Messages

1

Originality / Re: E-Brake Cables, With or Without the Rubber Boot?

« on: June 29, 2018, 12:31:11 PM »

Good Morning All.  Thanks very much for the responses below.  The Inline Tube cables I purchased are the ones that go from the rear drums to the welded bracket.  They look very close to original (ie 95%) and length was perfect but they had a ribbed rubber hose about four inches long right in the middle as you see in the photo provided by cook_dw.  I found a few photos of concourse quality cars that have been through the Legends Certification process at Carlisle and noted that none had the hose so based on that I carefully cut them off prior to installation.  Confirmation that these hoses were not used on first gen Camaros is greatly appreciated.  I had never considered putting a hose around the intermediate cable were it rubs the floor pan since it doesn't seem to be hurting anything, but that's an interesting idea. 

Thanks again. 

2

Originality / E-Brake Cables, With or Without the Rubber Boot?

« on: June 26, 2018, 12:38:18 AM »

I have been doing some work on the rear end of my 68 Z/28.  One item on the list is to replace the e-brake cables from the drums to the intermediate cable as the spiral wire on both sides has broken and on the left the inner cables are kinking as a result.  I looked at a bunch online but in the end ordered a pair from Inline Tube as I've been happy with some of their products used in the past.  I received the package in the mail today and, while the cables look pretty darn close to the originals, they have a rubber hose/boot about four inches long at the middle of each cable.  I didn't see any evidence of this rubber hose on the originals but then the car was over 30 when I got it so who knows?  I did a search of the forum and this topic has come up before in 2008, but the response simply indicated that Right Stuff Detailing had the correct cables without actually stating whether the boots are correct or not.  Unfortunately the Right Stuff website indicates they no longer have this product so I can't figure out from the old post what is or is not correct. 

I'm happy enough with the look of the cables from Inline Tube, but don't want to cut off the hose until I know for sure it shouldn't be there. 

Can anyone confirm whether the hose/boot is correct? 

Thanks.

3

General Discussion / Re: Original dealer info for 1st gens is available

« on: July 11, 2014, 12:03:47 AM »

I just got my letter from NCRS in the mail today and finally know where my 68 327/275 was shipped!  The letter indicates it shipped from Norwood on 15 Nov 67 which lines up with the 11B build date.  It went to Luby Chevrolet in Miami Florida (Dealer Code 328 and Zone 26).  I entered the info on the NCRS site as they had nothing and also did a quick search online for this dealer but came up empty.  Has anyone heard of this dealer?  Are they maybe still around under a different name?

4

Originality / Re: 68 AC Muffler

« on: June 19, 2014, 04:55:06 PM »

Ed/Bob - thanks very much for taking the time to look this up/comment.  That's great news that this piece is 396 only - Since I seem to have all the correct parts, I should have my system buttoned up by the weekend! 

Gord

5

Originality / Re: 68 AC Muffler

« on: June 18, 2014, 09:26:37 PM »

Rare396bronze - thanks for the information.  I have a feeling that this is a big block only item for 68 as well, but don't have a very good parts book to confirm.  If another member could tell me the applications listed for PN 3923194 and PN 3925797 that would be greatly appreciated.  I've sent some photos to some restoration shops that specialize in A/C and one seems to be quite certain small blocks were equipped with 3925797. 

Big Iron - I also note from the discussion above that use of 3923194 seems to also require the fender hose bracket.  My car has the dimple where this bracket would mount, but its never been drilled.  Of course the fender wheel could have been changed out long ago, but I don't think so based on the condition, paint, etc when I took the car apart 22 years ago. 

Thanks again for all the help.

6

Originality / Re: 68 AC Muffler

« on: June 17, 2014, 05:00:35 PM »

Thanks for the feed back so far.  I've had alook online at the HBC repop mufflers as well as those from other sources - they don't appear correct based on the photos I have seen of V8 cars that have this style of muffler fitted.  The clamp being used in 67 only is good news however since that's one piece I now don't need to find, although they don't seem that hard/expensive to locate.  I'm still looking for other A/C V8 owner's comments as to what muffler is on their cars and would really appreciate any photos clearly showing the muffler/hose routing. 

7

Originality / 68 AC Muffler

« on: June 17, 2014, 11:36:44 AM »

Good morning everyone.  I`m currently working on an 11B built 68 RS with the L30 327 and Powerglide.  The car has factory AC which is what I`m attempting to put back together now.  Late last summer the compressor (not the original) failed, and I`ve now gotten around to sourcing a correct replacement which has been professionally rebuilt.  I also had the POA, expansion valve and receiver dehydrator assembly serviced by Classic Auto Air as I`m converting to R134.  Hoses have therefore also been replaced and the evaporator and condenser removed and chemically cleaned. 

Last evening I was working on some of the final reassembly when I noticed something odd with my AC muffler.  According to the AIM, its not the right one!  Sheet D3 (pg 213) indicates a different muffler for a V8 (PN 3923194) than an L6 (PN 3925797).  It would seem I have an L6 muffler.  As indicated above, the compressor had been changed, so the muffler could have been changed at the same time, but I don`t believe that to be the case.  I have also spent a few hours looking at any photos I can find showing that area of the car and have noted a lot of V8 cars with what would appear to be the L6 muffler.  Obviously I want to be sure I`ve got this right before I run hoses and have the AC system charged. 

