CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2014, 04:42:24 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.
105618 Posts in 12334 Topics by 4753 Members
Latest Member: stpatrick
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: door mirror adjustments???? on: June 26, 2013, 02:03:37 PM
I has been at least three years since I fixed my mirror, maybe longer. I put around 1500 miles per year on the car. The mirror is still as tight as the day I fixed it. If needed I can still adjust it.
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: door mirror adjustments???? on: June 24, 2013, 05:52:27 PM
I guess you could use the slow messy method in the above link.

What I did was much quicker and easier. I used a small hammer and a sharp punch. I removed the mirror and turned the head to expose the part of the ball that is normally covered. I used the hammer and punch to knurl the ball. I then moved the head some and knurled the other side of the ball. The mirror is nice and tight now and the knurling is hidden when the mirror is returned to its normal position. It is a quick and dirty fix and that works great!
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: 69 350SS VIBRATION on: October 19, 2008, 10:34:13 PM
I had a cyclical vibration above 65 MPH in my 67 for years. I changed wheels and tires, had the driveshaft balanced, and even replaced the driveshaft but never managed to get rid of the vibration. Nothing I tried got rid of the annoying vibration until last week.

The other day I was at Harbor Freight and picked up a cheap angle finder. When I checked the pinion on the rear end I found it was pointing down 4. The transmission was also pointing down 3. From everything I have read about proper driveline setup these numbers were way off. The way I understand it the transmission and the rear end should be parallel to each other for the U-joints to operate smooth.
 
   

In other words with my transmission pointing down -3, the pinion on the rear end should have been pointing up +3 not down -4. My pinion angle was way off.

I ordered some 4 leaf spring shims to correct the pinion angle. I actually used two 4 shims on each side. I placed one shim on top of the spring and one facing the other way on the bottom so the shock plate would sit level. I also eliminated the rubber spring pads in the spring perches. I had to add a 3/8 inch thick spacer and a longer bolt to the spring pack so it would fit tight in the perch.

I also made a inch spacer for under the transmission mount to raise the rear of the transmission. My transmission is now 2 down and the pinion is level or 0. The leaf springs should wrap up a couple of degrees from the axle torque which will hopefully put the pinion 2 up while running down the road.

Its now smooth as glass.

I am convinced Chevrolet Engineering simply screwed up when they came up with the out-of-phase driveshaft and the incorrect pinion angles in first generation Camaros. I wonder how many first gen Camaros are out there with a high speed driveshaft vibration from an incorect pinion angle.







4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 DG Rally wheel trim rings on: July 11, 2008, 01:18:48 AM
Here is an original trim ring from my 11E car. My wheels are 5 inch "DA" rallys.

Do your original rings look like mine?





5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Clutch recommendations for 1969 Z/28 on: February 21, 2008, 07:04:55 PM
I would get a brand name diaphragm clutch like Zoom, Hayes, or Centerforce.

If your clutch kit comes with a pilot bushing, do yourself a favor and check it with a magnet before you install it. If a magnet sticks to it dont use it. Most of the pilot bushings in these kits as well as most of them for sale in the auto parts stores are made in China and adulterated with 40% iron. These cheap Chinese bushings dont have the self lubricating properties of a 100% bronze oilite bushing. Worse yet many of them dont even fit! When you pound one of these oversize bushings into your crankshaft you will either shave metal from the OD of the bushing or squeeze the ID of the bushing making a tight fit on the transmission input shaft. Often times the result is a spun pilot bushing after just a few thousand miles.

Napa stores carry a 100% bronze heavy duty pilot bushing. The part number is BK 6151161. Unlike the cheap pilot bushings the 100% bronze bushing is easy to install, wont gall your transmission input shaft, and will last longer than the clutch. For only $3.29 it is good insurance. http://www.napaonline.com/MasterPages/NOLMaster.aspx?PageId=470&LineCode=BK&PartNumber=6151161&Description=Clutch+Pilot+Bushing

Napa also carries Chinese junk iron pilot bushing BK 6151014 for $1.69. Dont buy this one.

