Messages

1

Garage Talk / Re: A great place to lose a car. ( the hot Rod power tour)

« on: July 08, 2019, 02:19:25 PM »

I noticed the same thing lakeholme and made similar comments in another post about this very theft.  Knowing the types of high end and expensive cars that attend Power Tour, I was a bit surprised to see the cars stolen were station wagons and pickup trucks that really don't hold much value other than to their owners.  Usually when this stuff happens, from what I've seen, these types of cars aren't the targets.

Sucks that it happens in any case.

2

Garage Talk / Re: JULY12, 10TH CLASSIC CAR APPRECIATION DAY

« on: July 05, 2019, 01:31:21 PM »

Interesting.  Thanks for posting that.   I haven't heard of such a thing and honestly I'm kind of surprised this day and age there is a classic car appreciation day with all the wonky environmental pushing going on.

No mention of it out here anywhere that I've read or heard.  Checked our local site that posts all the shows for the area, and there isn't even a car show that weekend anywhere in AZ that I can find.

But we'll be driving our classics anyway as we do everyday so I'll be sure to make note of it.

3

General Discussion / Re: 15 x 8 Backspacing question

« on: June 02, 2019, 03:58:10 PM »

Would a set of 15 x 8 rear wheels with a 5.5 backspace work on a 1969 Camaro? 
also, does anyone have problems running a 15 x 3.5 wheel in the front? How much would such a small tire affect braking?   

You should be ok with that backspacing. Running the 'skinnies' up front will compromise braking, and will most likely cause more nose dive during hard stops, as your 'working' the tires/brakes much harder. The small tread pattern is the enemy here. That said, obviously your not going for any road racing competition, and I assume street and mild drag racing, so you should be fine. Lastly, IF you are using soft front springs with 90/10 shocks, and a loose front sway bar (or none at all) keep this in mind when your street driving and the distance for stopping.

Interesting you mentioned that.  Doubt many here bother with that type of thing but we have 4 cars setup very similar.   All of them are street driven.  2 of them are 90/10's up front and a few other suspension tricks for weight transfer and instant center changes.   On the sway bars I hone the urethane bushings so they don't squeeze the bar so tight, then grease them.  Allows front end movement up and down but still helps to control sway a little bit on the street.  I also knock the knurls down on the control arm bushings and install with graphite grease so the arms move a little more freely.  On the nomad I run moroso trick front springs as well and daily drove that car for many years.  Others are more in depth but I won't get into details that most wouldn't be interested in here.

Here's one I have that I run as a pure stock rules car.  No adjustable shocks allowed so I run old oil filled shocks that move more freely, and other suspension tricks I mentioned above.   It's gone 1.89 60 on stock F70-14 bias plies.  I also drive this car daily and it's a fantastic handling and driving  car despite the suspension mods.

https://youtu.be/er1z7PpqsnY

https://youtu.be/8r8hzS-iZP0

https://youtu.be/bavv6KgUcmw

4

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Real or Fake ?

« on: May 30, 2019, 03:54:11 PM »

Would need pictures of the trim tag for starters.  So many fake tags out there.  Posting the pics here will get you several good eyes on it and point out any discrepancies.

5

General Discussion / Re: 15 x 8 Backspacing question

« on: May 30, 2019, 03:49:09 PM »

On the front tire deal, we have 2 cars here that currently run pizza cutters on the front.  4" wheels on both of them.  They are driven fairly regularly and have been this way for many years.

One is running the M/T 28x6 street radial tire.   

I can say they drive well enough, turn and stop fine in normal type driving.  Even okay on the twisty mountain roads around here.  A couple of panic stops in the past has locked up the front tires but you have to jump on the brakes pretty hard to do that.  Locking up the rear on these cars might be more of a challenge anyway because we run drag radials on them 100% of the time and they are grippy.  So may not be a fair comparison.  Thousands of street miles like this though and no complaints.  These cars aren't something we go racing through the mountains with on the twisty roads either though.

My daily driver for years was a 71 nova and I had made 4 inch chevy rally wheels back before they were being produced and ran 165/15 VW tires on it.  Drove that car for several years without problems.  Before that I daily drove a 56 nomad with manual steer and manual drum brakes that handled like a school bus so you kind of get used to extra braking distances and slowing for curves, which is probably why skinny front tires don't bother me.

