CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 19, 2014, 08:00:12 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.
107495 Posts in 12505 Topics by 4810 Members
Latest Member: rustoleumm
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59
841  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!
842  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Harmonic Balancer on: March 13, 2006, 02:30:41 PM

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.

843  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.

844  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 DATE:   J 31 8 (OCTOBER 31, 1968)
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?
845  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

846  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 DATE:   J 31 8 (OCTOBER 31, 1968)
         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.
847  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.
848  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 ,,,,,,,,,,,
849  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: powerglide shifting on: February 24, 2006, 05:32:11 PM
This one had some good info on Rochester Carbs, especially 2G variants which are important to my little ride.

The home page for the above link leads you in other directions regarding various manuals.

...and last, but not least, click on your favorite year (the home page takes you to other models than Chevy)
850  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: powerglide shifting on: February 23, 2006, 04:31:55 PM
The following link takes you to an "on-line" 1971 Chevrolet Transmission manual.  Powerglide is discussed in the first 23 pages.  It is a very good reference.

Quoting from pages 2, 13, and 14:

The transmission will automatically upshift to the high range or direct drive at between 10 and 68 mph depending on the particular vehicle and on throttle position.  When this shift occurs, the low band is released and the high clutch is applied which locks the planetary system causing it to  rotate as a unit

NOTE: The shift point speeds, shown for reference in this discussion, pertain to the Chevrolet 327 cubic inch V8 engine[/color]. Refer the chart for complete shift point listings.

Coast Downshift   As the vehicle slows down, governor pressure (holding the low-drive shift valve to the right) is reduced. At approximately 18 to 14 m.p.h[/color[/b]]., governor pressure is less than the opposing spring force of the shift valve springs

"Through-Detent" Forced Downshift   At all road speeds below approximately 70 to 62 m.p.h. the transmission can be automatically shifted to low range by depressing the accelerator linkage "throughdetent". This causes the production of maximum TV pressure and moves the detent valve to open TV   pressure to the detent passage. The resulting full TV pressure over-comes governor pressure acting on the shift valve. This action shifts the transmission to low gear as previously described. The transmission will remain in low gear until either the accelerator is released, or the car speed reaches the maximum upshift point (68-74 mph). At road speeds above approximately 63 m.p.h., governor pressure acting on the shift valve is high enough to prevent TV pressure from moving the shift valve. Therefore, regardless of accelerator position, the transmission will remain in high gear at all road speeds above approximately 70 m.p.h.
851  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: powerglide shifting on: February 23, 2006, 11:19:54 AM
In my experience, with my '69 RS 327-210 Hp/Powerglide, it is a combination of not only getting the kickdown adjusted properly, but also ensuring that the throttle linkage is adjusted properly.  The procedures in the assembly manuals are, obviously, for stock pieces and parts.  Aftermarket carbs, manifoldes, linkages, etc can have an affect on transmission operation, although, the general procedure for setting upshifts and downshifts would still be as described in the assembly manual.  Mine didn't work prpoerly either until I made sure that the carb linkage was adjusted properly (first) and then the kikcdown linkage -  but rmemember, my car is totally stock and the assembly manual info was spot on.  It is also worth mentioning that the transmission was totally rebuilt in 2004 as a part of the mechanical restoration process.

If I put my foot into it, the upshift from first to secont will occur between 55 and 60 mph.  If I am cruising at 55 or less ant put the pedal to the metal, the transmission downshifts to first.  Much above 55 mph, no downshift - you are above the speed where the transmission will downshift in order to prevent over-revving of the engine.
852  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 Camaro License plate holders- Body Color or black? on: February 20, 2006, 06:49:12 PM
To the best of my knowledge, both were black - however, I'll defer to those that have studied this in more detail.
853  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: sub frame #'s on: February 20, 2006, 06:47:42 PM
I can only speak from a singular experience when I had the subframe out from under my 69 RS back in 2004.  I looked all over the subframe and did not find any markings, numbers, etc.  Quite different from GM A bodies that I've been involved with ('66 Chevelle and '67 GTO) where there were stampings and numbers all over the frame, including manufacturer, build date,  and partial VIN - but alas, nothing on the '69.
854  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: body panel numbers on: February 20, 2006, 12:31:45 PM
Under the outer heater box/blower cover stamped on the firewall of my 69RS were the following.  The partial VIN is well understood.  I was informed from CRG membership that the K 49 is, as JohnZ has indicated the stamping number.  The following is part of an e-mail exchange that I received on the topic.

It's the date and factory code that indicates when that piece of sheetmetal was stamped.  In this case the 49th week of 1968.  We have not figured out which sheetmetal plant is which, but I've seen H's, K's, and T's on various parts on the cars.  The most obvious one is right in the center of the trunks inner stiffener.  Those usually begin with a T.  If there is a third digit, I don't think it would be a shift number since the stamps only changed weekly.  May have indicated which machine or which mold it was stamped in.

The K is a code for the stamping plant.  49 is the 49th week of the year - mid-December, which relates well to your car build date.  The meaning of any suffixes isn't sure, but could related to the shift as you note.

Build date on my car is 01C.  Subsequent to the information that I received above, I was told that perhaps the K stood for Kalamazoo, M stamping plant.

Firewall pic attached.
855  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Please see picture of my 327 - question on originality on: February 13, 2006, 01:09:32 PM
Pic #2 - engine in the car
Pages: 1 ... 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 0.109 seconds with 18 queries.