CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 16, 2014, 02:45:30 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.
97075 Posts in 11682 Topics by 4578 Members
Latest Member: ronhill
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
46  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Engine hook bolts on manifold on: July 03, 2013, 09:01:39 PM
Not the clearest picture, but this gives you an idea what the shouldered bolt looks like.  Jerry MacNeish rebuilt/restored the engine.

Interesting details, dimpled (manifold) carb studs (?) and partially painted head on intake manifold plane.   
47  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: NOS Idler Arm vs Factory Original on: July 01, 2013, 01:18:08 AM
Lloyd does the NOS idler arm have a 'C' or an 'O' stamped in between the 2 frame mounting holes?

The NOS arm isn't stamped on either side of the bracket that bolts to the frame.
48  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: upper and lower control arm finishes on: June 28, 2013, 03:48:43 PM
Most interesting Scott and had not seen the thread you listed.
Hi John! I have looked at several survivors over the past few years and many have remnants of black paint on a-arm components. JohnZ communicated to me that a-arm assembly came into the plant painted with the a-arm, dog bone, bushings, and washers/bolts as the assembly. This picture was just taken last Friday at the Camaro Nationals of a survivor which shows paint on the a-arm components.

Paint is also present on the hard fuel line, was it also painted / oversprayed or was there touch up done on the car in the photo?
49  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / NOS Idler Arm vs Factory Original on: June 26, 2013, 02:07:13 PM
I just purchased an NOS idler arm for my '69 Z. I have read there are some differences between the factory originals and NOS service replacements however the part I received was "missing" the cotter pin hole which struck me as a manufacturing defect. I was later told that NOS idler arms used an oval locking nut rather than the common castellated nut and cotter pin combination. Can anyone validate this observation?

50  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: GM 3877660 Water Outlet on: June 23, 2013, 02:18:44 PM
Here is a post from John in 2005 on the subject:

JohnZ Jul 13th, 05
"This is a great debate subject. I have the GM drawing for 3877660, released in 1965, and it says "Cast manufacturer's identification, part number and General Motors trade mark location optional." Three different suppliers made this part over the years it was in use, and each one put the part number in a different place. In NCRS Corvette judging, the pattern that emerged after observing thousands of known-original cars indicates that those used through 1969 had the number on the flange, and those used from late 1969-up had it on the top of the outlet neck. The current reproduction, made by Paragon, has it on the outlet neck. My original 02D '69 Z/28 has it on the flange."
51  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: z28 with white stripes, cowl pics on early 69 cars on: June 21, 2013, 12:01:07 PM
Bill, a couple of photos of my 4C Nor car (original paint). Let me know if you need more detailed photos.

52  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 Z 302 pulley finishes on: June 21, 2013, 11:30:31 AM
Edmontonvillage - Thanks and interesting.  I'll have to inspect the pulley better and determine if it's paint.   Must be a very light paint as it's not obvious like the other components.

There is no indication it was dip painted (lacks tell tale runs) however its low gloss (at least 44 years later it is). I have not attempted to duplicate it.
53  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Dusk Blue Z on ebay 06/20/13 on: June 21, 2013, 01:26:00 AM
There are SOOOO many things wrong.



1. Looks to have replacement stainless exhaust
2. Looks like it has an aftermarket Hurst shifter to me
3. Hurst emblem on the console??? Certainly not "stock".
4. GM sticker on the door jam
6. Repop NK1 steering wheel
7. As been observed already, missing smog
8. As been observed already, repop jack and hold down (the air cleaner stud looks to be just a bit too long too!)
8. "Triple Dusk Blue Z28/RS less the 1% had this color and options combination" - I have NO CLUE where he got this info from. Must have pulled it out of his @$$
9. "F41 suspension" - Sorry, NOT available on the Z28
10. "I have over $71,000 in NADA/McNeish Value at $75,000+" - Jerry didn't certify this car, so where did this number come from??