6

General Discussion / Re: headers

« on: May 28, 2019, 10:44:49 PM »

Stinger is talking about the back drive linkage that was new for 69.  Locks the steering column when the car is put in reverse, and also works the backup lights.

You have a different deal on your 68 so likely not a concern.

On our 69 I used Dougs Headers.  Fit and finish was nice.  I modified the #7 tube to clear my back drive linkage so it would stay functional.

I'm a Hooker fan (that didn't come out right, lol)   and run those on other cars.  Always had good fitment with those as well.

7

Originality / Re: 69z28 stripes

« on: May 25, 2019, 09:09:58 PM »

From what I remember, the pin stripe width as well as distance varied slightly from plant and build time frame.  Mine for example is a Dec Norwood car with some of it's original striping left.  The pin stripe measures about 9/32 wide and slightly tighter in distance, but this varies in places throughout the stripe as they weren't applied with exacting tolerances and those differences are hard to even detect with the naked eye, but a tape measure shows the inconsistencies.  My stripes even have a factory blooper on the cowl panel that is known to be common from Norwood cars in this build time frame.

   A build time and plant would be helpful along with a picture of measurements.   

8

General Discussion / Re: Cam for my 1969 302ci

« on: May 23, 2019, 08:13:05 PM »

That said, anyone who wants the 'correct' cam will go with the OEM solid lifter version.

Agree, and even though I was confining myself to rules when I did mine at the time, I still would have put a solid flat tappet cam in the engine if I were free to do what I wanted.  Very doubtful it would have been OEM and most certainly nothing off the shelf,  since lobe profiles today have come a long way, but it would be a solid flat tappet none the less, because I don't want to get away from the nature of the engine and what it was intended for.

9

General Discussion / Re: Cam for my 1969 302ci

« on: May 23, 2019, 02:07:31 PM »

Seems even the so called repop copy cams are tinkered with a bit.  I have one here in a box that was bought 25 years ago and even then they were changing the specs.  I found out later it's actually advertised as a copy of the 30-30 but they ground it with 2 more degrees of advance than the OE cam had.   Guess they believed even then they could improve on the characteristics of the engine, and when I had the guy on the phone a couple years ago he confirmed they were trying to build a little more low end torque in the engine.  Oddly they still advertised it as an OE cam.

I couldn't help but wonder after that phone call that cam companies are likely still doing this today, and wouldn't surprise me if they are doing them with slightly different lobe profiles then before.  I doubt any of them have the lazy GM lobes and really wide LSA's with little advance that the OE cam had.

One of the things we did on my cam, since it was a custom deal that would only mimic the original in lift and duration only, was to use a lobe profile that had a soft closing ramp, similar to the GM cam design, so it was easy on the seats.  It also has a late opening exhaust in an effort to build more torque.  A tight lash was also something considered mainly for stability and longevity.   Explained straight from Harold,  "With tight lash the pushrod hits the same spot in the rocker, reducing shimmy, which effects spring life.....  Very wide-lash cams cause the pushrod to hit all over the place, and the resulting vibrations/shimmy is translated to the valve and spring."
  Some other things I did was to nitride the cam, and also run a solid lifter with an EDM hole that shoots pressurized oil right on the lobes.  All done in an attempt for longevity.

I've shied away from the solid rollers in street engines.  They require quite a bit of spring seat pressure to control the valves, more so in engines like Pontiacs or BBC's that have heavy valve trains in them.  Not so much in a SBC but still more spring seat pressure than I care for in a street engine.  What happens over time is usually a lifter eats itself if you drive it enough.   We had this very thing happen on my fathers engine.  Most aggressive solid rollers in a street application typically have 240-260 lbs. seat pressure.  His was 240.  We even used the very expensive Crower bushed rollers with pressurized oiling on the rollers.  After 6,000 street miles one lifter ate itself, taking the cam with it.  Have since switched this engine over to a hydraulic roller.  Typical aftermarket hydraulic rollers use about 150 lbs. seat pressure and around 400 lbs. open.   

10

Restoration / Re: center link restoration 69 z

« on: May 23, 2019, 01:26:43 PM »

John, it sounds as though yours might be as nice as mine was to start with.   Mine being a rust free AZ car, none of the suspension parts have any pitting on them and all the paint markings are still very visible.

On my center link, it still had it's natural heat treat color on most of it along with a white paint dab.   I simply soaked mine in evaporust being careful on the time frame so as not to remove the paint dab.  It came out like brand new.  I put a dusting of flat clear on it to preserve it.

