CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 01, 2014, 11:33:36 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.
102556 Posts in 12096 Topics by 4669 Members
Latest Member: paulmanta
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3
16  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Hurst Comp Plus Shifter Alignment Problem. on: July 10, 2007, 07:20:40 PM
There is an adjustment slot in the mounting bracket. After you loosen the two bolts that attach the shifter to the bracket you can rotate the shifter backward. This should fix the stick hitting the front of the console shift plate. You will have to readjust the shifter rods after you move the shifter.



The stick hitting the right side of the shift plate leads me to believe you may have a big block crossmember. Camaros with big blocks mounted the transmission to the right of the centerline. Hurst did nothing to compensate for the big block cars in their 67-68 Camaro install kit. It is also possible that your subframe could be pushed over to the right.

When the left motor mount is broken the left side of the engine and transmission will lift when you punch it, causing the stick to hit the right side of the shift plate.
17  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 console gauges on: May 19, 2007, 02:14:24 AM
I bought these gauges over twenty years ago and the chrome “bezels” were not painted. I have always assumed this was the handy work of a PO as I have never seen another set of 67 gauges painted this way. I think they look better chrome so I will not be painting them black.

18  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: What is this connector for??? on: May 19, 2007, 01:51:46 AM
I don’t have a close-up but here is a wide shot of the 67 backup wire clips. The clips are original. They have a black plastic coating where the wire loom passes through.

19  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Need Help With 1967 Console Gauge Harness on: May 01, 2007, 06:56:40 PM
My car still has its original 40 year old carpet. The carpet is split in the area in front of the console. The edges of the split have a vinyl edge trim stitched on. The console gauge wires tuck into the split and under the carpet.

20  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: '67 (327/275) smog tubes, ...A/C vs. non-A/C on: May 01, 2007, 06:42:41 PM
Here are the manifolds from my '67. It's doesn't have AC. I prefer to keep this vintage smog equipment in a box in the garage.  Wink




21  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 RS/SS Muncie 4 Speed and 350 Block needed/questions on: October 22, 2006, 01:47:11 PM
I am being told that a 1967 327 with the same casting code as a 1967 350 (3892657) can be allign bored to allow the larger journal 350 crank to fit and this is all that GM did to the blocks in the factory.... The main caps are also all the same...

Cost to allign bore is about $400... 327 blocks with that code are much easier to locate...

What are your thoughts/understanding???

Thanks...

The main bearing locating tangs are a different size and in a different location on small journal and large journal blocks.

I recently did a side by side comparison of two 1967 Camaro “657” blocks. One was a 350 large journal and the other a 327 small journal. The most interesting thing I found was that both of the 657 blocks had been machined to accept both small and large journal main bearing tangs. As far as I know this is unique to 657 blocks. The large journal tangs already in place makes it possible to line bore a 657 small journal block out to large journal size.

Another difference is the machining of the face behind the front thrust surface of the rear main bearing. The face is machined slightly larger on the 350 block to accommodate the larger diameter thrust surface of the large journal rear main bearing. You may have some interference with the outer edge of the large journal bearing thrust surface with the small journal block. This could be easily fixed by machining a small amount (.020”) from the edge (not the face) of the rear main bearing thrust surfaces.

Also the bore on the rear main saddle and cap is beveled so the sharp corners won’t dig into the rear main bearing. Boring it out will remove the bevels so new bevels will need to be cut.

The last difference is the groove for the crank oil slinger is machined larger on the 350 block. The groove in the 327 block little too small for the 350 crankshaft slinger. The easiest solution would be to turn down the slinger on the 350 crank.

Here are some pictures for further clarification: http://geocities.com/sdampier@sbcglobal.net/Team_Camaro/3892657/
22  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1st Gen Driveshaft Design - Did GM Make a Mistake? on: June 27, 2006, 02:40:54 PM
My "out of phase" original drive shaft sits in the corner of my garage. I retired it last year when I had a Nova shaft shortened to fit. The yokes on the new shaft are in line and it has less vibration than the original one did.

Some engineer at Chevrolet must have thought it was a great idea. I am surprised it lasted for 3 years.
23  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 1967 Trim rings on: March 19, 2006, 10:36:52 AM
Did 1967 J52 equipped Camaros use the same trim rings for both the 5 inch and 6 inch rally wheels?

Here are some pictures of the original rings that came on my 5 inch DA rally wheels. These rings are 2 inches deep.

http://geocities.com/sdampier@sbcglobal.net/Team_Camaro/Wheels/Rings5.jpg
http://geocities.com/sdampier@sbcglobal.net/Team_Camaro/Wheels/Rings6.jpg
http://geocities.com/sdampier@sbcglobal.net/Team_Camaro/Wheels/Rings11.jpg
http://geocities.com/sdampier@sbcglobal.net/Team_Camaro/Wheels/Rings17.jpg
http://geocities.com/sdampier@sbcglobal.net/Team_Camaro/Wheels/Rings18.jpg
24  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Question of build date vs. rear assembly date on: March 03, 2006, 12:19:49 PM
The argument could be made that a common axle assembly like a 3.08 ten bolt should be dated fairly close to the body date and less common axle combination could sit around for some time before being installed. I doubt very many 70 Camaros were equipped with a 3.55 posi rear end.
25  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Vins dont match on: March 02, 2006, 10:54:51 AM
I imagine you will have to take the car down to the DMV office so they can verify the numbers on the car before they will issue a replacement title without the typo. This should be easy, but when dealing with the DMV you never know.
26  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Date codes on 67 wheels? on: February 09, 2006, 02:18:11 PM
My car has manual disc brakes. Here is a picture of a DA wheel with a repo F70-14 tire. These tires are a bit too wide for these skinny wheels. My trim rings and caps are original.

27  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Date codes on 67 wheels? on: February 09, 2006, 11:23:32 AM
The original rally wheels that came with my 11E LOS 67 rs have no date codes. They are 14 X 5 which is correct for a disc brake equipped, non SS, 67. They are stamped DA next to the valve stem.
28  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: ROUND PROPORTIONING VALVE/FRONT BRAKE BLEEDING 69 Z28 on: February 07, 2006, 01:42:47 AM
I had the same problem on my 67 manual disc brake car. At first I thought the calipers were sucking in air. I had the calipers sleeved with stainless steel but was still getting air in the front brakes. Rebuilding the master cylinder did not help either. I removed the hold off valve and installed a “temporary” steel line between the master cylinder and the distribution block. The brakes bleed perfect! That was over two years ago and the pedal is still firm.  Smiley

If there is a good kit available I would like to rebuild and reinstall my original valve.
29  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 bumper jack on: February 05, 2006, 10:27:42 PM
Here is the jack that came with my ’67. It is an 11E LOS car.





30  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: What is the color of the door jamb strikers? on: February 05, 2006, 03:08:25 AM
My 11E LOS 67 has no trace of paint on the door latches, door strikers, or deck lid striker.
I took these pictures back in 1985. At that time the paint was 100% original.





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 0.081 seconds with 18 queries.