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 - X33RS

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 73
1
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.

2
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.   

3
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.

4
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.

5
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   

6
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.   

7
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.   ;D

8
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.



9
The E70-15 tires that all 69 Z's came with are very close to 27" tall.  Some give a spec of 26.9 inches.

The typical factory F70-14's hovered right around 26 inches.  Some specs show 26.2 inches.

So at most you might be looking at roughly an inch difference in circumference which would equate to about a 1/2" in effected ride height.

As William stated, Z's did in fact have a lower ride height than other Camaros when measured at "D"    Pretty sure the assembly manual also showed differences at the rocker measurements "J" and "K" and that includes the minor tire height differences as far as I can interpret.

I don't know if all this means that's why all Z's got bumper guards, but they did.   

10
General Discussion / Re: engine VIN location
« on: April 09, 2019, 02:26:52 PM »
Agree with Tim, posting pictures of those stamps and letting knowledgeable eyes have a look would be best.  Replied to your PM, sorry I couldn't help with pictures but Kurt and others here can.

11
General Discussion / Re: engine VIN location
« on: April 08, 2019, 05:24:23 PM »
The car in the pics looks like a really nice driver to me. For a real Z with no issues the price to me is about where one would start. If you want 100% correct a fair amount of things need to be done. A nice non Z seems to be $35 - $45 these days. If it all checks out all the better.

Those were my thoughts exactly, nice driver quality to have some fun with.  That's also where I would expect the price range to be for something like this.  Easy to pick this level of car apart but if someone wants something better you'll end up paying more than $50k.    One has to decide what they want to spend vs what they want for an example.

12
General Discussion / Re: engine VIN location
« on: April 08, 2019, 02:52:27 PM »
Tim, agree that someone familiar with the details should look at the car.  My original statement was towards his 3rd posted question which is why I quoted it.  There is no way anyone can deny a Z with it's original engine using the vin stamp alone, as long as things haven't been tampered with. That's what vins are for, and have been used in that fashion to document non x-code cars in a reverse prognosis as well as reuniting lost engines with known cars.  Don't necessarily even need the deck stamp.  That seemed to be the OP's concern since the engine had been decked and asking if the vin would be another way to verify original status, and my response was YES it would be as long as things are untampered.  He didn't seem to be getting a clear answer to that from anyone from what I read.  Just providing reassurance that not all is lost.

He said he would provide more pictures which I'm sure all of us would like to see.  Very hard to get a camera in the oil filter area for a clear vin picture though.   If it has in fact been inspected by JM as mentioned, this stuff should already be documented as well.

13
General Discussion / Re: engine VIN location
« on: April 08, 2019, 02:19:50 AM »
Unless you are confident in assessing partial VIN stamps and if a TT has been off the car, I would not agree with Larry that a partial VIN match to an X-coded NOR car confirms Z/28 with factory block.

Your first sentence is the key, and I pointed that out, I thought I was clear on that.  Not trying to mislead anyone.  The fact is.....  If the X-code TT is original and never removed, as well as the vin tag, and you have a good untampered vin at the oil filter on the block, then you can be pretty darn sure you're looking at a DZ engine original to the car, whether it's decked or not.  If it's all legit, then how could we not think that?  We would be kidding ourselves. 
Some people may not like it, but it's still a pretty solid verification, and how quite a few non X Z's have been verified over the years.


14
General Discussion / Re: engine VIN location
« on: April 08, 2019, 02:08:47 AM »
Thanks so much for the help , this is a buy or not buy situation for me , i will post some more pertinent info tomorrow , stamps ,vin cowl tag and so on , i refuse to believe a decked block should nix the deal if all else points to Original Z28
there is V0I9DZ on the pad but i can't see a VIN i will look very close tomorrow . thank you so much my stress level is less the more input i get

  Just keep in mind for verification of original block without a deck stamp to be viable, you have to be certain the trim tag and vin tag have never been tampered with and are legit....AND...certain the vin stamped at the oil filter pad is also legit.    In which case as I said, then you can be fairly confident it's still the original engine to the car regardless of being decked.   If there is in fact a JM report on the car, this will likely be pointed out.

I've known this process to be used on some non x-code Z's as a way to verify the cars origin or authenticity, and how some cars have been discovered,  so to say it's not a viable method of documentation on what is known as a real Z to check for it's original block that is missing it's DZ stamp is somewhat hypocritical. 

It's just an area that has to be looked at carefully before laying down money.  As others said, the 69 Z is probably the most cloned car in history and there is a lot of that to go around when there is money to be made.  If the tags looks tampered with or off in any way, or the vin doesn't match up with other stamps of the period or looks off in any way, or the vin simply isn't legible which is very common, I'd walk away.

15
General Discussion / Re: engine VIN location
« on: April 07, 2019, 03:20:59 PM »
if the vin near the oil filter matches the cars vin, would not that indicate the Motor is true to the car ? Everything  else proves out x77 z28

Yes, in instances like this, I tend to disagree with others.

That is of course if you are certain we are looking at a real Z.   For this scenario to work, for me, it would have to be a Norwood car with an X code for starters.  As long as you are certain it has a legit data plate and is original to the car, hasn't been tampered with, and is an X33 or X77 then we can be fairly comfortable it's a Z.  Other tell tail signs would help as well.   As long as the vin tag is also original and untampered with, and lines up with the build time frame, then you're off to a good start.

From there, really the vin at the oil filter would be enough to confirm it's the original block, as long as you're certain that vin is original and untampered.    At this point there is enough evidence you are looking at the original block. If all that checks out it wouldn't scare me a bit and would have little affect on value in my opinion.   The deck stamp isn't the "tell all" and they are frequently messed with, but it's certainly nice to have if it's real.    What saves a car like this, in this instance, is that Norwood was thankfully stamping vins at the oil filter by this time frame.  Otherwise all would be lost.

What's interesting is that this process has been used to verify LOS built Z's that have no X code, by verifying the vin at the oil filter matches the car  LOL.  Sort of reverse prognosis.  So to say it's not a viable means of verification on an X code Z is a bit odd.

Decking the block isn't that uncommon.  Many were done back in the day when these cars weren't worth much so it's not unusual to see.  So many of these engines (all models) have terrible deck surface heights that very several thousandths front to back, side to side, some blocks are actually twisted.  Doing a proper rebuild almost always includes "squaring" up the block after align honing which means sometimes a light pass on the decks to sometimes taking off several thousandths.
  Then you can get into the "zero" decking scenario where builders want tight quench for better mixture motion, fends off detonation, makes more power with less timing required etc....  Some move piston pin heights, some deck the block, or a combination of both.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 73