CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 25, 2015, 01:15:36 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.
109068 Posts in 12626 Topics by 4860 Members
Latest Member: 67rsz
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 79
1066  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Question 386 block on: August 25, 2006, 12:38:01 PM
It might seem like a silly question for some of you, I have a 69 327 with a 386 casting. If this is the same casting # as early dz & 350 engines,  why do 302 & 350 use different motor frame mounts than the 327 ? 

One of the first and largest auto recalls back in the '60s was caused by failure of the LH motor mount in 8 cylinder '65-'68 Chevrolet passenger cars. When the mount failed, under acceleration the engine would lift off the bracket, often causing the accelerator linkage to bind. The car would continue accelerating even after releasing pressure on the fuel pedal.This caused several serious accidents. The recall involved the band-aid fix of a cable/bracket assembly attached to the exhaust manifold and looped around the upper control arm shaft.

For '69 Chevy re-designed the mount with an integral hook to prevent physical separation of the parts if the rubber/metal bond failed. The "interlock" mount was narrower and thicker than the previous design necessitating re-designed frame brackets. For sb '69 Camaros Chevy only used the new mount/brackets with 302 and 350 engines, deemed most likely to need them. 307 and 327 engines continued to use the old design.

The problem with this is the early mount will fit the later interlock frame bracket. It is a very sloppy fit; the engine will be positioned too low and can easily move around causing clutch chatter and driveline vibration.
1067  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Exhaust System Configuration on 69Z'z on: August 19, 2006, 04:29:55 PM
The April 15 date is not correct. Dual exhaust Camaros had resonators starting with 1967 production. The "deep-tone" dual exhaust option for 67-68 simply eliminated them.

Possibly due to a short-term supply problem when chambered was dropped as standard equipment some 69s were built without them. The problem went away around February. Check the undercarriage photos of the #3 ZL1 on the rack at Berger Chev for the Hi-Perf Cars Magazine road test. Built 02D, has resonators. Assembly-line systems had the exhaust pipes welded to the resonators; the photos show no clamps.

05A is probably too early for chrome tailpipes. Not that I care, I put them on my car too.

1068  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z28 Question on: August 18, 2006, 07:01:00 PM
There is nothing in the VIN that will identify the car as a Z/28.

Depending on where/when it was built there could be corroborating information on the body tag, which is mounted on the firewall behind the power brake booster. Everybody knows that so there is plenty of skullduggery going on with the tags. There is certain equipment like power front disc brakes and dual exhaust that all Z/28s had but none of it is unique to the Z/28.

Assume for now it is not a Z/28. If has a relatively clean rust free body that doesn't need paint or major work, power front discs, Muncie 4-speed and 12 posi axle and drives ok it is probably worth 15k or a bit more anyway. The big block doesn't help but may have resale value. As a final thought more than a few COPOs were disguised as Z/28s.

Get the VIN and info off the body tag, post it here.

1069  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: COPO? on: August 18, 2006, 12:06:12 PM
John the car is an RS. All RS grilles were black except for black cars.
1070  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Tic toc tach w/gauges on: August 13, 2006, 03:53:20 PM
U16 tach only was added during the 1969 model year. COPO documentation indicates it appeared to be added at the request of someone like Yenko to eliminate having to add an aftermarket unit.
1071  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Did GM ever put M-20 in 69 Z-28?? on: August 13, 2006, 11:25:33 AM
I have a fair amount of '69 documentation; 20% of the Z/28s have M20.
1072  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: your thoughts on date code 302 on: August 11, 2006, 12:25:17 PM
I have a small db of DZ engine dates relative to VIN. February is not even close to correct for an 05A car.
1073  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: m 11 option th400 floor shift non console on: August 09, 2006, 08:25:14 PM
When the ebay M11/T400 car was up earlier this year it was discussed on Someone posted a photo of a '67? Mustang shift bezel and it appeared to be the same part.

The thread is still there with the photos. Search M11. The thread is "Super rare 68 Camaro SS".
1074  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Dash Instrument Panel on: August 07, 2006, 08:52:18 PM
First of all there were 4 switches used: std, std w/gauges, rs, rs w/gauges. Make sure the new one is correct for your application.

My memory is a bit fuzzy on this but I do not believe the dash needs to be removed to replace the switch. There is a small spring loaded button on the switch. If you can reach under the dash, depress it and pull the switch knob all the way out-may take some jiggling. Once out, remove the round retainer nut and the switch can be pulled out and swapped.

If you already have the dash mostly loose, take the screws out of the heater control panel. Before you do that put some masking tape across the lens at the top-once loose the panel may spring back into the top of the dash which may scratch it. It also sounds like you do not have the nuts off the studs along the right side of the housing near the heater controls-you will have to get at those from behind. Also, the nuts under the radio knobs must be removed.

1075  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Parchment/Black question on: August 03, 2006, 10:18:52 PM
Nope; console would be all black.
1076  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: need a transverse muffler for 69 Z , on: August 01, 2006, 12:13:35 PM
It is fact.

Bill Porterfield did a series of dyno runs on a ZL1 engine. Disconnecting the chambered exhaust picked up around 80 hp.

Todays' 3" flowmaster X-pipe systems cost virtually no hp.
1077  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 z/28 full floating connecting rods - Fact or Fiction on: July 28, 2006, 07:14:49 PM
Nope, both of mine had floating pins.
1078  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: COPO? on: July 26, 2006, 12:26:34 PM
This a fairly common question on many of the 1st gen boards. The responses are predictable-look for this, what is the body number, etc.

None of it is proof the car is a COPO. The only proof is original factory paperwork or an unquestionable, original VIN stamped engine.

Cunneen has knowledge of the cars but no one has Chevrolet build records. I believe he no longer "certifies" cars.
If you have any reason to believe the car was sold new in Canada you can get info from the Zone office there as they still have records.

Your next step is to start tracking past ownership. Maybe someone has paperwork or the motor. Long shot but worth it. There are many near perfect COPO clownes out there. No one trusts undocumented cars these days.
1079  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 z/28 driveshaft on: July 18, 2006, 07:09:30 PM
Yup; car had bars and big rubber on a "BO" code 3.73 open.

Something broke, probably the rear U-joint, and when the driveshaft got loose it acquired a dent. The blacksmiths that repaired it re-installed the now-unbalanced driveshaft, trashing the pinion bearing. When I acquired the car everything in the housing went in the dumpster.

In all my years I have never heard of a driveshaft failure on a more or less stock 1st gen. 2nd gens are another issue. A friend twisted one into a knot on a '70 Z28.
1080  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 z/28 driveshaft on: July 17, 2006, 05:31:13 PM
I'm not nagging but there were almost 700,000 1st gen Camaros built and conclusions are being drawn based on a couple dozen datapoints.

I've been involved with the cars for over 30 years and the Z/28 driveshaft issue has been out there for as long as I can remember. It became an issue because most driveshafts at the time had in-line yokes. 30 years later we still do not know why some were different.
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 79
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 0.305 seconds with 18 queries.