Messages

946

Decoding/Numbers / Re: intake manifold casting numbers

« on: July 28, 2006, 04:22:39 AM »

The other "pocket" size part number reference books that I referred in a previous post above are:

1. General Motors Muscle Cars; Part Number Descriptions for the Chevrolet Division 1967-1975 Camaro; copyright 1992 by Mark S. Allen

2. General Motors Muscle Cars; Part Number Descriptions for the Chevrolet Division 1964-1972 Chevelle; copyright 1994 by Mark S. Allen

3. General Motors Muscle Cars; Part Number Descriptions for the Chevrolet Division 1955-1990 Small Block Engines; copyright 1991 by Mark S. Allen

947

Decoding/Numbers / Re: intake manifold casting numbers

« on: July 28, 2006, 04:09:43 AM »

From Chevrolet By the Numbers 1965-69, Chapter 9, page 189:

Manifold #3919803
Carb Type:  4BBL Rochester
Year: 1968
Mode/Engine/Horsepowerl:
          Passenger       327cid  250/275 Hp
          Chevelle         327cid  250/275/325 Hp
          Chevy II         327cid  250/275 Hp
                              350cid  295 Hp
          Camaro         327cid  275 Hp
                              350cid  295 Hp
          Corvette        327cid  300/350 Hp

This intake is identical to #3844459 except for some minor interior and exterior casting changes.  Casting #3960364 may appear on this part.  The intake has an oil splash shield and two rear short carburetor studs.  The temperature sending unit hole has been plugged.

Also look at the recent postings at the following link:  http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=969.0
which also discussed the 803 manifold.

948

Decoding/Numbers / Re: intake manifold casting numbers

« on: July 26, 2006, 11:31:33 PM »

Chevrolet by the Numbers:  1965-1969 is a good reference.  There are also several "pocket" sized books with ref Chevy/GM part numbers.  One I have is for 69 Camaro, one is for Small Block Chevrolet, one is for 66 Chevelle, etc.  I'll check tonight as to exact title, etc

949

Originality / Re: 1969 z/28 driveshaft

« on: July 26, 2006, 08:59:34 PM »

Thanks for the input - another BB car (L34 396ci/350HP - SS only) with TH400 and in line yokes.

As appropriately referenced in a previous post - a limited amount of data to draw hard conclusions from - however, there seems to be a trend developing here.......

BB cars w/TH400 have driveshaft with in line yokes, everything else offset yokes.

I say again, what the h _ _ _, over?

950

General Discussion / Re: Do You Really "Feel" the Road Better With Manual?

« on: July 25, 2006, 04:37:25 PM »

Feel it better only because of having to muscle the car around. 

Only advantage I can imagine is freeing up a few Hp by not driving a power steering pump.  If the car is balanced properly, the "feel" of the road should be just as good with power steering.  As an example, NASCAR takes full advantage of power steering - and for good reason.

Except for originality issues, I can't envision why you wouldn't want power steering - or power brakes.

951

Mild Modifications / Re: Power BRAKE Booster - not Power Steering

« on: July 24, 2006, 08:48:50 PM »

You might have to drill and tap npt threads for the fitting - assuming that there is a location on the manifold where you could do it.

952

Restoration / Re: Original style exhaust system for 67ssrs?

« on: July 22, 2006, 09:03:36 PM »

Last year I replaced the dual exhaust that was on my 69 RS with a stainless exhaust manufactured by Stainless Works and purchased through Summit Racing.  Very nice system.  The tail pipe from the back of the wheel well area is polished chrome over the stainless.  This particular exhaust system was designed by Stainless Works to be a bolt in replacement for the original and was designed to bolt up to stock exhaust manifolds.  I also believe they make a system(s) for header applications.  Unit fits nice under the car and mated up well with the hanger locations.  Pipes are mandrel bent.  Muffler is not loud, but is not stock quiet - I was looking for a little throatiness and it sounds pretty good.  Standing behind the car you wouldn't suspect a base 327 under the hood.

Pic shows fit of transverse muffler and tail pipes with the polished exhaust tips.

953

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Mystery '67 Camaro Update - Title in hand!

« on: July 22, 2006, 08:54:02 PM »

AMEN! Hot Damn and Congratulations!!

954

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Can anyone decode 1969 RS/SS ?

« on: July 21, 2006, 05:56:28 PM »

Without documentation, or the original engine with the partial VIN stamped on it, I am not aware of any way to pin it down exactly if multiple engines were a possibility.  Hopefully you will be able to find something to show a L48 car.

CRG has documented SS and the various drivetrain variantations at  http://www.camaros.org/diffs69.shtml  You didn't mention rear springs - does your ride have multi-leaf rear springs?  Being a 12 bolt I am assuming that it does - which would be consistent for SS.

For Los Angeles 69 Camaro production, the last VIN # produced in November 68 was #510583 and for December 68 was #513816  (http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#HowMany).  Your VIN # 124379L512641falls in between which would indicate Dec 1968 build.  What is the body build date on your cowl tag? 

Reason I ask is that if it turns out that your ride is a non-SS car, you may have to further evaluate the situation based on the fact that at the end of 1968, two non SS V8 engine changeovers occured:  LF7 to L14 (327 to 307 base variant) and LM1 to L65 (4 Bbl 350 to 2 Bbl 350).  The timing of both of these engine changeovers are open CRG items of interest. 

