Topics

1

Maintenance / OEM 4 Speed Shifter Removal Procedure?

« on: June 18, 2019, 04:55:51 AM »

Looking for help with defining the easiest procedure to remove the factory 4 Speed shifter. I know that sounds odd but here is why. 

I haven't done it since I was 17 (that was 1983).   Now at 53 I'm paralyzed and having friends help me bring my car, which has been stored since 1985, up to snuff so I can sell it. In 1984 I purchased a Muncie imprinted shifter at a car show parts swap meet.   A couple of months ago I had my broher-in-law swap the handle into my car. (at some point I had disassembled the swap meet shifter, which was in need of a rebuild so the handle was ready for install).  I thought it was just removing one pin in the shifter and a straight forward exchange.   Turns out it was not that easy (at least not with all the interferences in the car).  He was bound and determined to do it in the car and spent 7 hours working on it. 

We thought it was all good.  Yesterday my neighbor got in and was trying to put it in reverse and something in the shifter came apart and it doesn't work now.   I think the only option is to pull it out.  If I recall it can't be done without undoing the transmission crossmember and moving it back...  Is that correct?  My car does have a console too.

2

Originality / CRG Report on Fan Blades question

« on: October 21, 2018, 04:15:25 PM »

If I was physically able I would be pulling my hair out!…   Because of my disability I am forced to depend on internet documentation (photos, part numbers, parts suppliers, etc.)   for all of my part purchase guidance.    Then I have to bother friends to come do my wrenching.  I keep getting burned and wasting other peoples time and my money I don’t have.   

[NOTE: THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE A BLAMING STATEMENT/ TONE] I want to be able to turn to the CRG site / reports as the final say, but even something as basic as the correct 4 Blade Engine Cooling Fan report is throwing me a curve.  Should be simple….,  Correct 67 fan for my car = part number #3839282 and spacer #3814241. My dilemma is this,  the photo in the CRG Report (cooling systems - fan blades) shows the strengthening ribs running continuous through the centering hole.  The spacer and fan blade don't appear to be compatible... I can find multiple examples of the centering nub on the spacer is not very tall / pronounced (which matches my memory from 34 years ago  for what that is worth).  There is even an eBay listing of a NOS #3814241 spacer right now with the short nub (see included pic) .

The CRG Report shows 2 spacers below the 67-68 fan photo.   The one on the left #3876828 is most like #3814241 (which makes sense since I think both are to interface with the same 4 blade fan).    But the offset surface of the ribbed center is too deep to engage that short nub.   The taller nub on the #3927792 spacer for 69 would work,  but that spacer itself is not the necessary thickness.

The stamping off-set of the ribs raises the centering hole away from the mating / contact plane of the 4 hole pattern surface necessitating a taller centering nub on the end of the spacer…   I have seen multiple examples of 4 blade fans that claim to also be part number #3839282 that the reinforcement ribs do NOT continue through the center.  There are truck fans #3881239 that include a third piece/flat plate with centering hole riveted to the assembly on the spacer side to aid the centering, but passenger car fans do not seem to include this added plate [not to mention the tolerance variation introduced by the third part in the assembly is not a good thing with higher rpm engines]. Also,  the 4 attachment bolts have too much clearance to depend on them to center the assembly (water pump bearing would not last long with the fan weight not centered).

WHAT IS THE CORRECT FAN?   With or Without formed ribs passing through the center? CRG photo shows ribs thru,    I don’t want to waste more money/ buy one type of fan and need to get another spacer.    But I want to have the factory match that came on my car (and I threw out as as a teenager in favor of a light weight fiberglass performance fan…).   This shouldn’t be that complicated, but everything I try to do seems to snowball into confusion these days.

3

Originality / 67 Steel Brake Booster Vacuum Tube Correct Assembly?

« on: October 11, 2018, 06:22:04 AM »

As part of my power brake booster upgrade I've purchased the small block pre-bent brake vacuum tube and intake elbow that all of the Camaro parts suppliers list as common 67-69. I also purchased the stand off bracket that supports the hose that attaches under the aft-inboard valve cover bolt. It seems as there is no way these components work together (metal tube does not come anywhere close to the correct length/bends/angle to line up with that bracket hole).

The plug wire support stand off bracket for 67 is directly in the way of any reasonable position of the tube... (68 has a hole in the middle of it and the tube would work perfect with that - but I want to keep the engine dress all 67 factory correct for an L30/M20 car MK code no smog).

What is the correct assembly supposed to be? For me running the rubber hose all the way from the brake booster to an intake fitting is unacceptable - I hope they did not do that in 67 out of the factory. I've found lots of pics online of laughable positioning of that tube, so it is clear that I'm not the first to be unaware of how it came from the factory, but I must be in the minority of those who care beyond it just functioning... I want it as close to replicating factory as I can without a hose laying/ rubbing on the intake/ other parts.

I've been through my copy (electronic) of the Factory AIM Assy Manual (hours pg/ pg because it will not scroll) and the most I can find is it should be on Option "J50" Sheet "A3". My manual for some reason is MISSING THE PAGE Option "J50" Sheet "A3"!!!! How can an electronic copy not have this? Does anyone have it?