CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2015, 04:53:52 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.
112140 Posts in 12882 Topics by 4931 Members
Latest Member: Euclid
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 146 147 [148] 149 150 ... 156
2206  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: disc brake rotors on: June 14, 2006, 11:04:31 PM

Not to answer for John, but looking in the P&A it shows the two piece rotors (Group 5.809, P/N 3901098) were used on 67-69 Camaros, Novas and Chevelles. I don't believe the one piece started until the 70 models came out.

2207  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: RPO question on: June 14, 2006, 10:56:21 PM

I believe the answer is yes. If I'm not mistaken, the speedo cable is about an inch to the right of the defroster switch.

By the way, I'm sure your "L50" is just a typo, since the rear defrost is RPO C50, right...


2208  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: VIN# ON TITLE on: June 14, 2006, 10:52:59 PM
Probably nothing, but you would have to ask your local Motor Vehicle Department to make sure.

2209  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 INDY L78 M-22...REAL CAR?? on: June 14, 2006, 10:52:02 PM
Yes, there is a PACE CAR REGISTRY AND WEB SITE. Post the info there and someone might be able to help.

By the way, does the transmission VIN match the car's VIN?


2210  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: part #'s for wheel cylinders on: June 14, 2006, 10:48:14 PM
Group 4.665 Cylinder, Wheel Brake:

Front Left (1 1/8" Diameter) - 5464980
Front Right (1 1/8" diameter) - 5464981
Rear (7/8" diameter) - 5464077

I'm sure these numbers have been superceeded over the years, but these are the "original" part numbers.

2211  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Anyone know anything about this '68 L89 Ragtop? on: June 07, 2006, 06:42:22 PM
It's been on ebay a couple of times in the past with no sale. It supposedly has documentation, but exactly what documentation I don't know.

2212  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Pressure Regulator Factory Application/s on: June 05, 2006, 07:30:44 PM

This is an ongoing resarch project the guys are doing. You can read more about it HERE.

2213  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 L48 61amp voltage regulator? on: June 01, 2006, 06:35:52 PM

With only a few exceptions (47 amp alternator and C.A.C on the Corvair, 62 amp alternator on all models and transistor ignition on the Chevelle), all cars equipped with the externally regulated alternator from 1962 through the early 70's used the 1119515 regulator. Your 61 amp L48 with C60 would also have used the 1119515.

2214  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Alternator (GEN) light on when key is off. on: May 27, 2006, 12:56:08 PM

Sorry to hear about your "adventures". Take the alternator back to them and tell them your discovery. It may be something as simple as them having to change the front case for some reason. I always recommend talking to them before jumping to conclusions. I'm not familiar with that particular shop (I live in Murrieta, so I know most everyone in the area), but I sincerely doubt that a reputable rebuilder would do a "bait and switch" on you.

If you can't get satisfaction from the guy behind the counter, ask to talk to the manager or owner as the case may be. Make sure you stay level headed and don't get into a pi55ing match!! Check to see if they're a member of the BBB. If so, and you can't get results, contact the BBB and lodge a complaint. If it's happened before, they'll know about it and investigate. If it's an isolated case, then there's not much you can do except vent here!

Keep us informed...

2215  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 LM1 article on: May 27, 2006, 12:40:57 PM

Again, as usual, another GREAT article by the CRG. Two thumbs up!!

2216  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 Camaro big block oil line fittings on: May 27, 2006, 12:37:08 PM
As a rule, the AIM only lists other engines if there is a difference. In other words, the L35 is the "base" big block for the 68 Camaro, therefore that's the one used as the reference. Unless there's a difference between the L35 and the L34 or L78 (or L89), the notes will say "L35". If there's no difference, then you can use the "L35" reference for the other big block engines as well.

The oil line references you see are for small blocks AND big blocks, with the small block connection being next to the distributor and the big block connection being above the oil filter. The bracket you reference for "belonging to L35" is also used on the L34 and L78 (and L89). But like I said above, USUALLY if there's no difference between the part used on the L35, there won't be a further reference to other big blocks. Exceptions to that rule are scattered throughout the book, I.E. look at item number 4 on that same page. Even though the L34 used the same part, they only show the "L35. 78".

I'm not familiar with what the 69 had, but yes, the 68 big block was a 3 piece arrangement with the number 5 elbow being used because of the close proximity of the oil line to the clutch Z-Bar. Even though it wasn't needed on automatic transmission cars, I would assume it was used anyway since the AIM doesn't state if it's for manual transmissions only.

You are correct, item number 11 is the Sender for the Water Temperature Gauge connection. It's drawn for the small block location.

2217  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 dash pad on: May 27, 2006, 12:07:06 PM
The pads are the same.

2218  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: ...your opinion??? ...I have POP, is for sale elsewhere... on: May 25, 2006, 07:24:00 PM

No matter what you do, I would make sure a copy of the docs end up in the CRG hands. That way, even if they're "lost" at a later date, the proof will still be with us!

2219  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 chrome strip on: May 23, 2006, 10:54:44 AM

All 68 Camaro Rally Sport cars (Coupes and Convertibles) got chrome strips on the front fenders, doors and rear fenders. They followed the contour of the indentations in the metal and gave the car a "Coke bottle" effect, as you can see in the first picture.

Non-Rally Sport cars (Coupes and Convertibles) got a singe chrome strip on the lower rocker panel as you can see in the second picture.

So to answer your question, yes, if the car's a Rally Sport, the rear strip should be slanted down.


2220  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Power steer pump cap on: May 23, 2006, 10:13:17 AM
Although not clear, I would conclude, since there is a seperate p/n for the '69 cap, that the Camaro reference here  is for years other than '69


No, I don't think so. If that was the case, the book would have stated something like:

62-69 Nova,
64-69 Chevelle,
67-68 Camaro - 5690846

That's the normal convention it uses if there's a change between the years.

But since it states "62-69 Nova, Chevelle (even though there was no 62 or 63 Chevelle), Camaro (again, even though there was no 62-66 Camaro)", I would say that the 69 Camaro may have started out with the metal cap and then changed to the plastic one at some point.

Another note we should look at is the date of my P&A, which is September, 1968. This would indicate that IF there was a change from metal to plastic, the change would have probably occurred very early in the 1969 model year. Perhaps a phase out of the metal cap in favor of the plastic. Since a power steering cap wouldn't make any difference in the drivability of the car, it's possible that the factory used both for a period of time until the metal caps were finally exhausted from stock.

Of course, I'm just guessing here.

JohnZ, was this a normal procedure for the factory to phase in or phase out parts over a period of time?


Pages: 1 ... 146 147 [148] 149 150 ... 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 0.093 seconds with 18 queries.