Messages

301

Originality / 68 camaro vs nova seatbelts

« on: April 30, 2006, 04:20:56 AM »

I found a 68 nova with a complete set of med. blue seatbelts(bench seat) are they the same as camaros save for the retractors? the date codes are 4 A 68
is that 4th week of 68 (don't know about the A) or 4=4th month A=1st week of 68?  thanks

302

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 RS?

« on: March 15, 2006, 07:34:53 AM »

To my knowledge the GM replacement tail panels didn't have the holes for the backup lights .The GM panel that was just installed on my RS had to have the holes cut, I've had that panel for over 10 years and I bought it from another person that had it for a number of years.There should be wiring in the trunk for the reverse lights they go through the floor one on each side. The solid red taillights don't tell you anything, the lenses can easily be changed and it's just as easy to change the entire light assembly, as a matter of fact that is probably the easiest part of the entire conversion. There is no way that car left GM without reverse lights.   

303

Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 RS?

« on: March 14, 2006, 08:30:23 PM »

Its not likely that somebody replaced the rear valance and didn't cut the holes for the backup lights. However under the left fender behind the headlight assembly there should be 3 relays(they're mounted on a plate that bolts to the fender) for the electric motors that run the headlights,if not the relays, at least the wiring.Additionally the front fenders for a RS are different where the headlight assembly mounts. However if you have standard fenders there is a aftermarket bracket available to add the RS assemblies. Everything you mentioned is the easy part when converting to a RS. The wiring which is not already there has to be changed,holes cut for the backup lights,holes drilled in the inner fender for the grommet and wiring for the front parking lights/turn signals to pass through and then changing the headlight switch in the dash,relays and relay wiring and lastly mounting the motors and headlight assemblies.

304

Decoding/Numbers / Re: My Mystery '67 Camaro

« on: March 14, 2006, 08:07:40 PM »

Have you contacted MVA or a friendly police officer and ask about a VIN/title search.It can be done, thats how the police determine if a car is stolen during a traffic stop and driver has no documentation. There are only two possibilities the first five digits are 12337/12437 .This may bring you bad news if it turns up stolen.What parts of the original car are still intact,from these you might be able to discern 6 cylinder or v8.That all the first 5 digits denote. 

305

Originality / Re: Correct finish(es) on 69 12-bolt Camaro rear

« on: March 13, 2006, 04:52:52 AM »

Steve,
The t/400 u-joint caps are slightly larger outside diameter.I attempted to place a cap from the other u-joint on the t/400 u-joint, it won't fit inside diameter is to small.

Hope this helps
Paul

306

Originality / Re: VIN plate color

« on: March 13, 2006, 03:03:22 AM »

John,
Am I reading your post correctly.The VIN was painted interior color someplace else and then installed after the dash was painted?

307

Originality / VIN plate color

« on: March 11, 2006, 07:58:26 AM »

I'm moving toward the point in the restoration of my 68 Camaro where its time to paint the interior. At some point in the past the interior was paint a variation of Lemans Blue and so was the VIN plate. My question is was the VIN plate painted interior color(light blue) or were they all black and installed after the interior was painted? Additionally were the trim tags painted black after they were installed on the firewall? I've seen some that were silver in color what's the correct color?

308

Originality / Re: Correct finish(es) on 69 12-bolt Camaro rear

« on: March 10, 2006, 07:40:32 AM »

Steve,
I'll get you a couple pictures over the weekend. Looking in Rick's catalog they list the large u-joints(3 5/8"x 3 5/8") front and rear for 67/68 400's and large rear flange. The 3 1/4" is listed for all 69's regardless of trans. That's not meant to prove or disprove anything just an observation. My car is a 396/325,turbo 400,3:08 r/p non-posi. When I had the new r/p set-up, the mechanic commented on the larger pinion nut, it didn't mean anything to me, but maybe as a after thought, it's related to the large flange.The rear was unmolested until 06.

309

Originality / Re: Correct finish(es) on 69 12-bolt Camaro rear

« on: March 08, 2006, 07:32:09 AM »

My 68 BB turbo 400 12 bolt has the large flange and straps.I was of the mind that 10 bolts used the u bolt design and 12 bolts used the straps.I've also read that BB and heavy- duty applications recieved the strap design.Small block 12 bolts got u bolts,although I would expect the Z's to have the strap style.I would think they would qualify as heavy-duty.

Until several weeks ago I wasn't aware there were two different 12 bolt pinion flanges.I had a driveshaft that was supposed to be for a turbo 400 Camaro,but when I attempted to attach it to the 12 bolt imagine my suprise when it didn't work,it was then I found my 12 bolt has the big flange.

310

Decoding/Numbers / Re: LT1 Question and For Sale

« on: March 07, 2006, 03:43:59 PM »

Kurt,
You are quite correct the 350/255hp was a 4 barrel,(I made an err)the 350/250hp was the 2 barrel .Although there was a 350/350 hp available in the Corvette in 1969 I'm not sure if GM was calling it the Lt1,but it did use most of the same componets as the 70's Lt1,it's odd that it used a rochester instead of a holley though.

