CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 02, 2014, 09:29:05 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.
105016 Posts in 12268 Topics by 4728 Members
Latest Member: MartySS
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20
256  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Air Shocks on: July 14, 2007, 10:01:50 AM
monroe's MA815 work

Funny that Monroe doesn't know that... do you have some in use?
Is that part number really intended for that app or is it just for another make or model of vehicle and it apdapts? If that is the case and it has specs close to what a Camaro actually needs I may be tempted to jump on some regardless since my options seem limited obviously - Thanks for all the help I have rec'd so far from everyone here - Randy
257  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Air Shocks on: July 14, 2007, 09:57:02 AM
I have a set on my Z28 and you can have them when I change out for the originals ones I have.  I will look tomorrow and see what kind they are.  I think Gabriel and they do look old.
'68 My old ones are supposed to be Gabriels as well and the old box says 715sc and 49374 on it but no brand name so I wonder what they actually are and supposed to fit...
A friend went the 15 hours from here to a Fall Carlise 12-13 years ago and picked them up for me when there. I'll have to try and run those numbers to see what they were really intended for! - but they did fit although never worked that well.
Thanks for the offer - your old one's shipping would probably end up costing almost as much as new ones here if I could get some - Thanks - Randy
258  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Air Shocks on: July 14, 2007, 09:38:32 AM
It would be up to you as to whether they would fit or not. The last set I bought for a multi-leaf car was about 4 years ago and they were from NAPA. I cannot believe that Monroe would quit making these.............RatPack...............

I can't either - but that was the story I got from a somewhat surly tech-guy yesterday at Monroe. About the only good help I got from him was "the height of the spring pack interferes with the air valve"... He didn't at all seem interested in trying to cross other models or similar GM lines to see if other models might have some that would work either.
The ones you mention sound very close - NAPA we don't have up here - was it a brand exclusive to them or was it a generic brand you ended up with like Gabriel or Monroe?
Thanks - Randy
259  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Air Shocks on: July 13, 2007, 06:35:05 AM
Has anyone found a set of air shocks that will fit the rear of a '68 with multi leaf springs? I tried listings and tech lines for Gabrille and Monroe and all said they had models for '68 single leaf versions - but none for the multi leaf variety - due to clearance issues???
Anyone found a set for a multi leaf application from any other supplier? Nova models apparently have some available but they appear to be different length and mounting brackets although I don't know why, as they were chassis-wise supposed to be the same from what I knew,,,  Thanks - Randy
260  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: New Camaro in Detroit on: July 04, 2007, 04:27:50 PM
I've got my flame suit on so have at me, I just hope that some of this hype from a potential buyer will enlighten them to make some changes before it goes into production

No flames from me here - I have always maintained that the car should have been much more retro from the very outset, and a bare bones Hi- Po model like a '67-'68 L78-type deal available for those who can't afford (and don't want the 6 disk changer/heated mirrors/powered moon roof/version) but want to beat the snot out of the Cobras that are out there now.
I like the way Ford is back-dooring the kits to hop their cars up as well - but they invented that sort of stuff with the early - to mid 90's Mustangs and that is why in my opinion the Camaro line bit the dust soon after. Maybe history is about to repeat itself over again in only a decade! 

The new car just doesn't do it for me and I hate to admit it but the Mustang is the best looking of the bunch so far (no I'm not a Ford fan in the least, just giving credit where due) and IMHO Ford won't get any challenge from the GM stable in this round. The gate has been wide open for a couple of years now but unlike 40 years ago I don't think GM has the goods to make up for the lost time and market with what they are showing here.

I have my asbestos undershorts on now too... so light it up!    Randy

261  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Could this be the original distributor in my 1968 Z/28? on: January 22, 2007, 04:29:52 PM
Thanks for the great info jerry - unfortunately now it appears it's not just a fairly expensive distributor, but it appears to be the one that belongs where it is and where it will have to stay - so much for the $$ signs in my eyes!! - Ha just kidding... - Randy
262  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Could this be the original distributor in my 1968 Z/28? on: January 22, 2007, 10:57:48 AM
Good info Jerry... Just curious was the 7A25 a fairly common date for many of these distributors to be coded and if so how many other groups of them have you found other than the 8A & 8B examples that you make reference to?
In other words is the theory that they were produced in batches a workable one and do you have any idea how often did it occur? I always felt my distributor was original to the car but some doubt did linger considering the obvious duration of time the date code displayed. Guess to start this thread off Paul was as well! Thanks again - Randy

263  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Could this be the original distributor in my 1968 Z/28? on: January 22, 2007, 03:45:53 AM
Hi Paul:

