CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 28, 2014, 07:24:43 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.
102435 Posts in 12087 Topics by 4667 Members
Latest Member: hrascoll
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58
826  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Headlight switch knob removal and switch testing on: March 19, 2006, 01:44:50 AM
I replaced my swithch last year.  My '69 is a RS, so the headlight switch, like yours, also has the vacuum hose connections on it for routing vacuum to open/close the headlight doors.  Replacement switches are available in the aftermarket.  I purchased mine from Year One and it works fine. 

Only difference was that the original swithch, which I still have, had a couple of extra connections on it.  The replacement switch doesn't have the extra connectors - so your first impression is that the replacement switch is incorrect.  However, when you look at the wiring harness connector that plugs into the switch, there isn't any wiring at the locations where the extra connectors are on the original swithch. 

My original switch hadn't gone bad, but I had to remove it when I was redoing all of the vacuum lines during my front end restoration.  Once I had it out, I figured I'd go with a replacement instead of putting the old one back in (beside the basic switch operation, you have the rheostat for dimming the instrument cluster, and the vacuum connections - and I figured this was a good time to go back with new). 

Glad your shaft released easily from the switch.  Although I found the button on the bottom of the swithch easily enough, once depressed, the shaft didn't want to release.  Had to wrestle it for quite awhile.

I don't know of any wiring diagram for the switch itself.  Only thing I can find is the basic wiring dirgram for the dash which shows the wires connected to the switch, but nothing relating to the internals of the switch.

Just to cover a couple of other possibilites - are you sure it is a switch problem? 

Wiring harness properly connected (on both sides) of the fuse block/bulkhead connector? 

Is your headlight wiring harness properly grounded at both ends?  Should be a ground connection for the headlight wiring harness, to the radiator support, on both the driver and passenger side. 

Even if properly grounded at both locations, do you physically have a good ground at the connector to each headlamp?  Do you have 12v to the headlamps when they are supposed to be on?  Do you have 12v to the parking lights in both switch "on" positions (park and full on)? Good ground at the parking lights?

If all else checks ok, replacement switch is an option.

Good luck - Richard

827  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: cloning on: March 17, 2006, 09:39:54 PM
At least for the 1969 model year, a coupe to RS conversion is NOT simply adding hideaway headlights and a couple of badges.  Yes, it is a trim package, a very elegant and complicated trim package.  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 --- even down to the miniscule items like the bracket that holds the windshield washer bottle - it is different on a RS vs. a base coupe or a base coupe Z28.  And this doesn't include the Style Trim RPO items that are a part of RPO Z22, the RS package.

It is very true that a base V8 RS Camaro is not valued as highly as a Z28 or other high performance variants.   However, you would probably be very surprised as to what a very nice 69 RS will sell for.  Just try to find one listed in Hemmings, not a RS/SS or a Z28 w/ RS.  Try and find a nice, fully functional 69 RS, they are very few and far between.

In a lot of ways, if done accurately and correctly, a more difficult conversion than a base coupe to Z28.  Now a Z28 with the RS package - that is a very cool ride.
828  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: cloning on: March 17, 2006, 11:24:04 AM
I vote (and voted) for non-cloning, however, I'm an original, as GM built it, kind of guy.

Fundamentally, nothing at all wrong with cloning, as long as full disclosure is made at time of sale.  Build the car to suit your wants and desires.

After all, cloning is really only a problem when it is done with the up front intention to deceive, the legal folks refer to it as fraud.
829  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: sb flywheel (flexplate?) sizes on: March 14, 2006, 07:24:28 PM
I had a similar problem with a Tawain repro piece of junk that I bought for my 69 RS, 327 with powerglide.  It was a metal flywheel dustcover and I had to seriously work the metal to stretch it so that it would fit properly.  At first the holes did not line up with the bell housing at all and the starter opening was too narrow.

But then again, you get what you pay for and everytime you have to go to the repro market you are really taking a chance.  But that's an old and already well documented story.

