CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 20, 2014, 12:59:10 PM

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.
105544 Posts in 12323 Topics by 4751 Members
Latest Member: Blakep54
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 34
451  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 z/28 full floating connecting rods - Fact or Fiction on: July 30, 2006, 08:57:01 PM
"1965 - 69 Chevrolet by the numbers" says for 1969 302/290 piston pin was floating pin.

Steve
452  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 68 l78 pulley question on: July 26, 2006, 06:47:51 PM
copojo & Marty

I'm the original owner of my 68 which still has the original L78 engine and attachments/components.  The pulley has the # and CV on it.

Steve
453  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Replacing horn and cap on: July 10, 2006, 06:28:42 PM
Great!!  I wondered how things turned out.  Glad to hear you got it working. 

Steve
454  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: clutch rod on: July 08, 2006, 09:52:33 PM
Arno

I believe the confusion is with the shop manual using the language " 2 piece rod on a Camaro V8".  It's just to general a statement in this case.  The Parts Books clarify it well.  The Camaro V8 (8 cyl except the 396's) use the 2 piece and the 396's use a one piece design.  6 cyl's also use a 1 piece design.

Steve
455  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Camaro booster numbers on: July 04, 2006, 11:35:43 AM
Brian

The part number for 67 Camaro drum was (Bendix 2505735) 3918715, (Moraine) 5462049, (Moraine with metallic linings) 5463133.  67 with disk brakes (Moraine) 5458828.

Steve
456  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Replacing horn and cap on: June 29, 2006, 07:26:18 PM
dab67

The "donut" must be installed in the cap for the horn to work as it makes contact with the concave metal piece sitting in the bottom part of the center of the wheel.  When you push on the cap the donut contacts the metal causing it to flatten out and this causes it to contact the "eyelet" that protrudes up through the hub (electrical contact-horn blows).  If that's not exactly right on the actual workings I'm sure someone will correct me however I'm certain for the need of the donut.

Steve.
457  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Can a Saginaw 4 speed be built to handle Big Block horse power? on: June 17, 2006, 09:05:45 AM
West

Look at this site.  http://www.autogear.net/   Smiley

Steve
458  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct shifter on: June 16, 2006, 08:05:14 PM
Bob

My original Muncie (68) is attached to my original M22 which is attached to my original L78. Smiley  I can tell you that it has held up VERY well over the years.  It has seen some pretty tough use including power shifts that where smooth and quick (a given if you want to keep the engine   Grin).  An exception?  Maybe.  I can say with all honesty that the only thing that got trashed from the use of the Muncie were the Boss Mustangs, Hemi's, etc. Grin   For what it's worth, I plan on keeping mine in my original 68.

Steve
459  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: PLEASE PLEASE HELP, NO REAR BRAKES 2 on: June 04, 2006, 06:23:05 PM
Karl

If you have the capability of taking a close-up picture of the back brakes post it so we can examine them and see if another set of eye might spot something for you.

Steve
460  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Small Block decode...what is it? on: June 03, 2006, 07:31:53 PM
There are other letters used.

Steve
461  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Small Block decode...what is it? on: May 31, 2006, 07:15:51 PM
I'm pretty sure I know where these originate from but will hold off until Kevin gets the pics of his friends car for us.  I'm not holding back on you guys  Grin just being judicious here.  They are not accidentally "X" double stamped I'm sure of that.  Kevin, what size engine does your friend believe is in his vette?  Try and get the casting date (see what the dates are for the heads and intake are too if possible).  Can you also give us some history on the car please.  I would be surprised if anyone would find these letters delineated in any books anywhere.

Steve
462  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: PLEASE PLEASE HELP, NO REAR BRAKES 2 on: May 29, 2006, 07:21:28 PM
Karl

Since you have fluid at the wheel cylinders then there must be a mechanical problem with the brake set-up within the wheels.  Do you have a shop manual to reference?  If so I would suggest looking at the pictures closely to see if there might be something reversed....such as a spring or the star wheel etc.  There has to be something mechanical wrong or something in the "workings" or the mechanical part of the brake in the wheel and not the new wheel cylinders.  I know this may seem obvious but it would not be the first time a part was installed backwards or upside down.   Smiley

Steve
463  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: PLEASE PLEASE HELP, NO REAR BRAKES 2 on: May 27, 2006, 08:00:36 PM
Do you get any movement of the rear pads at all when the brake is applied?
464  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Small Block decode...what is it? on: May 25, 2006, 07:45:33 PM
Kevin

I have an idea as to what this may be but before I say would it be possible for you to take a picture of the pad stamp and post it?  If you can, JohnZ would you please look at it and give your opinion on the V0706 part and if you believe it to be an original GM stamp?  Kevin, what else can you tell us about the block that might put an approximate date on it?  Thanks?

Steve
465  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Power steer pump cap on: May 23, 2006, 08:17:10 PM
Ed

Perhaps Rich is on target.  Taking into consideration they just neglected to delineate like you did in your post for the Camaro for 67-68.  I have had my head in these books for many years and if I had to make a call on this at this point I would say because the 69 has the separate listing for the Camaro it is the correct p/n for the entire year.  Especially since the 5690846 was apparently not being mixed with, or used instead of, any other part up to 5/70.  Sorry if my 2 cents upsets you Jeff but what do I know anyway.

Steve
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 34
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 0.118 seconds with 18 queries.