CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 01, 2014, 02:47:28 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.
103753 Posts in 12184 Topics by 4697 Members
Latest Member: bobs67
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 59
31  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Are There Any "Off Limit" Areas in Your Restoration? on: February 24, 2014, 11:20:42 AM
I am just now finishing the paint and body project I've always wanted to do on my '69 RS since I purchased it in Nov 1991.  When I first acquired the car it had already been repainted and the original engine was long gone.

As I have owned the car over the years my intent has been to maintain an original appearance.  That began with acquiring a '69 Camaro 327 engine to replace the non-original, non-Camaro engine that was in the car when I acquired it.

Over the years my attitude has modified slightly - especially when it came down to the $$$$$ for the paint and body work.  Since my car is neither an  "all original" or "big dollar" car I decided to improve on original if it made sense.  This had included powder coating many pieces including the inner fenders, license plate brackets, misc. brackets, and the wheels.  (Obvious departure from original factory.)

I also had the DX1 stripe put on the car and unlike original the stripe is under the clear coat to achieve a smooth slick finish as opposed to being on top.  Then come to think about it - I can 't replicate the original factory paint anyway - no longer available - and with the base coat / clear coat systems available today - trying to replicate a late '60's laquer system to me wouldn't be the way to go - even if you could.

So although the car still basically looks original, and due to it just being a "nice secretary's car" (as one guy described it to me at a show last year - I asked him where his '69 Camaro was - he turned and walked away) for my money I wanted to improve on factory if it made sense to me to do so.

Partial VIN under the cowl got painted with the body - didn't hurt a thing - clearly visible after paint.

My car has a B and X11 crayon marks in the interior.  They have been left as found - covered when necessary during painting.

Good luck with your project.
32  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: GM silver for Rally wheels. on: February 20, 2014, 11:18:31 PM
..... a set of powder coated wheels in the correct argent silver on my impala. While they will never rust I have a couple of issues with them. Along with the wheels and anything else as Gary mentioned powder coated items have a different sheen to them, so on the wheels it looks like a slight orange peel affect.

I had my wheels powder coated semi-gloss black on the back side and OD first (which is how they were originally), then argent silver on the front.  As far as I am concerned, they came out very nice.  Finish looks good to me.  Comparing them to my spare (which I did not powder coat - left original), the only difference I note is the difference between "new" color on my four wheels vs. a "45 year old color" on the spare.  The slight difference in sheen in my mind is simply a difference in age.

Richard
33  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: '68 D91 stripe vs 396 Emblems on: February 17, 2014, 08:26:08 PM
I just covered the same ground with my '69 RS.  Getting close to finishing a 6 month paint and body project.  In my case I was having the DX1 stripe applied to my car.  I've seen pictures where the bottom of the stripe comes up to the bottom of the engine emblem and then there is a large gap above the engine emblem.  I've also seen pictures of cars where the stripe gap is spaced more or less evenly above and below the engine emblem.  For me it wasn't a question of what is technically correct.  For my money, having an equal gap above and below the engine emblem looks much better than the alternative - but then again that's just my preference, which with a $1.50 might buy you a cup of coffee.

That being said, the aftermarket stencil kit left a lot to be desired.  In several places, edges did not align properly across sheetmetal requiring a lot of finesse with blue tape to not only get the edges correct but to get the gap I wanted.

Pics below show during the stencil "finesse" process and after base coat / clear coat.

Good luck

Richard
34  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: 69 brake booster with drums on: February 01, 2014, 09:44:45 PM
Drum brake master cylinder for power brakes (p/n 5460465) has dual bleed valves, one for front and one for rear, due to the master cylinder being mounted at an incline when bolted to the booster.  The correct master cylinder (if configured / rebuilt properly) also has RPV's (Residual Pressure Valves - a type of check valve) internally at each connection behind the seats.    The RPV's prevent pressure bleed down back into the master cylinder and keep the shoes properly positioned.  No proportioning valve needed.

Attached link has some good information and used to have some attachments which for some reason are no longer there.

Maybe Kurt or one of the other moderators can address the missing attachments.

http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=5983.0
35  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: engine block 3782870 9x3157 on: January 24, 2014, 10:19:18 PM
Thanks gentlemen!
 Back in '65, were Canadian blocks suffix-coded any differently than U.S. blocks?

If you mean McKinnon-built engines, no - the only difference was the first character (it was a "K" instead of "F" or "T").

OK John, you've taught me something new again.. Smiley   Until now, I've known *nothing* about a Canadian engine foundry for Chevy.  What years were Chevy engines built at McKinnon?  I've never seen an engine so marked... (perhaps because I've always lived in the southern US, and never seen a Canadian built 'old' Chevy)...  but being the curious sort, I did a little search and found several references to the McKinnon plant, and this entry on 'GM plants', which had quite a bit of detail on McKinnon Industries.