If you want to install an 11 inch clutch in your Z28 you will need the following parts:

   An 11 inch passenger car bellhousing (GM 3899621, 3872444 or 464697)
   Bellhousing dust cover
   168 tooth flywheel
   Iron nosed, staggered bolt starter
   Starter bolts
   Starter brace
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Power Steering Pulley on: February 19, 2008, 02:55:40 PM
The only difference between the 3860457 and 3770509 pulleys is the location of the track. The 509 pulley is about inch deeper. You should locate a 457 pulley if you are going to run the 327 PS brackets.

Or better yet get the 302/350 high performance type brackets for your car. There are several advantages the HP PS brackets have over the 327 brackets.

   The pump bolts are easier to get a wrench on.
   You can run an 8 inch balancer
   They will work with interlocking motor mounts
   Your 509 pulley is designed to work with these brackets

The reproduction 302/350 brackets are available for about $50

I replaced the 327 brackets with reproduction 302/350 brackets on my 67 so I could run the interlocking motor mounts and an 8 inch harmonic balancer.

With the 327 PS brackets it's a real pain to tighten the belt. Chevrolet should have used the 302/350 PS brackets on all 67-68 Camaros with V8s.
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1967 camaro manual disc master cylinder on: February 08, 2008, 01:07:03 AM
I think its:         5459467   1"     62     D2

But it could be:  5459467   1     262 or 362    D7

The cast numbers are hard to read with a mirror.
8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1967 camaro manual disc master cylinder on: February 07, 2008, 08:43:58 PM
Anyone else have a manual disc 67 that can help with some info?
I have a 67 11E LOS car with manual disc brakes. I have owned the car for 22 years and it has been in the family for 35 years. I believe the MC is original. It has an AD code and a 5459467 casting number.

It's tough to get a clear picture of the numbers on the bottom of the MC. Here is the best I could get.


I removed the hold off valve a few years ago when it gave me some trouble. I really need to rebuild it and put it back on.
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 CAMARO TRANSMISSION CODE OMITTED ON COWL TAG on: February 07, 2008, 07:52:25 PM
I also have a 1967 2G car. It came with a console and a 3 speed manual transmission.

I believe Fisher Body trim tag option codes indicate changes that are different from a standard body build at the Fisher plant. The funny thing is there is not one single difference between a 2G body and a non SS 2LG body.
10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Gray sludge in oil pan on: October 06, 2007, 02:06:27 PM
If its gray and in the bottom of the pan under the oil its material from the bearings.
11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: California license letter sequence on: August 10, 2007, 12:39:03 AM
There are no Camaros with a legal early black plate starting with "A" through "S". Back when the Camaro was first introduced in 1966 the state was issuing T or U plates.

When these cars were sold new the plates were issued by the DMV in Sacramento and mailed to the new owner. The plate number sequence a new car received was directly dependent on the date the car was titled. It didnt mater where in California the selling dealer or the buyer was located. The date the MSO was processed and the title issued determined the letter sequence the black plates received.

My car was first sold on 4/1/1967 and my plate number is URC 357.
12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: T3 vs PowerBeam Headlamps in 67-69's on: August 07, 2007, 10:56:38 AM
I run the original 40+ year old T-3s that came in my car when it was new. I often drive at night and the light they cast is every bit as bright as my modern vehicles.

I give the original Guide T-3 headlights the highest of ratings for lighting up the dark road and extremely long life.
13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 z/28 smog pump on: July 27, 2007, 04:45:26 PM
According to the 1967 AIM (UPC-K19/A5):

5696104 PUMP ASM-PROD & RPO Z28
5696468 RPO L30 & L48

I would interpret this to say the base 327 and the Z28 used the same smog pump.
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 z/28 smog pump on: July 27, 2007, 12:47:38 AM
Here are some pictures of the pump that came on my 67. It looks like your NOS pump. It is from a 210 hp 327 and has 3 straight tubes on the back. A muffler snaps over the valve on the pump housing. It's from an 11E car. The angled tube pumps were necessary on the L30 and L48 engines to clear the large air cleaners. I hope this helps.





15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Petronix distributor conversion with TIC TOC Tach on: July 10, 2007, 07:33:01 PM
I have a Petronix 1181 module in the distributor in my '67 and my 40 year old tach works perfect.
Pages: [1] 2 3
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 0.085 seconds with 18 queries.