In regards to contacting Chevrolet thats a wasted effort,unless you stumble onto a old hotrodder.They employ computer operaters today,the service writers/managers aren't making a commision on your questions so their no help, if its not in the computer or built post 1980's good luck. In most cases your SOL.Most of them were in diapers in the 70's and the late 60's didn't exist except in books.  WOW does that sound cynical!!!

311

Decoding/Numbers / Re: LT1 Question and For Sale

« on: March 07, 2006, 09:00:46 AM »

It's not a Lt1 from the pics on the link you gave. It has flat top pistons Lt1's had dome pistons.I've seen 69 Impala's with that block casting,but they were 350/300's. Lt1's used the same block as other 350's of the same yr.As far as what makes a Lt1, 4 bolt block,pink rods(shot peened)steel crank,186/187/041/ casting heads 292 castings(angle plugs) on 370hp in 1970,factory aluminium intake,holley 780 carb. 8"balancer 370hp had mech. camshaft.
chevy by the #'s lists block as being used on the following motors 350/300hp (4 bolt) 302/290hp(4 bolt) 327/210hp (2 bolt) they list HQ as 350/255hp 3or4sp. 255hp was a 2 barrel.  block was used aug.68-jan.69    441 heads are listed as 350/255hp  so you have a 350/255hp that somebody put a 4 barrel intake on or person stamping should have stamped it a HO 350/300 and errored and stamped it HQ 350/255.

312

Originality / Re: Question of build date vs. rear assembly date

« on: March 03, 2006, 04:48:51 PM »

A possible explanation is like so many other things that have date codes they are supposed to be rotated old to the front,new in the back.Who's to say that a  individual wasn't unloading the rail car and wasn't rotating the stock.That rack or two sat in the back against the wall for several months.We know GM got more than 2 or 3 the rears at a time.You have 10 racks the forklift driver say's,I'm not moving those, I'll just put these in front,the're all the same. I'll put the rest in that hole over there, I'm off in 20 minute.Something just got buried in the warehouse.The next shipment went right in front. If things are busy,the warehouse is full,you put thing where you can and worry about it later.I worked for Coca-Cola for a # of years and things were alway's buried and didn't turn up until inventory.If you think I'm wrong check the date code on that soda all the way in the back of the shelf, rotation is a necessary evil, but a huge inconvience,not alway performed diligently.Human nature being what it is,these things happen. Just a thought from somebody involved in warehousing and manufacturing.

313

Originality / Re: 68 turbo 400 driveshaft

« on: March 03, 2006, 03:48:12 PM »

ccargo,

Thanks for the pics.I have several ?'s,If you would indulge me.What is the length of the 400 vs the standard.I wonder if the 400 could be easily indentified by the round balancing weight vs the square one on the standard?Additionally did the trans yoke use a odd u-joint,considering that the 400 used a bigger joint you wouldn't be able to interchange the trans yoke from  shaft to shaft which appears to have happened often.Are the u-joint clips the same on both driveshafts(the sqeeze type and on the outboard side?Thanks for your help!!!!

314

Originality / 68 turbo 400 driveshaft

« on: March 03, 2006, 08:40:49 AM »

I'm trying to find the correct driveshaft for my 68 turbo 400 Camaro.This is a #'s matching restro.project(as close as possible anyway). Is there a definitive way to differentiate a turbo 400 driveshaft from a turbo 350/glide/4spd driveshaft? I know there has been some discussion about the yokes on the 400's being welded inline and all others being offset about 20 degrees.A individual was trying to tell me a 400 shaft was heavier,beefer, had different u-joints and was shorter than the other shafts.I'd appreciate any feedback on this subject.

 I know the 400 and the M-22 trans yokes interchange and the turbo 350/glides and other manual yokes  interchange.The area of concern is the main body of the shaft and u-joint ends.Thanks

315

Restoration / Re: 1968 Camaro Restoration

« on: February 27, 2006, 12:01:46 AM »

Hi,
 You have exceded the three estimates I got on my restoration project(68rsss).We're replacing all the panels save for the roof and the floors.I have purchased all GM NOS body panels through the years and stored them until I was ready to have them installed.Paint and body work will be 20-25k. Motor rebuild including replacing missing orig. parts approx. 5k.
I'm assembling the sub frame,bolting in the motor and trans,sending out the upholstery work and doing the chrome and trim myself.All told I'll probably have 50k in it when its complete over 2 years.I will enjoy some savings by doing some of the work myself,but your looking at spend 100k more than me thats outrageous.Some of the high end museum pieces don't cost that to restore.I contacted a nationally recognized Camaro restorer in Texas in my phone conversation,sight unseen,just my description,he estimated 50-75k,drop it off and pick it up complete.There is a restorer on this web-site periodically and he'd love to have your business.He just finished a L-78 big block car thats going straight to a museum. It was so rusty they replaced everything including the roof and it wasn't 150k.