Many other things as well, but I don't have the time to post them all


A few more:
 - Spare tire drum painted gray rather than black
 - Hood hinges and springs appear to be painted.
 - Paint line dividing firewall from cowl is too defined, appears to have been masked (no white stripe overspray visible)
 - Trunk mat (not available without deluxe interior)
 - Phillips screw used to secure cowl relay to firewall. Unusually high mounting position on cowl seam.
 - RS hoses are mis-routed on firewall.
 - Left side shock mounting plate is incorrect.
 - Oversize screws securing console shifter plate.
 - Upper hood latch assembly appears to be painted silver or media blasted (could be from photo flash washout).
 - Lower hood latch assembly painted black.
 - Wood applique trim plates behind radio knobs missing.
 - Washer bottle cap is new/NOS replacement, hose incorrectly routed to pump.
 - Intake manifold front plug incorrect.
 - Both fender mounted hood bumpers missing.
 - Cowl to hood seal either missing or painted body color (poor image)
 - Battery cable grounded to upper alternator bracket.
 - Replacement or restoration voltage regulator.
 - Air cleaner assembly paint and all decals too fresh for 71,000 mile, 44 year old car.

54  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Fuel Line Frame Rail Bracket Bolt on: June 20, 2013, 01:44:28 AM
Up on the hoist

Removed the shortened fuel line and compared it with the replacement  (yes it had been cut short by that much...)

Removed the fuel line clips and bolts and realized I am missing a rear frame rail clip. Here are the bolt head markings from my 4C Nor car:

Installation complete (less 1 clip still to locate)

55  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Fuel Line Frame Rail Bracket Bolt on: June 18, 2013, 06:33:13 PM
Thanks to those CRG members who posted (especially with photos) in response to my question.  It is clear there were a few different fasteners used on the fuel line bracket. Your input was very helpful.
56  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Fuel Line Frame Rail Bracket Bolt on: June 17, 2013, 12:01:11 PM
That is not the normal bolt for that bracket on a NOR car

Although the donor fuel line is from a 2C Van Nuys built car, my car is a 4C Norwood build.  How does the Nor bolt differ?
57  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Fuel Line Frame Rail Bracket Bolt on: June 15, 2013, 08:58:34 PM
The bolt that holds the fuel line bracket near the tank on my car is a dark phosphate 5/16"-18 X 1.0" pointed bolt with a 3/4" conical washer attached.  The head marking is an Anchor over T.  AMK offers the same bolt, only 1/8 inch shorter, part # B-10900. Their price is $4.00 for 2.  Hope this helps.

Very helpful, thanks!
58  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 1969 Fuel Line Frame Rail Bracket Bolt on: June 15, 2013, 11:03:50 AM
The fuel line on my '69 Z/28 was cut at some point likely to install an electric fuel pump. A very generous CRG member provided me a survivor fuel line from a 2C Van Nuys car with 52K miles that I plan to use as a replacement. I have an orginal fuel line clip that bolts to the frame rail beside the fuel tank (see photo) however I'm trying to confirm the correct attaching bolt details. I likely have one however I need to ensure its the correct one. If anyone has one handy I'd appreciate if you would post a photo and details regarding the size, head markings and washer configuration, thanks.      

59  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Endura VE3 Load Rest / Jack Hook - Original vs Reproduction on: June 01, 2013, 10:56:33 AM
Lloyd, in the pictures it appears that the 4 tabs on the mast bracket are slightly thicker on the repro part than on the original. Is that so, and (if correct) is the steel used throughout the repro version of a heavier gauge?

Tim, good observation, the steel used in the reproduction hook appears to be 10 gauge and the original uses 11 gauge.   



60  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Endura VE3 Load Rest / Jack Hook - Original vs Reproduction on: May 31, 2013, 12:29:27 PM
Lloyd, thank you for taking the time to do the write up - not hared to do, but it takes time.

Congrats on the have become a real master on locating these orig parts....

Can u help me find a AC convert fender baffle?

Eddie, coming from you that's is a high complement, very kind. It took me over a year to locate the hook and then I had to make my check book bleed to get it. A mixed blessing.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
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.