An issue fo Chevrolet Service News from early 1969 indicates that the changeover from LM1 to L65 was to occur during Jan 69, but nothing definitive as to exact timing.  As far as the changeover in base V8 engines, it is hard to find any LF7's being built after Dec 1968.  In a previous request that I made to CRG regarding LF7 to L14 changeover, the data indicates that there are numerous L14s from 01A, 01B, 01C in the CRG database.  The last documented LF7 the CRG has is 12C, along with a couple of undocumented LF7s from 12D. 

955

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Can anyone decode 1969 RS/SS ?

« on: July 20, 2006, 11:07:27 PM »

As far as the 1969 RS side of it goes --- the differences are many - the RS variations from the  "standard body" include:

different outer fenders, different inner fenders, different grille, hideaway headlights (based on vacuum actuated, articulating, headlight mounting bracket to rotate the headlight covers in and back in the open position), inner and outer headlight door covers, vacuum cannisters, mounting brackets for the vacuum cannisters, vacuum reservoir, relay valve and the associated vacuum lines, different headlight switch with vacuum hose connections, different windshield wiper switch (2 dentent positions, first detent routes water to the windshield washer nozzles, second detent routes water to the headlight washer nozzles which spray water on the headlights), headlight washer nozzles, diverter valve on the windshield washer pump, water tubing from the diverter valve to the headlight washers, and even a difference in the front header panel to accomodate the headlight washers themselves, bracket that holds the windshield washer bottle - it is physically different on a RS and is located on the passenger side.  And this doesn't include the Style Trim RPO items that are a part of RPO Z22, the RS package.

956

Originality / Re: 1969 z/28 driveshaft

« on: July 19, 2006, 10:56:11 AM »

In line yokes would be as shown in this diagram - in the same plane end to end - no angular offset

957

Originality / Re: 1969 z/28 driveshaft

« on: July 18, 2006, 04:06:04 AM »

William -

Thanks for your insight.   

May not have all of the data points we'd like - but sure seems to be a trend - of some sort.

This is so "out in left field" from the norm that it seems almost a no brainer that this should be a CRG research topic - just my two cents worth. 

Based on my own experience, I still contend that offset yokes will, at the very least, lead to premature failue of the u-joint cross /  bearings and in the worst case possible tranny or rear end damage - depends on mileage, how hard the car was driven, etc. 

Do you know what caused the damage to your original driveshaft?

958

General Discussion / Re: 1st Gen Driveshaft Design - Did GM Make a Mistake?

« on: July 17, 2006, 08:35:03 PM »

This is also currently being discussed at the following link:  http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=980.0

959

Originality / Re: 1969 z/28 driveshaft

« on: July 17, 2006, 07:58:54 PM »

I know nothing about BB cars, but isn't L35 a 396?  As I stated above, as well as what has been stated from those that have contributed at the referenced link above, in line yokes appears to have been the norm for the BB (396) cars with TH400.  What you have stated dovetails perfectly with those observations, i.e. the small block Z28 had offset yokes, the big block L35 had in line yokes. 

The other posts at the above link also report that the SB cars had driveshafts with offset yokes (including one for a 307 which also had a torsional damper on it - the addition of a damper for certain applications is shown in the '69 service manual.)   For example, why does VIN 124379N581767 (01C build) and 124379N551248 (late Nov '68 build), both base coupes, one with powerglide and one with 3 spd manual have original driveshafts with offset yokes?  First car is mine, second car was being scrapped and is the car that I pulled the 327 engine from that currently is in my car.  I also kept the driveshaft - still have it. Up to that time, I had assumed that the driveshaft in my car was a manufacturing error.  Then lo and behold a second base coupe with the same offset yoke driveshaft.

This has been my question all along - why did GM/Chevy do this in the first place and why did they apply it to a wide variety of SB V8 - far beyond Z28 only.

Based on the contributions of all who have commented on this topic, I would agree that in line yokes seems to have been the norm for 396 with TH400.  However, it also appears that the majority (if not all) other applications had offset yokes - a much wider useage than for Z28 only - why?   Can't ignore the fact that several base Camaros came with these driveshafts as well.

960

Originality / Re: 1969 z/28 driveshaft

« on: July 15, 2006, 10:01:00 PM »

I disagree with the statement that Z/28 driveshafts often have offset yokes while most others did not. To date, through this forum, for 1969 (and 1st Generation in general), it appears that only BB cars with TH400 transmissions had "normal" driveshafts with the yokes in line. 

As discussed recently, offsetting the yokes in a driveshaft is very unusual, and is not how one normally would build a driveshaft.  Matter of fact, just the opposite is true.  You want the yokes in line to cancel out the normal torque and rpm variations (especially problematic at 2X rpm) that exist between the driving and driven ends of a "cardan type"  mechanical coupling (driveshaft).

See posts at this link: http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=914.0

Best "guess" that I've heard to date was that offsetting the driveshaft yokes was done in order to help stiffen the rear end without, hopefully, causing driveline problems.  It is well documented in various souces, including Untold Secrets that the higher horsepower cars had handling and rear suspension issues (axle wrap and wheel hop) - especially in 1967.  Some of GM's cures beginning with the 1968 model year included:  staggered rear shocks and  multi-leaf/multi-rate rear springs.

GM had a reason - hopefully it will be one of those things that we all will want to fully understand.