CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 20, 2014, 11:01:14 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.
97256 Posts in 11694 Topics by 4578 Members
Latest Member: ronhill
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 18
31  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dash pad codes on: November 06, 2012, 07:03:38 PM
Jerry - everything under the hood was splashed with flat black paint when I got the car and it took me quite a bit of effort and more paint to correct it all - so if there is anything (or was) scripted there, its well buried by now.
As for an original spare mine didn't have an original one and you may be in the .001% of owners who have cars which still do!
As for marks in the valence area I don't ever recall seeing any - but never really looked all that hard and never had any front end parts off for any reason to make it more obvious if it ever would be..
Thanks for the suggestions though - imagine it could be some form of scheduling number but if I understand it correctly there wouldn't be much in the way of correlation between trim parts like a dash pad and front body assembly bits at Norwood which were done in different areas and divisions.
Possibly if the seats, carpets, or headliner etc. were done at the same time as the dash pad in the Chevrolet side and not split between that and the Fisher side, it might be logical that they needed to be tied into a work order number for colour coding etc. and thus such a number to assist in that..
Thanks - Randy
32  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Dash pad codes on: November 06, 2012, 07:04:31 AM
You all had my curiosity going with this - so I looked under my original pad I still have laying around and it has a 122167 number stamped in silver ink on it, along with and beside with a round logo that says 'made in canada' printed in the same silver paint, and there is also what appears to be a hand written grease pencil number scrawled nearby which is 317.
Most of the parts for my car were all cast in late December '67 and this appears at least to be another piece which follows that trend if the numbers I am seeing make sense and follow that trend. As for the 317 - I have no idea..

Randy
33  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1111266 z/28 distributor on: October 22, 2012, 07:59:57 PM
I couldn't find it but I did find 2 that ended on the 10th in the completed listings. Both were $1850.00 and neither one sold.

I know what I was offered 'out of the blue' for mine and also what a couple of other guys I have had contact with also have been offered for theirs and $1850.00 ain't anywhere even close - so there has to be something going on here..
The point cam stamping number isn't correct from what the 'Definitive' book and my unit shows and if I recall correctly the vacuum cannister doesn't have the correct number on it either..
34  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Door weatherstrip on: October 11, 2012, 08:37:07 PM
Since I have also been considering a weatherstrip redo next Spring - my take from this thread is that the Softseal stuff is too bulky/hard regardless of whether your doors are or do fit as original..
What I'm hearing also is that the Metro ones are best of all, the Super Soft Latex stuff the type to strive for - true NOS being the only better choice if cost and availability is no object (which it is for me)..
My doors and bits are completely original except for having been off for repainting in 1980 and this year I noticed that I hear a lot more road noise than ever before, while even the slightest pressure will close them now - so that tells me that my 30+ year old versions are not getting it done anymore..
Is the Metro stuff as flogged by Summit (as an example) the same as what you might get right from Metro or are there differences depending where it is sourced? There seems to be quite a range of pricing from what I see for apparently identical items and/or kits depending on the retailer, and dealing with a Summit or similarly large retailer usually seems to bring a better deal to us here North or the border after customs, shipping, and brokerage costs all get factored in..
I did use a Softseal trunk seal a couple of years back and it was initially quite stiff until I sat the car out in the sun with the lid shut a few times and now closes and works great - but again, original sheetmetal and fit maybe somewhat at work here..
Are the pieces the windows seal against when rolled up, durable and OK from Metro in the latex material, or would they be preferable and longer lasting in a denser material like a Softseal product might provide, considering the abrasion and force they get subjected to?
I only wish to do this once and as hassle-free as possible, so the more info I can get to help me choose the best options the better..
Thanks - Randy     
35  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Shifter Boot... on: September 30, 2012, 06:21:37 AM
Here are a few more shots of my NOS shift boot.

