CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2015, 01:22:03 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Forum registration problems: Make sure you enter your email correctly and you check your spam box first. *Then* email KurtS2@gmail for help.
112293 Posts in 12900 Topics by 4937 Members
Latest Member: 22rodman
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 144 145 [146] 147 148 ... 156
2176  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Tic toc tach w/gauges on: August 06, 2006, 06:50:11 PM
That's okay. But again, no tach without the other gauges (and the console), so it's either been "added", or the console and gauges "removed".

2177  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Tic toc tach w/gauges on: August 06, 2006, 03:07:40 PM
Wait a minute. Are we talking about a 68 or a 69? (You have both in your original thread, but since you refer to it as a "Tic-Toc-Tach", I was assuming you meant a 68 since this wasn't available on a 69.)

If it IS a 68, then it sounds like he installed a tach and didn't bother with the other gauges (or the console). Since repops are now available, things like this are going to start popping up more and more.

If he installed the tach in place of the gas gauge, then he's not only lost that ability, but the ability to monitor the alternator and the cooling temperature as well (see below). Of course, aftermarket gauges have been added as you stated, but he's still lost his fuel level and charging system monitors.

Interesting that the adapter was still available from GM. I knew the speedo gears were, but I didn't think the adapter would be. you just never know...


2178  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Tic toc tach w/gauges on: August 05, 2006, 11:26:02 PM
No, the Tic-Toc-Tach was part of the RPO U17 option that included not only the tach, but the ammeter, temperature, oil pressure and fuel level gauges. Of course, the RPO D55 console was required as was a V8 engine. In reading your post, it appears that you're stating that the car you saw had the oil pressure and temperature gauges in the same instrument cluster as the tach?

2179  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct intake manifold code on: August 05, 2006, 11:21:52 PM

Alan has made a lot of changes to his books over the years so you can't take everything in your particular copy as face value. He used to have these changes listed on his WEB site, but for some reason it's no longer available. Hasn't been for several months now. I'm not sure why. Alan is a member of the CRG so perhaps he's in the process of changing hosts?

But anyway, the 163 manifold was used late in the 1968 model year starting I believe, sometime in March of 1968. (late in the 68 "Model" year, but early in the 68 "year"). My car has a 163 intake dated April 9th, 1968, but I've personally seen another 163 intake dated March 26th, 1968. The 069 manifold was discontinued at the same time the 163 was introduced, so there's some overlap that would have taken place for engines assembled in that time frame, but your June car would have come with the 163. But yes, do check the date code of your intake. I would be curious as to what it says.

2180  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Coil spring spacers for 67-69 Air Conditioned Camaro's? on: August 05, 2006, 09:54:51 AM
I'm not going to answer for John, but here's what I've found so far...

The THREAD ON YENKO.NET shows an article from the February, 1967 issue of Car Craft refrencing coil spring spacers being placed in a 67 Camaro due to the addition of a 427. The EBAY AUCTION also referenced in the thread is for a P/N 3789664 coil spring spacers.

I looked in my 1971 issure P&A 26 "Dealer Parts and Accessories Price Schedule" and sure enough, P/N 3789664 is listed under Group 7.425. I looked in my 1968 P&A 34 "Parts and Accessory" manual for the Camaro, Chevelle, Nova and Corvair, and there is no group 7.425 listed. I also looked in my P&A 14a for Corvettes, and again, no group 7.425. Therefore, you can safely say that these spacers were not used on any of the above cars from the factory. I then looked in my 1957 issue P&A 30 for Passenger Cars, Corvettes and Light and Medium Duty Trucks, and there WAS a Group 7.425, but it didn't show that part number. The part numbers shown were earlier than the 3789664, but not by much, which tells me that that particular part was used in the late 50's or early 60's. Unfortunately, I don't have a P&A 30 from the 60's, so I can't verify this, but part numbers starting with "378" are late 50's/early 60's issue.

Now, with that in hand, the group 7.425 title in my 1957 P&A 30 is "SHIM - SPACER, Front Spring", but gives no further explaination. There are a few thicknesses listed (see the picture below), so we at least know now that this spacer was available from GM. HOWEVER, it was never used on the 67 Camaro except in the case of this particular Nickey conversion. I'm assuming the reason they used the spacer is because when this article was written, the 67 Big Block hadn't yet been released so there were no springs available for it. Nickey used a truck (or possibly a full size car) spacer to raise the front end an inch. I would also assume that when the big block DID become available, and therefore the accompanying springs, this spacer was no longer needed and wasn't used.

Remember, magazine articles are written 3 to 4 months prior to the cover date, so no big block Camaro's were yet available. I would imagine that this particular article was written in late September or early November, 1966 before the release of the Camaro 396.


2181  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 x77 5 leaf rear springs on: August 05, 2006, 09:26:36 AM
Yes, they did. Scroll down to question 121 on the ASK CRG PAGE and you should get your answer.

