Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Dave69x33

Pages: [1] 2 3
Originality / Rear Axle Code Brake Drum Decals
« on: March 26, 2015, 04:04:02 PM »
Can anyone confirm if rear axle gear ratio decals placed on the face of the brake drums were common, and if the decal was red or black letters on a white background?

If anyone has original decals still intact on their drums, a picture would be great.

Also, was there not a practice of writing the code with a paint pin or grease pin on the bottom side of the differential when the axle was positioned upside down in the rack at the axle fab plant?


Originality / Sound bites of stock '69 Z28 exhaust systems
« on: April 25, 2012, 12:56:14 AM »
I copied over some links from a different but related discussion about chambered exhaust. 

Reference to the original discussion:

Below are two links to two YouTube sound bites of exhaust systems on the 1969 Z28s for reference and help in choosing an exhaust system for your '69 Camaro.  This first link is from CRG member jmcbeth's completely stock '69 Z28 (…and very nicely restored Z28 I should add…) with the Gardner's transverse muffler system including the resonators.

Jmcbeth’s YouTube Link:

This is the sound bite of my "relatively" stock '69 Z28 302 but recently upgraded during the motor rebuild with Comp Cam's solid roller cam kit 12-770-8, springs, lifters, push rods, cam button, and #1804-16, 1.5 ratio Ultra Pro Magnum Roller Rocker Arms.  Initial timing set at 12 deg. BTDC, idle speed set between 900 - 950 RPM.  Results: Very responsive and reliable power from 2200 to 6200 RPM.  The sound bite is through the stock exhaust manifolds and exhaust system with the transverse muffler, without resonators.  This solid lifter cam was selected to be relatively close in sound characteristics to the stock 30-30 cam, yet more usable power lower in the RPM range.  You will notice it has a bit more crackle in the sound note.

My YouTube Link:

If some else has Gardner Exhaust’s chambered system on a stock '69 Z28, please post a similar sound bite.  This will provide an interesting side-by-side comparison with jmcbeth's stock transverse muffler system with resonators.

Thanks and enjoy the music!


Restoration / Tachometer calibration source?
« on: March 26, 2012, 04:21:12 PM »
Does anyone have a source(s) that calibrates Camaro 1st Gen (GM in general) tachometers? 

How happy where you with their service and what is the average costs? 

The tack in my ’69 is in good shape cosmetically but I need to verify its calibration.  An initial review thru a web search I found Auto Instruments located in Collinsville, VA,, 276-647-550.

Thanks in advance for your recommendations and feedback!

I recently rebuilt the 302 in my 69Z.  During the process, I removed the power steering (PS) pump and hoses, and all the engine pulleys, misc brackets, etc. were stripped and repainted.

I installed the PS pump and connected the hoses, filled the PS pump reservoir and bleed the reservoir by hand rotating the pulley counter clockwise.  The reservoir was topped off to about 2" from the top, or somewhere between the "cold" and "hot" level marks on the cap stick. 

When I fired the engine for the first time for the 20 - 30 minute break-in period, I failed to only run the engine for a few second and check the PS level, as I was concerned about a small fuel line leak, checking the timing, and setting the carb idle to 2000 - 2500 RPM.  When I shut the engine off after the break-in, and checked the PS fluid level, it was very low but the reservoir still had about ˝” - 1" of fluid.  I topped off the fluid level and continued the PS steering system bleeding process with the front tires off the ground and turning the steering wheel back and forth between the locks with the engine running at 1500 RPM.

The engine runs great but I may have damaged the PS pump.  The pump works fine with the tires off the ground but it squeals and intermittently loose power steering if I turn the wheel with the tires on the ground.  I bled the pump and system again but this did not help.  It helps if the motor RPM is increased while turning the steering wheel but the problem still exists.

The PS belt has stretched and the pump bracket is adjusted near the end of the slot.  The belt is snug but not tight, with about ˝” or less up and down movement midway between the pulleys.   The pump worked fine before the engine was pulled for the rebuild. I’ll try a new belt but I am not hopeful this will cure the problem.

Could there still be air in the system?

Is it possible the PS pump rotor or housing was scored during my engine break-in creating a pressure leak path?