Back to your question.  My understanding is that the flywheels for small block applications for 1st gen Camaros were two different diameters.  One has 168 teeth and one has 153 teeth.  I believe the 168 tooth flywheel is 14" diameter while the 153 tooth flywheel is 12-3/4" diameter.  Diameter of flywheel used on a particular engine was a function of Hp and compression ratio as opposed to cid, i.e. 327 or 350.  Higher HP/compression engines used the larger diameter flywheel with a higher torque starter.
830  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1968 327 275hp. non smog air cleaner housing on: March 14, 2006, 12:47:48 PM
Air cleaner that I have that I believe is a '68 is smaller in heighth than the one you have.  I believe it is for the base 210 Hp configuration which would have had a Rochester 2BBl with 1-1/4" throttle plates.

Sorry I wasn't able to help.

Richard
831  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1968 327 275hp. non smog air cleaner housing on: March 13, 2006, 07:41:25 PM
Will check tonight and get back to you tomorrow.

Richard
832  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Battery draining issue on: March 13, 2006, 05:51:20 PM
One place I would start would be to check the dc amp flow with the battery charged and eveything turned off.  Use a multi meter and measure dc amp from the positive terminal to ground.  Although there is dc voltage from positive to negative, there shouldn't be any current draw unless something is "on", i.e. if nothing is drawing down the battery, current flow should be 0. 

If something is drawing the battery down, amount of dc amp might hlep isolate what it might be. 

If there is current flowing, you might also consider pulling the fuses in the fuse block one at a time and see if a particular fuse / circuit is the culprit.  If the problem is isolated in one electrical circuit, pulling the fuse for that circuit should stop the current flow.  Then you would at least have further information as to which circuit in the car's electrical system is problematic.  You would have to further isolate components within the circuit to find the exact location(s) of the problem.

By the way, any mechanic who:
  1.  charges you for a new alternator
  2.  charges you for a new battery
  3.  doesn't fix the problem
  4.  has the audacity to tell you he doesn't have time to work on your car

doesn't have a clue in the first place as to what is wrong or what he is doing.  He is simply guessing at your expense.  He is also looking for an excuse not to work on your car without coming out and telling you that he shouldn't work on your car because he doesn't have a clue.  Definitely find someone who has better skills and business ethics. 
833  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Rebuild or Replace Engine and Transmission on: March 13, 2006, 02:40:50 PM
I would also vote for keeping the original engine / transmission combination.  Depending on where you live, a complete engine rebuild (including balancing and blueprinting) is not any more than a new crate motor, in my area (Reno, NV) easily less.  Transmission rebuild (if needed) is entirely different.  Depending on what tranny you have, expertise to properly work on a 38 yr old tranny is often, in my experience, harder to come by than a competent engine rebuilder.

In any event, good luck and enjoy your ride!
834  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Harmonic Balancer on: March 13, 2006, 02:30:41 PM
Dave:

I've got the same engine.  Attached pic shows the balancer.  As you can see, (if you look closely) the timing tab on the front cover extends out at least 1/2 the width to maybe as much as 2/3 the width of the balancer.  I didn't take a pic of the balance by itself prior to reinstalling.  I'll be glad to measure width and diameter if that would be helpful.

This balancer is original to the engine.

As a side note, I have seen earlier '60's vintage 327 balancers that are about 1/2 as wide as this one.  Those would not be the correct for this application.

Richard
835  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1968 327 275hp. non smog air cleaner housing on: March 13, 2006, 02:23:53 PM
In the course of trying to find the correct air cleaner for my '69RS base coupe, I collected a couple of others, one may be a '68.  I have at least 3 dfferent variants hanging on the wall in the garage.  If you can e-mail me with the details, I'll compare to what I have and can send you pics as well.

Let me know.

Richard
836  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: EARLY 69 NORWOOD ALTERNATE VIN on: March 10, 2006, 07:40:38 PM
The engine that I put in my car (VIN#;124379N581767) was originally in a base 69 coupe, VIN# 124379N551248.

