Messages

1

Maintenance / Re: Left brake light/tail light issues

« on: July 21, 2020, 05:07:39 AM »

Thank you Kelly for the response.  Will follow the harness back to the dash and try to find the problem.  Will report back what I find.

Ace

2

Maintenance / Left brake light/tail light issues

« on: July 20, 2020, 09:45:59 PM »

Need some help here. I have a 1969 standard Camaro with a left brake light/taillight illumination problem.
Scenario one:
  Left rear brake light when depressed is dim.  The bulb is good (checked for continuity). A visual inspection of the light reveals that the "brake" filament does not light up, but instead the taillight filament is lighting up. . Thus I have a dimly lit bulb.     Voltage at the socket to the unlit filament (with brake applied) is 10.85.  Voltage at the socket to the "lit" taillite filament is .36. (Again, why there is any voltage at all to taillight filament is not understood).     

  The right side  brake light lights up correctly (that is, brake light filament is what is energized).   Voltage to the right side socket is exactly the same as the voltage to the left side.

Scenario two:  Brake pedal depressed and headlights on
Now, when the headlamp switch is engaged with the brakes depressed, left brake/taillight goes completely off. Neither filament is illuminated        The right side taillight and brake light work fine and shows excellent lumination. Voltage to left socket is 10.12 (for taillight filament) and 10.28 for brake filament).    I have voltage but NO ILLUMINATION.   Right side socket voltage:  10.2 for light filament and 10.2 for brake filament .   GOOD ILLUMINATION

Scenario Three:    Headlights on - brake NOT depressed.   Both taillights are illuminated;   Voltage left side socket  10.12 for light filament and 1.26 for brake filament (why is there voltage to the brake filament???);  Right side 10.08 for light filament and again, 0.9 for brake filament.

The left side socket is fairly new.    Tested socket for continuity to ground.  Socket is good from what I can tell.

ANY THOUGHTS ON WHY MY LEFT SIDE SOCKET IS USING THE TAILLIGHT FILAMENT AND NOT BRAKE FILAMENT FOR ILLUMINATION WHEN THE BRAKES ARE DEPRESSED ?  2)ANY THOUGHTS ON WHY LEFT TAIL/LIGHT FILAMENT AND BRAKE FILAMENT DO NOT ENERGIZE WHEN HEADLIGHTS ARE TURNED ON WITH BRAKES DEPRESSED?
 
          NOTE:  TURN SIGNALS WORK BOTH SIDES in all three scenarios

Any thoughts and guidance is appreciated.

Ace

3

General Discussion / Re: downpipe compatability with L48 stock exhaust manifold

« on: February 24, 2019, 05:29:01 AM »

Crossboss:

I am happy to own a car that is "smog exempt", but I have to tell you that it isn't always easy buying parts for the car.

I had a phone discussion with Summit a year ago when I tried to purchase a pair of their Dart iron eagle heads and the Summit version of the Dart iron eagle.  Since neither of these pair of heads had a C.A.R.B number, Summit said was it  illegal for them to sell the heads for a daily driver vehicle.   The only pair of iron heads that can be sold "legally" in California by Summit  and other vendors (like Jegs, Competition Product etc.) are World Product Heads (which sells a version of the Dart II heads).  What was interesting is that the World Product heads have nearly identical specs as the Dart iron eagle ss heads.  Essentially these heads are stock replacement heads for the old Camel humps. I discussed with the  Summit rep. that the Air Resources Board allows the use of heads that are stock replacement and does not require a C.A.R.B code.  Summit said they have too big a footprint in the aftermarket industry to take chances selling items that do not carry a C.A.R.B. code.   

       According to  C.A.R.B. '67 and prior California cars are automatically C.A.R.B. exempt.  Years '68- '76 are smog exempt (exempt from inspection), but are not C.A.R.B exempt.   Perhaps someday policy will catch up with practice.  Most enthusiasts are not worried about violating a code that will never be enforced, but vendors sure seem to worry about violating the code.