If anyone can confirm whether or not the L6 muffler was used on V8 compressors, it would be most appreciated!

Of lesser concern is a clamp that I have seen in some photos that holds the muffler to the compressor.  That said, I don`t see this in the AIM and it would seem to me to be unnecessary as the muffler appears to mount securely enough on its own. 

Was this clamp used with this style of muffler

8

Originality / Re: 814 Alternator

« on: July 02, 2011, 12:51:09 AM »

Just a quick update for those or you who may be thinking of doing business with Heartbeat City.  I contacted the shop about my alternator concerns and got a prompt e-mail back indicating that I should send it back to them and they will send it out to John Pirkle to have a correct back-half installed along with a few other details like the ink stamp taken care of.  I dropped it off today so we'll see what I eventually get back, but so far I can't complain.  Still annoying that they sold me this piece with incorrect parts, but if they acknowledge their mistake and take care of the problem, then all is good.  I'll let you know how it all ends up.

9

Originality / Re: 814 Alternator

« on: June 27, 2011, 11:09:04 AM »

Thanks for all the comments concerning the back half of this alternator (and the stamped code).  That confirms what I originally thought.  I'll be contacting HBC today to see what they have to say.  The real cost in this of course was the front half with the original stam;ping.  Any comments on the stamping? 

10

Originality / Re: 814 Alternator

« on: June 21, 2011, 12:58:28 AM »

The other two photos...

11

Originality / 814 Alternator

« on: June 21, 2011, 12:57:48 AM »

Well, I finally made the plunge and bought one of those expensive 1100814 alternators for my 6A Norwood built 68 Z/28.  It was the only significant piece on the car that was not a correct original and had really started to bug me so I thought it was an appropriate use of my tax refund this year.  I bought this unit (dated 8C22) from Heartbeat City which is a company located in Shelby Township Michigan (just north of Detroit).  They stock a lot of rare and NOS parts as well as the usual repop stuff (http://www.heartbeatcity.com/store).

They indicated to me that this alternator had been rebuilt by John Pirkle but no paperwork was provided to that effect.  It is certainly a nice looking unit and the stamp looks right to me.  I have included a pic of the stamping and would appreciate any comments on the authenticity.  The only thing that bothers me is the back half of this unit.  There is an extra threaded hole that I believe was introduced in 1969 to support the change over of the alternator location to the right side.  After paying big bucks for this restored unit, I am not thrilled with the possibility that my 22 Mar 68 unit has a 1969 back half!  Am I correct in this interpretation?  I have two other 1968 alternators and a 69 at home to compare and neither of my believed original 68s has this extra threaded boss while the 69 does.  The pictures attached show the differences.  In the end, changing the rear half isn’t a big deal (I have a spare without the threaded boss) but I would appreciate confirmation as to what is correct before I make the change. 

Finally, is the CS code marked on this correct?  I thought the 814 alternator had a CK code in 68?

Thanks all for your comments.

Gord

12

Restoration / Re: 1968 manifold pre-heat sheild & tube for 327/210

« on: December 08, 2010, 12:17:27 AM »

Sorry brad68RS, my parts are from an automatic car so the carb in 7028112. 
Sebastien - my heat tube and air cleaner have already been sold, but I still have the heads (as well as intake, timing cover and a few other parts).  I have sent you an e-mail with some more details. 

13

Restoration / Re: 1968 manifold pre-heat sheild & tube for 327/210

« on: November 26, 2010, 12:42:46 PM »

Brad, I have a correct 2bbl carb for an A/C car.  It was professionally rebuilt a couple of years ago.  Includes the hot idle compensator and a date code tag.  I also have the correct heads and intake for a 327/210hp car (dated around early Nov 67).  I might also still have the air cleaner and heat tube (but not the stove) but I'll have to check - I'm  on the road until late tonight.  I am looking for that tube that goes from the snorkel to the heat stove for a 4bbl - since you mention having 4bbl parts on the car maybe we can do a trade if your parts are for a 68?  If not, my price for what I have is reasonable - I'd like to see these go to someone who is restoring a car back to stock. 

14

Restoration / A.I.R. Pulley Mounting

« on: June 20, 2010, 03:29:39 PM »

Happy Father's Day all. 

I get to spend mine in the garage with my 'other' baby but I have come across something that just doesn't seem correct to me.  Page number 82 of my AIM shows the A.I.R. pulley mounting instructions for the L-6 and V8.  It states quite clearly "Assemble pulley with stamped part number facing rearward".  I've looked at a lot of photos of restored engines including detailed restorations done by Lucas Restorations and Camaro Hi-Performance and have never seen the pulley mounted in this manner.  Is this a misprint?   

Any comments will be greatly appreciated. 

15

Originality / Starter Solenoid Number

« on: March 29, 2010, 12:19:33 AM »

I've been reading on here for a long time and have gotten alot of great information, but I can't seem to find one thing and that is the correct solenoid numbers for my starters.  I have two Camaros, both Norwood built. 

One is an 11A 68 coupe with 327/275hp and a powerglide.  I have the correct starter (1108361) and it has what looks like an original Delco solenoid (1114344) but is this the correct one? 

My other car is a 6A built 68 Z/28.  It has the correct starter (1108367) and a Delco solenoid (1119910) but I suspect this may not be the correct solenoid.  An internet search leads me to believe this solenoid is for 61-63 Corvette. 

Does anyone have an idea as to what would be correct?  Thanks in advance.