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.


Messages - bertfam

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 211
1
General Discussion / Re: How to Confirm ID of 1967 A/C Controls?
« on: June 16, 2018, 01:59:00 PM »
That's a mid 68 control.

Below is the 67 (top picture), and very early 68 / mid 68 (bottom picture).

More info HERE.

Ed

2
General Discussion / Re: XXB suffix code
« on: May 22, 2018, 05:20:35 PM »
Yes, the 3892657 block was used for the 1967 302, 327 and 350 engines but the 1967 302 and 327 cranks were small journal. The 350 crank was a large journal so it won't just "drop in". You'll need to do some machine work to get it to fit.

Ed

3
General Discussion / Re: This VIN in the DB?
« on: May 19, 2018, 05:21:09 PM »
The car was for sale on San Francisco Craigslist on February 24th, 2009. At that time the ad claimed it was a real Z/28 with non-original MO 302 currently in car. I contacted the seller and he emailed the numbers back to me. The pad is stamped 18L334378, VO308MO, so it's not numbers matching. At least it wasn't back then, but it sure was close!

Ed

4
Originality / Re: Correct starter brace for '68 small block ???
« on: May 17, 2018, 12:37:57 AM »
Same brace as what's discussed in THIS THREAD.

Ed

5
General Discussion / Re: motor mounts
« on: May 15, 2018, 05:49:21 PM »
Quote
If you want to be "correct" install the recall hold down kit for non locking mounts.

Depends on what your definition of "correct" is. "Factory correct" would NOT include the recall.

Ed

6
General Discussion / Re: motor mounts
« on: May 15, 2018, 05:15:49 PM »
That's correct. The 3980701 mount is larger than the 3886466. The interlocking design is what makes it bigger. However, to be "correct" (if you care about that), you need to use the non-interlocking 3886466 mounts.

Ed

7
Decoding/Numbers / Re: 68 Camaro Engine?
« on: May 14, 2018, 02:51:16 PM »
Although there's not a lot of information on these, from what I can find, it points to being a GM Target Master "over the counter" crate engine. The last 4 digits (in your case 9800) are the last 4 digits of the GM part number for that particular engine. Another example, VF292800, is another "over the counter" crate engine with "2800" being the last 4 digits of the GM part number for that particular engine. Another example of a Targetmaster engine (p/n 14009800) built in 1985 could have a code stamped as A0198005 (A = January, 01, 9800 = P/N and 5 = 1985).

A lot of these were made in Mexico so it may have "Hencho en Mexico" cast into it somewhere.

Ed

8
General Discussion / Re: motor mounts
« on: May 14, 2018, 01:04:44 PM »
Yes, 3980701 is the later "locking" mount but again, like the 3886466, it fits either side.

Ed

9
General Discussion / Re: motor mounts
« on: May 14, 2018, 01:51:04 AM »
Chick, I just did a search over on teh NCRS site 3880701 and nothing showed up. You sure about that part number??

And the Anchor motor mounts can be purchased at your friendly local auto parts store (FLAPS). AutoZone has them for $14.99 each, Pep Boys has them for $17.59 each and Rock Auto has them for $5.85 each.

Ed

10
General Discussion / Re: motor mounts
« on: May 14, 2018, 12:08:10 AM »
It doesn't matter. However, I can't find any reference to the 3880701.

Ed

11
Restoration / Re: 69 fuel line sleeve
« on: May 11, 2018, 07:54:48 PM »
It's on ALL cars.

For 1967 it's shown on UPC 8, Sheet B2, Item 6, for 1968 it's on UPC 8, Sheet B4, Item 6 and for 1969 it's shown on UPC 8, Sheet B5, Item 6. It keeps the fuel line from rubbing against the gas tank strap and basically looks like a 3 or 4 inch piece of foam rubber hose. It was also used on other models and other years as well.

Note that it was also used on the 67-69 convertible parking brake cable to keep it from rubbing against the X brace. (for 1967 and 1968, UPC 5, Sheet C1, item 3 and for 1969, UPC 5, Sheet C1, Item 8.)