Per the maintenance manual, a V-8 Camaro with the variable ratio needs 1350 – 1450 p.s.i. pump pressure to function properly.  I don’t have an in-line pressure gage to check the pump pressure as outlined in the service manual.

If the pump is damaged, can it be rebuilt or should it be replaced?


Originality / Correct Finish on Clutch Shaft Bracket & Clutch Shaft
« on: June 14, 2011, 01:26:56 AM »
What is the correct finish on the clutch shaft bracket #3932760, Detail #9 shown in the AIM Page 112, Section 7 covering the clutch shaft and push rod?  This is the bracket that attaches to the outside of the frame. 

I stripped the paint from my original bracket (shown in the picture) and it is very pitted from rust indicating that it was originally plain steel, plated or poorly painted.  I show the bracket side-by-side with a reproduction bracket and there are differences. The original bracket is stamped from slightly thicker material, about .216" vs. .195", and the second picture shows that the original bracket is formed with a slight bend down the approximate center of the bracket to lie against the slight curve in the frame.  The repro bracket is flat.

Has anyone purchased a high quality reproduction bracket that matches the original?

Also, if I recall, the finish on the Clutch Shaft, Detail #1 was dark gray phosphate plated, correct?



I recently pulled my engine in my 69 Z to fix some oil leaks and freshen up the paint.  This naturally led me to check CRG for the latest on engine detailing.

I have a follow-up "engine overspray" question on the fuel pump mounting plate (ref. the AIM, Sec C6, page 99, covering the fuel pump and pump to carb fuel line installation).  Since the fuel pump plate was installed at the Chevrolet Final Assembly plant, on engine dress-up line, is it safe to assume the fuel pump mounting plate was not painted Chevy Orange?  Was it painted black or left natural steel?

Here are pictures of the plate from my 302.  The inside edge shows signs it was black at one time, but I don't know if this was from a previous owner's work on the engine.

Originality / Who sells the correct '69 Z air cleaner decals?
« on: February 01, 2011, 02:19:45 AM »
Can anyone direct me to who sells the correct air cleaner decal for a '69 Z28?  I need to replace my decal and cannot find the correct decal with "PRINTED IN USA" in the lower RH corner.  The pictures attached are from a survivor Z28 with the orignal decal still attached, showing the correct typeface.


Originality / Correct color for the rear leaf spring “BM” tags?
« on: January 19, 2011, 11:32:52 PM »
According to Jerry MacNeish’s ’69 Camaro fact book, the rear “BM” tag for the 3934894 leaf springs was silver paper with black lettering.  When I initially restored my ‘69Z, in 1995 – 2000, I purchased silver or light gray tags with the black lettering from Rick’s 1st Gen., when Rick George still owned and operated the store.  I need to replace the tags but now, I can only find yellow tags with black lettering.

Which is technically correct?

Based on JM’s book and my previous purchase of silver/light gray tags, I tend to believe that silver/light gray paper is correct.

Does anyone still have original springs with the BM tags still intact on springs, and provide a picture to confirm the color?

If I recall correctly, the assembly manual indicates a color code on the exterior eyelet surface of the spring.  At one point in time, was the spring color coded then a switch to color coded tag used?

Thanks in advance for your input.

Originality / T3 Head Light Date Code
« on: November 22, 2010, 02:45:43 AM »
What is the typical date code spread between the headlights and the car's build date? 

The date code on one of two T3's that I have (one lamp does not have an ink stamp date code), stamped on the back side surface in a reddish brown ink, is "L 6012 32 9 19 12V" (see picture). 

Based on the date code info I have, this code is:
L = ?
6012 = lamp trade no.
32 9 19: 3 = month or March, 2 = line no., 9 = year, 19 = day of month, thus March 19, 1969
12 V = 12 volt.

My ’69 Norwood build car is 05A.  My 3/19/1969 lamp date code is about 5 week prior my car’s build date.  I would not expect that lamps sat around long before being pulled for assembly.

Has any one recently purchased the latest T3 reproduction lamps?  Are the DOT markings and glass molds identical or very close to an original?

Originality / Quality of Repro Harrison Radiators?
« on: July 15, 2010, 03:53:06 PM »
Has anyone recently purchased a repro Harrison Radiator from Heart Beat City? 