2182  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: COPO? on: July 26, 2006, 01:41:11 PM
Your car's VIN does fit into the CANADIAN COPO LIST, so yes, do what William suggested and contact the Canadian GM VINTAGE VEHICLE SERVICE.

Good luck and keep us posted...

2183  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: ENGINE PRODUCTION on: July 25, 2006, 04:39:39 PM
John Hinckley (JohnZ) did a report on this very subject awhile back that's required reading for anyone restoring their car. It includes not only the car assembly process itself, but also the engine and other components. HERE'S THE LINK.

As to your casting date and assembly date on your engine, it's within the normally accepted range.

2184  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Booster dating on: July 24, 2006, 09:25:33 PM

Wow! Another owner just asked the same exact thing on the Team Camaro WEB site!! HERE'S MY ANSWER. Hope it helps...

2185  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct tacho [tick toc tac] redline for 68 396 L34 on: July 22, 2006, 05:05:09 PM
Read the information on the 1968 PAGE here on the CRG site. It shows the L34 redline at 5.5k, but make sure you read note 6.

The bumblebee stripe was used up to January, 1968. At that time they went to the second version where the strips continued to the doors. The car in the auction is from early April, 1968 so yes, it would have the second version stripes.

Those caps are "standard equipment" for all models. If you didn't want Rally wheels, Simulated Wire Covers, etc... this is what you got.

2186  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: SS350 with 255hp engine on: July 22, 2006, 04:57:03 PM
What you have is an LM1.

From the 1969 PAGEon the CRG site:

The LM1 moderate-compression 4-barrel carburetor 350ci engine was introduced at the beginning of the 1969 model year as the replacement for the L30 327/275HP engine. The LM1 was, in turn, replaced mid-way through the model year by the lower-performing L65 2-barrel carburetor 350ci engine, and most of the higher performance features of the LM1-equipped vehicles were not transferred to the L65 units. Even more so than with the L30/M20 in 1968, it was possible with the LM1 to create a SS-350 look-alike in most performance features. The absence of SS badges and SS hood/hinges, both easily added, are the only easily distinguishable clues between a L48-powered SS-350 and a LM1 with added J52 disc brakes, N10 dual exhaust, D90 stripe, one of the 70-series tire options, and the Z87 custom interior (which provides hood insulation). Closer examination of the original engine is required to note the lower compression heads, the distributor code, and/or the engine application code. The 7-inch SS wheels were also not available on the LM1/M20.


2187  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Brake Parts Numbers - 69Z - Rear Drums / Front Rotors on: July 13, 2006, 07:12:29 PM

The front disk w/hub assembly was P/N 3901098 and the rear drums were P/N 3841176, but if you're looking for part numbers on the components themselves, you won't find it.

2188  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1968 Camaro Rally Wheel Center Cap question on: July 10, 2006, 09:11:44 AM

They're all the same. Full Size, Nova, Chevelle, Camaro, Corvette... Used from 1968 up through 1982 (on the Corvette).

Can you post a picture of what you're looking at?

2189  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: correct speedo gear on: July 10, 2006, 09:07:06 AM
Yes, the 8623311 has 16 teeth and the 8623312 has 17, And by the way, the 68 Turbo 400 uses the same gears as the 69.

2190  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: correct speedo gear on: July 09, 2006, 07:52:12 PM

I'm not up on 69's as much as 68's, so what I write here is only a guess. 69 experts, please fix my mistakes!

I believe the lowest axle ratio you could get with the 396/325 and the M40 (Turbo 400) was 3.31. If you wanted lower gears than that, I think you had to upgrade to the heavy duty (or "High Speed") Turbo 400 that was standard on the 396/350 and 396/375 cars. This was a different transmission with heavy duty parts (see the product bulletin attached).

Because there were only so many combinations available for speedometer gears (due to physical size and teeth count), very low axles used a speedometer adapter to convert the output of the transmission speedometer gear. For example... Notice in the chart above that all heavy duty turbo 400's use the same 8623311 drive gear, and that the 2.73 axle and 3.73 axle use the same 9774413 driven gear. How can this be? If you used this combination in the 3.73 axle car, the speedometer will be WAY off!! Howver, by the use of a reducer (adapter) for the 3.73 axles you can use the same combination and still get accurate speedometer readings. Boy, those Chevy engineers were sharp, eh?

So in your case, with a Turbo 400, F70-14 tires and a 3.37 axle, you're going to need a 16 tooth (orange) "Drive" gear, a 34 tooth (Light Green) "Driven" gear, and a 3932220 adapter (reducer). That's going to be the hard part, finding the adapter. They come up on ebay periodically, so check often.

Hope this helps, and like I said, if I made any mistakes (which is VERY possible), some of the 69 guys will correct me.


Pages: 1 ... 144 145 [146] 147 148 ... 156
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.103 seconds with 18 queries.