Ed

12
Maintenance / Re: Oil
« on: May 10, 2018, 03:24:44 PM »
This subject comes up several times a year and everyone has their opinions on what to buy. However, before you spend your hard earned money on "boutique" brands, I suggest you read THIS. The author is Duke Williams and he's probably THE go-to guy when it comes to oil. Do a Google search on him and you'll find a lot of information.

Also, as an update to that article, Duke posts a lot on the NCRS website and here's something he posted last year:

Quote
I was at Walmart last week and noticed that some brands have the new CK-4 primary service category and some are still CJ-4. The API and manufacturers state that CK-4 is "fully backwards compatible with prior C-categories." There is also a new FA-4 spec that I will get to shortly. I know many of you are hung up on brand names, but don't just blindly pull something off the shelf because it looks familiar. Verify the the "API donut" on the back carries a primary C-category, which will likely be CK-4 or CJ-4. The FA-4 is for new HD engines that should hit the road this year. They will be available only in xW-30 grades and the emphasis is on lower internal friction for better fuel ecomomy and less CO2. There will also likely be a reduction in "heavy metal" additives, which means less ZDDP. Other anti-wear additive will take their place, but I don't know if they are as effective. New HD engines will have detail internal design changes like bearings and rings to be compatible with FA-4. I have not yet found any detailed FA-4 specs from any manufacturer, so I don't know if they will be suitable for vintage engines with sliding surface valve trains or not, so stick with CK-4 or CJ-4. Next time I buy oil I'll buy the least expensive C-category oil I can find, as I usually do, regardless of whether it's CK-4 or CJ-4. Just make sure you don't buy FA-4 for now.

In regards to the CK-4 or CJ-4, the best deal around is still the Walmart house brand Super-Tech CJ-4. At less than $10 bucks a gallon it meets ALL the requirements of our older engines.

Ed

13
General Discussion / Re: Fan spacer 3857041
« on: May 09, 2018, 08:41:51 PM »
Shane, the 9425299 bolt was the replacement for the older 454891 bolt used in the late 1950's through early 1960's, and the specs for that bolt was 5/16-24 x 2.5". While it "should" be the same specs for the 9425299, there's no guarantee!

Ed



14
General Discussion / Re: XXB suffix code
« on: May 09, 2018, 02:08:58 PM »
From Alan Colvin's "Chevrolet by the Numbers" (multiple years), 1.94 valves were used on the following "Double Hump" heads (Casting numbers 3782461, 3782461X, 3890462, 3917291 and 3927186):

1962 - 1970 Full size 300 HP (see notes 1 and 2 below)
1962 - 1963 Corvette 300, 340 and 360 HP
1964 - 1970 Corvette 300 HP (see note 1 below)
1964 - 1970 Chevelle 300 HP (see notes 1 and 2 below)
1965 - 1969 Full size 250 HP (see note 2 below)
1965 Chevelle 250 HP
1965 Corvette 250 HP
1965 Nova 250
1966 - 1968 Full size, Chevelle and Nova 275 HP
1967 - 1968 Camaro 275 and 295 HP
1968 Nova 295 HP
1969 Camaro and Nova 300 HP (see notes 1 and 2 below)
1970 Nova 300 HP (see note 1 below)
1970 Camaro 300 HP (see note 1 below)

Note 1: The 1969 and 1970 300 HP engines used either the 3927186 heads with the "Double Hump" casting symbol or the 3947041 heads with the "Triangular" casting symbol
Note 2: 1.94 valves were also used on the 1969 250 and 255 HP engines, but had the 3932441 "Rectangular" casting symbol heads

Also note that 1.94 valves continued to be used into the new millennia, but the "Double Hump" casting symbol ended in 1970.

Ed

15
General Discussion / Re: XXB suffix code
« on: May 08, 2018, 10:04:23 PM »
Sorry. That should be except SPECIAL high performance. Included all 327's from 210 to 300 horse power. I fixed my above post.

Ed

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 211