CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 20, 2014, 05:19:52 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.
107567 Posts in 12508 Topics by 4812 Members
Latest Member: oldbop88
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 59
826  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: sb flywheel (flexplate?) sizes on: March 23, 2006, 09:48:37 PM
I would have thought the same thing - that both covers would fit either flywheel.  Makes sense.
827  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Rally Sport Vacuum problems. HELP! on: March 22, 2006, 06:20:51 PM
Bear with me as I mentally walk through this.... I'm out on a business trip and don't have any references with me.

The orange line to the relay valve is a "reference vacuum source" which is applied to the top of the diaphragm in order to control the position of the pilot valve inside the relay. 

The position of the light switch (or operation of the overide on the relay) either leaves vacuum on the orange line to the relay or cuts it off.

Whether vacuum is on or off the orange line to the relay valve then determines diaphragm and pilot valve position which determines vacuum routing from the reservoir tank (yellow striped line) through the relay (via pilot valve position) to either the red striped or green striped lines to the actuators, which then determine doors open or closed.

The test that you made effectively took the light switch out of the equation, routing engine vacuum directly to the reservoir tank and to the orange striped line input to the relay.  Engine running, doors are closed - so far so good.  Moving the relay overide should have the same effect as operating the light swithch.  Vacuum should be removed from the relay reference which should change vacuum routing and open the headlight doors. 

What you've done makes sense - looks like the relay has gone south.  If you remove the relay, you can see the bottom of the pilot valve shaft.  Maybe you can move it slightly, try a drop of oil.  If it is stuck, maybe it will free up.

I'd be interested in knowing if you do conclude that the relay is the problem.

828  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Blue Paint Mark on Steering Column on: March 22, 2006, 06:08:33 PM
Thanks John
829  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Blue Paint Mark on Steering Column on: March 21, 2006, 11:10:48 PM
The attached PDF file contains two pictures of the steering column in my '69 RS back in 2005 when I was reassembling the front end.  After cleaning the column, the blue paint mark appeared.  I am assuming an inspection mark of some sort?

I know someone out there has the answer.


830  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Rally Sport Vacuum problems. HELP! on: March 21, 2006, 02:02:11 AM
What you mention in your original post about how the relay valve is labeled vs. what is in the assembly manual is interesting.  I just noticed that the Word doc that I attached in the previous post also shows red on top, green on bottom (same as your relay valve is labeled). 

However, one must assume that the AIM is correct.  GM simply routed the vacuum hoses as needed to work with the original style actuators.  Easier to re-route the tubing as opposed to redesigning the relay valve or actuators.

Attached pictue is one of many reference dissassembly pictures I took of various pieces of the car as I was dismantiling it.  This particular picture shows my relay valve, with original tubing still attached, prior to dissassembly and removal from the car.  White paint marks were my additions to help me keep straight in my mind what tubing went where, etc.

You'll note that green is on top, yellow in the middle, red on bottom - which agrees with the AIM - and is the way Chevrolet (Norwood) assembled it. 

Thanks for pointing this out - good catch


831  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Rally Sport Vacuum problems. HELP! on: March 21, 2006, 01:47:24 AM
The key may be in the fact that you did the same thing I did - replaced original designed actuators with Pacific Rim repro c _ _ p - don't get me started.

When I did the same thing back in the summer of 2004, my new, repro actuators (acquired from Classic Industries) had two problems.  1) the vacuum connection on the actuators wrere not oriented the same as the originals, which caused an interference issue between the vacuum connection on the back side of the cannister and the mounting bracket - relaitively minor, but still a nuisance that had to be dealt with.

Secondy, my headlight doors did exactly the same thing - they stayed closed when the light switch was pulled all the way out and the lights were on and they were open when the light switch was pushed in all the way and the lights were in the off position.  I wasted the better part of an afternoon chasing the vacuum connections at the light switch, at the relay valve, and then it occurred to me to swap the vacuum lines on the actuators and connect the red stripe line to the back (instead of to the front) and connect the green striped line to the front (instead of the back) of the actuator.  You could accomplish the same thing at the relay valve, but then to the astute eye it would be obvious that, per the Assembly Manual, this was not the way Chevy (Norwood) originally built it.

Bottom line is that the actuators, at least the two that I got, operate bass ackwards.  Go figure. 

Run a little experiment, swap the vacuum lines at the actuators - I'll bet your relay valve is ok.

Attached Word document is a pretty good guide to the system, diagrams, etc.
832  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1968 manifold pre-heat sheild & tube for 327/210 on: March 19, 2006, 10:25:02 PM
I feel your pain.  By far and bar none, finding the correct air cleaner, heat stove pipe, and exhaust manifold with heat shield was the most difficult part of putting together the correct 327 / 210 hp engine for my '69 RS.

You are correct, in that these items do not exist in the aftermarket - not highly demanded.  Suggest eBay and the various swap meets.  I found the correct mainfold, with heat shield attached, at Hot August Nights in Reno back in 2003.  Air cleaner and heat stove pipe I found at salvage yards.  I also found (and still have) a '68 air cleaner for the base 327 / 210 hp set up.  I assume that you have the air cleaner?
833  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Need 3953692 water pump on: March 19, 2006, 02:45:05 AM

Hope you find your water pump.  When I found the correct 69 327 cid for my ride, it still had the original 3953692 water pump, K 8 8 date code for Nov 22 engine build.

In my searching around over the years, I do have a spare GM water pump.  It is #3927170, date coded E 17 71.  I realize that you are going for an accurate date coded rebuild and that this pump probably isn't what you are looking for - however, it is available.

Additionally, according to page 224 of Chevrolet by the Numbers: 1965-1969, it states the following about #3927170: This water pump was used interchangeably with #3953692.  #3953692 saw extensive usage, #3927170 saw very little usage

Good luck


834  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

835  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.
836  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.
837  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.
838  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.

839  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.

840  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. 
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 59
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 0.102 seconds with 18 queries.