       In any case, Summit suggested I look into purchasing Edelbrock Performers or AFR 180 aluminum heads that carry a C.A.R.B number.  Given that I already had decent stock heads, I decided to have the originals pocket ported and the engine seems to run fairly strong -even on 91 octane.

Ace

4

General Discussion / Re: downpipe compatability with L48 stock exhaust manifold

« on: February 24, 2019, 04:50:07 AM »

x33RS

Definitely will heed your advice about using  a mandrel bent downpipe.  If I stay with a 2.25 inch stock transverse system I will have the performance shop replace any crushed type downpipe that comes with a purchased system with a mandrel downpipe.   I do know that the Pypes transverse system comes with 2.5 inch pipes and transverse performance muffler.  Since the system is header back I have the option of purchasing a 2.5 inch downpipe from Pypes.     

Local performance exhaust shop said the shop usually includes in their assembly of a purchased system a crosspipe (akin to an H pipe) for balance. 

Overall goal is to increase performance over stock 2 inch system and maintain the stock appearance. 

Ace

5

General Discussion / Re: CRG YouTube Channel

« on: February 23, 2019, 05:21:49 AM »

Great news.  Ace

6

General Discussion / Re: downpipe compatability with L48 stock exhaust manifold

« on: February 23, 2019, 05:20:46 AM »

Janobyte, Crossboss, X33RS:

Appreciate the discussion.   Weighing the two basic options:  stock transverse versus performance transverse.  Engine is completely stock original for all parts except cam (mild Comp Cam).  Stock heads were pocket ported to improve flow, but still using original intake and quadrajet.  Exhaust manifolds and water pump (sent back to New York for restoration) are original to the engine.  Stock manifolds are restrictive, but hoping to get some gain in flow with a 2.25 inch system. Just as a point of interest  Dave Vizard wrote that gains can be made by port matching the top and sides of stock exhaust (leaving the bottom of the pipe untouched so that a reversion dam is created in the pipe).  Not planning to take the time to do this.

Would love to go to headers and a more optimal performance transverse exhaust, but I live in California.  Summit and other vendors will not sell to California unless the parts meet C.A.R.B (air resources board) requirements.  Exhaust parts are only sold  with a C.A.R.B number.  If you know of a set of headers that Summit et alii sell to California for a 69 Camaro, let me know please.

Ace

7

General Discussion / Re: downpipe compatability with L48 stock exhaust manifold

« on: February 22, 2019, 02:10:30 AM »

WilliamL-48

Thanks for the help.  The Z-28 and the 350L-48 exhaust manifolds appear to have the same specs.  The only difference is in the part numbers for 1969.  The Z-28 with smog air injector tubes are essentially the same manifold as a 350 L-48 without the air tube holes.

Still not clear how a 2.25 pipe system can mate up to a 2" heat-riser, unless the 2.25 inch system uses a 2" downpipe.  In any case, I will be looking into the 2.25 inch system sold by on-line vendors like D and R, Rick's Camaro,  Camaro Central, Shaper Classic Renovations etc. 

Crossboss, thanks too for the tip on the Magnaflow with Summit.  Reviews were very positive.  Price is $804 at summit for the 409 stainless with 2.5 inch pipes.  The Magnaflow muffler (#12468) is an transverse muffler that incorporates and X pipe.  Pretty cool.

Ace

8

General Discussion / downpipe compatability with L48 stock exhaust manifold

« on: February 21, 2019, 07:38:54 PM »

Hello CRG members:

Planning to return my 69 coupe to a transverse exhaust system.  The engine -an L48 - has stock exhaust manifolds (part nos. 3932376 and 3942529).  Current downpipe/intermediate pipe measures 2".  I would like to purchase a 2.25" system that came with the 69 Z28's.  So here are my questions:
Will a 2.25 inch system designed for Z-28's mate up with the stock exhaust manifolds on a 350 c.i. engine?  The point of concern is that the heat-riser valve advertised for 69 exhaust manifolds seem to come only with a diameter of 2 inches.  Did the 302 c.i engine  use a larger diameter (2.25 inch) heat-riser valve than the 350 c.i. used?

Thanks for the input

Ace