Jon - probably a stupid question, but in one of your pictures of your new and NOS boot taken from directly above, it appears as though the base of the rubber boot has a taper that makes it wider at one end than the other..
I assume that it is positioned so that it faces with the wider end towards the front of the transmission tunnel and the narrower end towards the rear and seats?
It appears as though it and the rest of the mounting hardware could be attached either way and now that I look at it, I believe that I may have in haste to 'be on the road' have had mine reversed with the narrower dimension facing towards the front of the car.
This may have in some small degree contributed to my old boot ripping, although it is also smaller overall than the one I now have in hand from HBC (finally after 4 weeks and almost $25 over the list price - you gotta love shipping and customs to Northern Canada - eh!?). I'm ready to install the new one and just want to make sure I get it correct this time..
I can't seem to find a picture of the correct orientation although it would be hard to in fact see considering the minor differences in the dimensions in any interior picture..
Thanks - Randy
36  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Speedo cable length... on: September 28, 2012, 06:45:35 PM
Chick - forgot to ask how your awesome restoration is proceeding - got any pictures or updates you are willing to share?
37  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Speedo cable length... on: September 28, 2012, 06:17:14 PM
Thanks for the responses and Tony you, for renewing this thread so it finally got some response - I actually had forgotten all about it after so long!
I hardly ever use the car so obviously the speedo isn't or hasn't been a big issue - but now I know exactly what to hunt for..
Chick - the MO sibling is still on the engine stand but I am thinking maybe of reinstalling it next year because I miss that distinctive sound. It too is all rebuilt and just needs to be dragged out of the house and dropped in - all I need is a good stretch of enthusiasm I guess..
Thanks again to everyone - Randy
38  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Speedo cable length... on: September 27, 2012, 07:20:55 PM
I measured our 68Z cable yesterday (under restoration) and it measured approximately 60 to 61".  Assume it is the original!
Chick - does your cable go directly into the side or does it use one of those 90 degree fittings that I have seen advertised in parts catalogs?
I always figured mine wore out because there was such a sharp bend where it mated up to the trans and a right-angle fitting would have fixed the problem and was missing - or maybe mine was just old and wore out...
Thanks - Randy
39  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 302 engine build piston recomendations on: September 12, 2012, 08:06:44 PM
My 302 was rebuilt years back with TRW's - actual ID is L2210AF (in the .030" oversize) and they use the narrow ring set. They can be milled down a considerable amount (if I recall up to .250") to vary the compression to suit various needs and situations and TRW reccomended .005" - .007" of bore clearance depending upon application.
When I last had the 302 in my car it was running between .007" & .008" and cold it still had no piston slap although it did smoke a bit at 6000 rpm and up - but not at all badly considering those tollerances with that type of set up..

Randy
40  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Shifter Boot... on: September 03, 2012, 07:33:16 AM
Thanks again Jon for all the pictures and trouble you have taken - Ebay etc... to assist me!
I looked at mine last evening when I was near the car and it does look a lot smaller and shorter than the one(s) you pictured and what HBC shows is available on their site.
I didn't have access to a camera at the time, but I am sure the one(s) you pictured as well as the HBC version (which appear to be very, if not perfectly similar) are at least 1 fold of rubber taller than what my presently ripped one is and to my way of thinking that would make that type a lot more flexible and less likely to tear again, so for the sake of a couple of $$'s I just ordered one from HBC as I don't have an Ebay or Paypal account.
Thanks to you and Paul as well for the time and assistance - hopefully it will cure my problem...
Even if its not a perfect match for the real thing, at least it will be tons better than what I presently have and hopefully good for a few more years - it certainly will improve the interior appearance as the ripped boot kinda stood out!
Much appreciated - Randy





41  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Shifter Boot... on: September 02, 2012, 01:21:11 PM
Jon:  I am not near the car for a couple of days but I will try and see how they compare and try and get a picture when I am - thanks.
Paul: The one you posted a link to certainly does look very similar to the ones that Jon posted pictures of - that may be where I have to go for my next one - Thanks also..

Randy
42  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Shifter Boot... on: September 02, 2012, 07:54:32 AM
Thanks for the pictures Jon - they are worth a thousand words...
What I have now is close in appearance but as mentioned appears to be shorter in height than those you show and that probably is the main reason for the rip it has now developed where the shifter rod goes through the grommet at the top.
Yours and the GM versions pictured appear to be the type that would solve much of my problem if shorter transplates into more stress where the handle and boot meet - just have to figure out where to find something reasonably cheaper than trying to chase down NOS stuff.
I assume the plate shown in the photos is the correct GM one for such an application as well? It seems to be exactly what mine looks like and from the originality of the rest of the car expect that it would be original.
Thanks again - Randy
43  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Shifter Boot... on: August 31, 2012, 05:38:30 AM
"appear taller with at least one or more folds".. 
 What I meant to say was "with at least one or more folds more than mine"...

Randy
44  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Shifter Boot... on: August 30, 2012, 09:59:38 PM
I presently have a rubber shifter boot on my '68 Z/28 which always seemed kinda small or tight for the throws of the shifter handle. I now notice it is getting ripped where the handle protrudes through, from the pressure of the handle and appears it isn't the correct design for the job.
I have noticed a few other non-console Z/28's like mine pictured lately that seem to have boots which appear taller with at least one or more folds - allowing I assume, more back and forth movement, without tearing like mine has.
Can anyone recommend where I can one that best mimics an original in appearance yet maintains a reasonable price? The one I have was purchased many years back from a noted supplier (which I can't recall now) and was supposed to be "OEM replacement style" but obviously isn't proper.
Thanks for any help...

Randy
45  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Speedometer gearing... on: August 25, 2012, 05:45:01 PM
John - it sounds like a GM# 3987922 gear which I now find out from elsewhere on the web should be a grey coloured unit with 22 teeth..
Hopefully my friend can try and get one up here in Northern Canada (which isn't sometimes easy) to give it a try - again your assistance is very much appreciated.
You're probably also correct also about transmission number as I now hear it was out of 1965 Beaumont which probably used a Muncie and not the Saginaw variety - and he was having trouble reading the casting number off it...
Randy
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 18
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 0.098 seconds with 18 queries.