Yesterday I received a radiator for my '69Z and I am disappointed in the quality of the "Harrison" named stamped in the side tank.  The rest of the radiator and side tank "CB" ID stamping looks fine.  It appears there was a problem with the press die stamp in the smaller Harrison letters.  The letters in "Harrison" are not legible with the letters filled in, and look more like letter bumps.

I will be making a follow-up call to Heart Bear City in the next day or so.



Originality / '69 Radiator questions
« on: May 25, 2010, 10:40:50 PM »
Fan Shroud Clips:
Based on the '69 Assembly Instruction Manual (AIM), Section UPC 11, page 147 covering the original installation of the radiator and related components, I assume the fan shroud clips were not painted, and originally black/dark gray phosphate plated?

I also base my assumption from the attached picture I took of an original survivor '69Z "UH" code radiator.

Overflow hose clip:
Was the overflow hose retained with a clip (like the repro "BC" code clip sold by Heartbeat City, Item EGP-2111), or did the side tank have a stamped-in hose retainer?  The attached picture shows the clip but it is not called out as a separate detail part number in the AIM.

Correct drain cock:
Can anyone confirm who sells the correct drain cock with the "ears" pointing toward the engine?

Painted radiator ID tag:
If recall correctly, that tag was added to the side tank before the radiator was painted and thus painted along with the radiator.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Originality / Picture of an original 69 deluxe rear package tray
« on: March 17, 2010, 04:04:44 PM »
Does anyone have an original or survivor '69 with a deluxe interior and the original rear package tray?  I would like to see a picture of the mesh design on the deluxe tray vs. the flat cardboard look on the standard tray which I have.  I restored my car back in 1995 - 2000, the repro mesh designs were not available.

Also, do the reproduction deluxe rear package trays match the originals?


Originality / Houndstooth - is the 68 pattern different than 69?
« on: March 06, 2010, 05:39:20 PM »
I am in the process of redoing my ‘69 deluxe seat covers, which are black with the black/white houndstooth insets.  When I purchased the car in 1995 it came with a complete set of reproduction PUI covers. 

The vinyl panels in the repro front seats were not made correctly, or consistent between the driver’s and passenger side seats.  The houndstooth insets and buttons are not horizontally straight across between the seats.  When I compared my original covers with the reproduction covers, the location of the seams, etc., it is very evident the repro covers were not made correctly.   I am having a local automotive upholstery shop correct this issue.

Question: Was the ’68 houndstooth pattern size different from that used for ’69?

I found the following company that sells automotive fabrics, and they show different houndstooth for the ’68 vs. ’69.  Ref:


Originality / 69 Head Rest Bottom Cover Hardware?
« on: February 27, 2010, 06:53:48 PM »
If have your original, un-restored headrest, were the plastic bottom covers retained with black plastic rivets, or with screws?  One of my original head rest had one plastic rivet and one screw retaining the bottom cover.  The other head rest had screws. 

After closely inspecting the attachment hole in metal substrate where the plastic rivet was located, there was no evidence that a screw was ever in the hole, but it hard to be sure.

I would like to know which hardware was originally used to retain the covers, and the build date of your car in case either retainer type was used during the ’69 model run.

Attached are a few pictures of the head rest and the plastic rivet.


I would like some feedback from owners of cars with J52 front disc brakes that have their original date coded booster and master cylinders. 

My Norwood 05A (1st week of May, 1969) Z28 has its original #9204 booster with Julian date “108”, or April 18th.  My “309” casting master cylinder is a replacement with Julian date “297” or October 24th.  At the time of my restoration, I ran across this October date MC and had it restored.  I would like to search for a correct dated unit for my car, with Julian date between 091 and 120, or April 1st – April 30th.

In the AIM, pp. 359-360 covering the J52 disc brake option, it shows Cylinder ASM #5468165 as the booster and MC as one preassembled unit.  So was the “165” preassembled brake assembly sent to the assembly plant this way from Delco Marine?

What are common date codes on the boosters vs. master cylinders? 

I recall from a related discussion on master cylinders, that your “309” MC is dated “45”, or Feb. 14th and within about 2-weeks of your 02D build date.  If you still have your original booster, what is the date code?


Pages: [1] 2 3