Yes I'm sure Jerry would know - probably better than anyone out there, but having said that there are still quite a few things that don't always fit 'the norm' when it comes to these first gen cars especially lower volume or specialty models like the Z's etc. but he surely has seen a lot of them and restores these units for customers all the time.
My car is now away in storage and will be for the next 5 months so checking for the water pump numbers isn't at all an easy deal for me at this point. Apparently according to my scribbled notes in my Definitive book (I added my own notes to each part listing in the book as I was searching) I see I found and discerned only part of a date code of G??8 on it when I was originally looking and I guess I never got back to try and find or clairify more than that...
The distributor point cam is the unit that sits on top of the actual distributor shaft itself and has the springs and weights on top, allowing more timing advance than normal due to the longer limiting slot cut into it. The 532 CCW is stamped on the underside of one the the wings of it and you might be able to see it with a small mirror squeezed in and aimed over the points or condensor. Obviously it is much easier to see with the distributor pulled out and held upside down.   - Randy 
264  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Could this be the original distributor in my 1968 Z/28? on: January 22, 2007, 01:31:55 AM
Sorry Ed - I misunderstood you reply - should read a little closer before I post I guess.
Can or should I gather you concur that both of our distributors (Paul's and mine) are probably original even though the dates seem so far off from the accepted norm?
If so, I guess it might or could tell us that Chevy intended the Z/28 model to be a lot more popular than it turned out to be in the first go-around and there were some left over distributors specifically built for those '67 models than languished in the parts bin until the start of the next year's production. That wouldn't be all that surprising since they never really advertised the '67 model from what I know, and only half way into the '68 year did the RPO become the actual model name and advertised as 'The Next Thing To The Corvette' from the ads I have seen.
Sometimes I wonder if parting out one of these things wouldn't be a lot more profiable than selling one intact from some of the EBay pricing I see going on - as I said crazy....    Randy
265  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Could this be the original distributor in my 1968 Z/28? on: January 22, 2007, 12:10:29 AM

I'm not sure if it has much value since it's a 1967 (or even a 1977) date, but you never know. Heck, put it up on ebay for a buck and see if you get any nibbles.



Seems to me that I heard on another site (Yenko one I think) where there was one of these 1111266 distributors being sold on Ebay - bid up to a crazy amount of $$'s just a month or two back - something like $2000 or more and climbing.
It was stated as being rare because it was for a '67 Z/28 model. I didn't see the final amount that it got sold for but it did make me consider at one point heading out to the garage wrenches in hand to pry mine out.... Randy
266  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Could this be the original distributor in my 1968 Z/28? on: January 22, 2007, 12:00:34 AM
Hello Everybody -

I'm a newbie and have a question regarding my 1968 Rally Sport Z/28. I recently towed the car from my parents home, where it has been stored since 1981, to mine as they are about to do some major remodeling. I decided to check the "numbers".  Two parts seem suspicious: the distributor and the water pump. The distributor is stamped 1111266 with a date code of 7A25 and the water pump is cast with the number 3838175 with a date code of D 13 7. According to the book "Chevrolet by the Numbers 1965-69" this distributor was only used in the 1967 model year and the water pump number is not even listed. My car has a build date of 02C from Los Angeles (born and been in California to date). So, the question is do I need to start looking for the correct parts or is it possible these are the factory parts? I've heard that sometimes GM would use parts they had a surplus of on the assembly line (especially in Los Angeles where they did not build as many Z/28s), or are these parts too old? Thanks in advance!


Hi Paul:

I was just reading your post and found it quite amazing. I found the numbers you quoted from your distributor quite familiar sounding so I went hunting for my copy of the Definitive 1967-1968 Z/28 book. I had gone through my entire car (a '68 Z also) when I first got a copy of the book and recorded any and all part numbers and cast/date codes that I could find in it for future reference and information.
I always considered my distributor to be the original since most everything else on the car and especially in and around the engine particulairly, checked out according to what Jerry Mac Neish's book stated they should carry part number-wise. The reason I used 'amazing' earlier is that my distributor is also a 1111266 model and it also has the 7A25 date code on it!!
It has the #532 CCW long slot cam which the book described as being specific for Z/28's...My car is a Norwood 02D unit with most of the driveline parts either cast or date stamped in mid to late December '67 which I have been told makes it a fairly early production '68 Z/28 model as most were made a few months later. I never could find the number on the water pump and gave up looking although it may be under a few layers of paint or I'm just not looking in the right place for it.
Interesting distributor coincidence though and I makes me wonder if it is possible that such units were batch produced at some points in time for specific applications like the Z or other specific models...  Randy
267  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Kerosene washing??? on: January 20, 2007, 10:44:09 PM
Yea doesn't the price today make you sick. I recall throwing in a fiver on a Friday night (which got me a bit more than 1/2 a tank in my '70 396/375 Nova) and it lasted me most of the weekend of fooling around... Not many actual miles driven but lots of tire wear!!! - Randy
268  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Kerosene washing??? on: January 20, 2007, 01:45:44 AM
Thanks to the few of you who have responded to my post. I was hopeful this would get much more action and information for me than it did, since I know the average age here is probably high enough just by virtue of the fact that this is a first gen site!
Many here still may have original cars they bought in their early twenties or those who are reliving their youth by buying first gen Camaros again and l once resided in the Northern States or Canada I'm sure, must have had some experience with the kerosene-thing at least second hand... Maybe this whole thread wasn't Camaro enough related though I know they rusted almost a bad as Mustangs (am I allowed to use that word here?)...
I was especially hopeful that more 'paint experts' might have chimed in with their impressions or feedback about the durability or lack thereof, of base/clear paints these days verses the older types of finishes from the fifties and sixties. I'm reasonably sure that if the newer finishes can withstand the acid rain, airborne pollution, and high UV, that seems to surround us these days and to a much greater extent than 40-50 years back - then a bit of oil in the wash couldn't be that much of a daunting situation. But I will admit I know little about paint chemistry or application (wish I did).
The biggest issue I thought I would be warned about would be the tendency of any oils (and I felt it would take a substantial amount more than what I expected to hear was used kerosene washing 'back in the day') to loosen the adhesives that stick on the trim bits that abound on newer vehicles.
Anyway, Thanks to those who did respond and just the memories about kerosene in the wash does also take me back personally to a time in my late teens when life was much simplier and much more fun (high octane @ the pumps for $.30 CDN etc) and miles per gallon certainly wasn't the figure that entered anyone's mind or came up in conversation...
One thing though that IS still a constant and a certainty as well from those days past, is still (at least in this climate) our government's desire to keep the economy going by throwing ungodly amounts of road salt down at this time of year to insure we have to keep buying new vehicles much sooner than we should ever have to!   Thanks - Randy
269  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Kerosene washing??? on: January 15, 2007, 11:05:49 PM
I know to many this may seem to be an odd topic and a series of questions which have literally nothing to do with Camaros directly, first gens or otherwise, but my Z is hibernating away for the next 5 months or so and I have too much time on my hands obviously!!
Do any of you recall stories of washing vehicles in years past with kerosene or by adding it to the water bucket when washing a vehicle?
I recall many years back seeing a few older gentlemen who had cars that were 20 and more years old and still in perfect condition due to the fact that they (apparently) regularly washed their cars with at least some kerosene added to the water. It apparently got under and behind the chrome bits and into body seams where it slowed the rust and seemingly made a great difference to vehicles that normally would have rotted away many years earlier in most cases, due to heavy salting of our roads in the winter months.
The topic come up on another board briefly and it brought back memories of cars I saw that were immaculate back in the sixties and early seventies. The cars I recall seeing were then 15 to 20 years old and the paint and chrome was perfect - the reason I was given was the use of the kerosene...
The link that I read lately mentioned it was an old-timer's cure for keeping paint from oxidizing and the chrome bright and it got me wondering if it would still work as well today. I'm curious if it would or not be compatible with the current base/clear paints and all the plastic bits on vehicles today depending on the amount used.
Anyone know if this is more fiction than fact from years past or if it did work, would it still in this day and age? If yes then how much would or should be added to the water to help produce the desired effect without going overboard and creating environmental problems and a smelly mess?
I just bought a new Sierrra Z71 and driving it tonight through all the salty road slush really made me cringe and got me thinking about trying it if I can get some feedback that is positive...
Odd topic and questions I know, but I realize there are many oldtimers on this board (besides myself) who may be able to recall if this was a common and beneficial practice in years gone by.  Thanks - Randy   
270  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 2009 Camaro is Coming!!! on: August 15, 2006, 03:18:45 PM
I think we all are sharing the same sentiment.  Except for minor styling carry over (69 side fake side louvers, console mounted gages, 68 "looking" instrument cluster), not much else reminds me of the 1st gen.  In my mind, the front end is the weak link.  Back end is a much more pleasing design (to me).

Problem is that those that brought us the tri 5 chevys, 1st gen Camaros, etc are long gone, and a different breed of designer is behind the wheel.  Seems like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too by appealing both to those that grew up with 1st gen Camaros and the current youth market.  They aren't the same. 

It will be interesting to see if they can sell 100,000 Camaros / year.  I personally believe that Chevy is off target much in the same way that Ford was with the revival of the Thunderbird.  It was too new and not enought old.  They learned and took that learning to the Mustang. Ford has the right idea with the Mustang. Update it, but definitely have it carry the look of the late '60's.

Couldn't have stated it better myself - but I'll try...   
      It's too bad but I think this should be the signal to all (especially after everyone else is obviously able to get it) that the GM we all apparently fondly remember from the late fifties through to the early seventies for styling and sensing what their buying public wanted, is dead and gone.
      Just because we in this forum are generally first generation fans doesn't mean we have a licence to think we know that everyone generally would have preferred a more retro styled Camaro, as many comments in this forum have shown since the concept cars inception - but I do feel we all share the sense that GM doesn't even care about what we think - and so this model will be pushed ahead because 'they think they know us better than we know ourselves - as to just what we need and want'...
       I said it before and will again - this will be a marginally accepted platform which due to GM's inability to listen to their customer and fan input will deal it a premature death. It will be overpriced and optioned to enable only those prospective buyers with very deep pockets the opportunity to experience a true GM high performance car again, Corvette excepted - but how many of us over the years have chosen to buy Camaros even as we lusted for the performance that a Corvete would have provided - just because of price considerations.
      Ford and Chrysler have been able to fell the pulse of their buyers, but GM doesn't apparently even care to try, and this new Camaro will only be another nail in the coffin unfortunately!  IMHO - Randy
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.099 seconds with 18 queries.