Actually did the entire front suspension this way to preserve it for a later restoration.

11

Garage Talk / Re: Antique Tag Qualifications

« on: May 12, 2019, 10:23:41 PM »

25 years has pretty much been the standard for many states for as long as I can remember.

Ohio is 25 years, Arizona is 25 years.  However the laws that go along with them are quite different from state to state.

In Ohio I never had to renew the tags, ever.  No more renewal fees, was a permanent tag, but it had driving restrictions, shows etc..

In Arizona it has a typical renewal fee every year just like any other tag, and there are no driving restrictions on it.

12

General Discussion / Re: Cam for my 1969 302ci

« on: May 12, 2019, 03:39:49 AM »

Yes I've told Bill what I've done to the engine.  When I built our 302 I had the pure stock drags in mind as that's what I built one of our Pontiacs for.  So a lot of attention to details and the camshaft was a big player.  Per rules lift and duration can't be increased so it's still similar to the original cam with tweaks.  The lobe profile is a modern design with a faster ramp, and is a tight lash at .014".  I preferred that to keep the beating to a minimum as longevity was also a concern. Turns out my wife drives this thing daily and has logged 30k miles in the last 2 1/2 years. 
   The rules only state max advertised lift.  In our case that's .485 but the problem with solids is the loss of lift with lash, and on a stock cam that's .030".  Since advertised lift was the goal, per rules, the lobe is actually a .495" lift, with .014" lash giving me .481" lift, within advertised lift, and more than a 30-30 would have with it's lash figured in.   See how rules can be manipulated?   Duration is the same but there are no rules for LSA, so that was tightened up to 112 to bring in the torque curve a little sooner.  Installed on a 110 ICL which also gave me the int/exh valve relationship I was looking for at TDC during overlap.
   The cam does what I wanted, more power sooner in the rpm range, still pulls to 7,000 with a very broad flat curve, still makes 9-10 inches of vacuum at 5,000 ft elevation (14 inches at sea level) and drives around really nice and with a true 11:1 compression it's running perfect on our crappy 91 octane pump fuel.  Idle is very close to stock with maybe a slight hint of more attitude.
If I were to build the engine again, and forget about the PS rules, I would likely go with something completely different as there are more improvements that could be made, but this was in the interest of experimenting to see what could be done with it.

https://youtu.be/IZ0HlEY7b74   

13

Originality / Re: Did all '69 Z/28's come with the tall rear bumper guards?

« on: April 28, 2019, 01:26:46 PM »

Actually, the D measurement is the important one.  The measurements from the ground have other variances (like tires) that affect the measurement, and even air pressures come into play.   So like I said earlier, when you have 2 cars and example 1 is lower at D than Example 2, yet example 2 is lower at K than example one, yet both have the same height tire, the math doesn't add up.   That's why people question the numbers in the AIM. 

   Frankly, If I were looking to set a 1st gen properly, I would be using the D measurement to base my cars from, then put the proper tires on it.   

14

Originality / Re: Did all '69 Z/28's come with the tall rear bumper guards?

« on: April 27, 2019, 11:32:33 PM »

Sure looks that way to me.  Been discussed in the past.  It's pretty obvious when you look at the numbers.

How can you have 2 cars with virtually the same tire height, yet one is lower at K while the other is lower at D.   D being the actually suspension measurement.  Just not possible. 

Lets make it easier.  2 identical cars in every way.  When both are measured at D, example 1 is lower than example 2, yet example 1 measures higher at the rocker???  Someone must have had a few beers when they hung the sheet metal on example 1.   

15

Originality / Re: Did all '69 Z/28's come with the tall rear bumper guards?

« on: April 27, 2019, 01:37:05 PM »

I've read that too Stinger and it would seem to make sense when you look at J and K and D and  pay particular attention to the tire sizes.

The only other lowest ride height are with the E78-14 tire which doesn't make sense, because the 78 series tire is 26.7" tall, nearly the same height as the E70-15's on the Z/28.   Yet it's giving a lower height measurement on the E78 car at K but a lower height measurement at D on the Z/28.   The measurement at D is more than 2 tenths difference.   So how can the Z clearly have a lower suspension measurement but the E78 car has a lower rocker measurement when they both have nearly identical tire height?  Clearly anyone good at math can see there is a discrepancy given the known tire heights.