small block 12 bolts got u bolts,although I would expect the Z's to have the strap style.I would think they would qualify as heavy-duty.

Until several weeks ago I wasn't aware there were two different 12 bolt pinion flanges.I had a driveshaft that was supposed to be for a turbo 400 Camaro,but when I attempted to attach it to the 12 bolt imagine my suprise when it didn't work,it was then I found my 12 bolt has the big flange.

Tinkerr,

It was always my understanding that the '69 THM400 Camaro's used this big pinion flange.  I just can't seem to
find one right now.  Actually, several people told me that Camaro's all used the small pinion flange, but that never
made sense.  I know the THM400 front yoke uses the large u-joints.  So why would the rear u-joint be smaller.
I was also told that the '69 Firebirds used the large pinion flange and that is why some people get the two confused.



This is a comparison between the standard ( bottom ) and THM400 flange.  Does your pinion flange look like this?

Can I ask a large favor?  Can you take some detailed images of this flange along with some measurements?
See the image for the dimensions I need.

Is there a part number on the pinion flange that I can reference?

Lastly, what is the build date of your car and what exactly was the 396 stock hp designation ( 325hp, 350hp, 375hp )?

Steve