An additional reference:  
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=1979.0

When I purchased my '69 RS in Nov 1991, although it had a 327 in it, it wasn't the correct '69 Camaro 327.  In April 1994 I was fortunate enough to pull a 327 from a '69 Camaro Coupe that was being parted out - complete engine, that is everything except for the heads - which I found a couple of years later in a '69 full size Chevy (Impala as I recall).  I later realized that although I had the correct heads with the correct markings, accessory mounting holes, casting number, etc. that they had actually been manufacdtured by McKinnon Industries and are clearly marked Canada - refer to the attached link and pictures below.

Not sure how those Canadian heads wound up in a full size '69 Chevy in a junkyard in south Louisiana - but they did.
36  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: crayon marks behind rear seat on: January 24, 2014, 10:12:05 PM
My 01C Norwood built '69 RS; X1 and what looks like a B to the left of the X
37  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Temperature sensor question on: January 02, 2014, 08:25:46 AM
In my mind locating the sensor in the head instead of the intake always made good sense - sensor will always be in the coolant flow; hot or cold engine; normal or low coolant level, etc.  I'd find the correct sensor for the head.
38  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: HELP: Conflicting 1969 Camaro Powertrain REAR AXLE Availablities on: January 02, 2014, 08:17:14 AM
...... and stamping a on the OD of the pinion gear.

correction to my previous post - should be ".....OD of ring gear..."
39  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: HELP: Conflicting 1969 Camaro Powertrain REAR AXLE Availablities on: January 01, 2014, 03:22:44 PM
My NOR 01C 69 RS probably had a 307 in it originally (original engine had been removed by the time I purchased the car in 1991 and replaced with a 327).  It still has the original PG transmission and open rear end with 2.73 gears.  Gearing verified by axle code and stamping a on the OD of the pinion gear.  Can supply pictures later if needed.  Currently at 33,000 ft traveling on business and don't have pics with me.
40  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Trim Tag on: December 16, 2013, 04:18:57 PM
Found this link on the topic from 2007 that might be of interest as well:

http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=2609.0

41  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Trim Tag on: December 14, 2013, 12:49:28 AM
Gary,
    Thanks for the info and I do understand that the body number was not sequential.  I will never get the correct body number without the paper work but still would like to know what was around it. The 2 cars I know built 11C are 6798 cars apart and the body number is 7037 numbers apart and the oldest car or one built first had the larger number which is not in sequence.  I believe I will have a special tag made after I get the car built something like the one you described. Thanks Gary

A few years ago I was trying to correlate the body number of my 69 01C Norwood built RS to an actual build date and I had put togehter the following from various sources; i.e. this forum, online auctions, etc.  In my short, non statistical list, the 01B builds vary from 226xxx to body numbers 231xxx.  Beginning with 01C the body numbers dropped back to 220xxx and 225xxx before jumping up to 237xxx.  Close, yes - but definitely not sequential and too much variability to draw any new conclusions.

Build      Body Number

12B       208874
12C       213656
12D       218542
01B       226339
01B       229291
01B       231468
01B       231654
01C       220831
01C       225292
01C       225431
01C       237549

42  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Happy Thanksgiving on: November 28, 2013, 08:08:24 AM
Happy Thanksgiving to all CRG.  Be safe!
43  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Sheetmetal Date Code on: October 01, 2013, 11:32:06 AM
In those days, cars were selling like hotcakes, and the system was stretched to its limits most of the time; for a stamping plant, that meant racks were in short supply, and you can't produce stampings unless you have the proper shipping racks for the panels (each panel had hundreds of special racks designed just for that panel) - there weren't any "warehouses" to store stampngs - the only "storage" was in the rail cars that hauled the racks of panels to the assembly plants.

Referring back to post #7 on page 1 of this thread, would it be kind of odd then that the sheetmetal date code stamped into the driver side door of my car is H34 for an 01C built car?  Quite a time diffrerence between the 34th calendar week of 1968 and 01C bulid (the 3rd week of January 1969).
44  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Tag found on passenger rear quarter of a 69/Z28 LOS car on: September 19, 2013, 11:43:25 PM
One more example - found this today on the passenger side door of my 01C Norwood built '69RS
45  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Sheetmetal Date Code on: September 19, 2013, 06:59:03 PM
My 01C Norwood built '69 RS is currently in paint and body.  Driver (LH) door has one stamp (H34) - at the bottom.  Couldn't find andy stamp on the passenger door.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 59
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 0.41 seconds with 18 queries.