Both the partial VIN as well as the engine build date/code were stamped on the pad on the block in front of the RH cylinder head.  The particulars on this engine are:               

CASTING NUMBER:   3932386
CASTING DATE:   J 31 8 (OCTOBER 31, 1968)
CASTING CLOCK:   8-9 AM, DAY SHIFT
ENGINE CODE:   V1122FJ (Flint Engine, Nov 22 assy date, 327 cid/210 Hp w/3 spd manual

This engine was clearly manufactured after the one in the pics.  I can send a photo of the pad if that would be helpful.

Nothing was/is stamped in the area of the oil filter that I could see - wouldn't have expected to see anything since the engine code was stamped on the block pad.  Looks like there was some definite inconsistencies in the way Norwood stamped these blocks. 

Any possibility of the day and night shifts stamping the partial VIN's in different locations?  Have we seen the same thing for 350 engines as well?
837  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: RS Headlamp Cover Vacuum Line Layout on: March 07, 2006, 08:09:42 PM
This is a pretty good document that I found "on line" that has the vacuum line routing for '69.  I do not remember the source, wish I did so I could give proper credit.  Seems like I found the article by simply doing a Google search on the subject.

Hopes this helps

Richard
838  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: LT1 Question and For Sale on: March 06, 2006, 08:46:51 PM
I have this same block in my 69 RS Base Coupe; 327 cid/210 hp engine.

The engine in my car is definitely a 2 bolt main.  From the references that I have, this block was also used for 302 DZ engines, but in a 4-bolt main configuration.  Attached is the info. off of my block:

CASTING NUMBER:   3932386
CASTING DATE:   J 31 8 (OCTOBER 31, 1968)
CASTING CLOCK:   8-9 AM, DAY SHIFT
ENGINE CODE:   V1122FJ
         V = FLINT ENGINE PLANT
         1122 = ASSEMBLY DATE, E.G. 11/22/68
         FJ = CAMARO, 327 CID, 3 SPD MANUAL

I pulled this engine out of a 3 speed manual coupe, VIN # 124379N551248 back in March 1994.  The car was being parted out.  I installed the engine in my car last summer.
839  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Question of build date vs. rear assembly date on: March 01, 2006, 10:05:20 PM
Although not a Camaro, my other car, a '66 Chevelle, has always been in the family.  It was my grandparents ride, and they purchased it on 30 March 1966.  The car was assembled at the Flint, MI plant in mid March 1966.  I have all the documentation on this car including POP.  The rear axle in this car was manufactured at the Buffalo Gear and Axle plant on 27 Oct 1965 (see code below).  I have also verified the numbers as stamped on the ring gear.  They are:  GM  3790628   1137  65.  The first series is the part number.  1137 is the number of teeth on the pinion (11) and the number of teeth on the ring gear (37).  This equates to a 3.36 ratio, which agrees with the CB axle code.  65 is year of manufacture.

The engine, transmission, and axle codes (and build dates) are as follows:

Engine Block:  F0318DE
Transmission:  C0322D
Differential:  CB1027B

As we all know, there are exceptions to every rule.  My Chevelle definitely has an October 1965 built rear end in a March 1966 built car.  Why the axle lay around from Oct to March (5 months) much in the same manner as nuch_ss396 axle lay around for 4 months before being used is a mystery.  And it would be very helpful to understand why that occurred.  But it is clearly an exception to the rule.  I would not be surprised to have someone state that the rear end in my Chevelle is not original (forget about the documentation) because it doesn't fit the "norm" with regard to its build vs the car's build.  We don't have all of the answers.
840  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Reproduction 1969 Camaro Coupe Shells on: March 01, 2006, 09:48:30 PM
A reproduction is a reproduction is a reproduction is a reproduction is a reproduction ,,,,,,,,,,,
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58
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 0.096 seconds with 18 queries.