Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tinkerr

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23
Originality / Re: Correct finish(es) on 69 12-bolt Camaro rear
« on: March 13, 2006, 04:52:52 AM »
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

Originality / Re: VIN plate color
« on: March 13, 2006, 03:03:22 AM »
Am I reading your post correctly.The VIN was painted interior color someplace else and then installed after the dash was painted?

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?

Originality / Re: Correct finish(es) on 69 12-bolt Camaro rear
« on: March 10, 2006, 07:40:32 AM »
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.

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.

Decoding/Numbers / Re: LT1 Question and For Sale
« on: March 07, 2006, 03:43:59 PM »
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!!!

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.

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.

Originality / Re: 68 turbo 400 driveshaft
« on: March 03, 2006, 03:48:12 PM »

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!!!!

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

Restoration / Re: 1968 Camaro Restoration
« on: February 27, 2006, 12:01:46 AM »
 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.

Originality / Re: Auto or manual from the factory...can u tell...
« on: February 15, 2006, 08:17:37 PM »
A.I.M= Factory Assembly Instruction Manual for 1968 Camaro pg.10 referrencing UPC 0 A8.5 it shows locations of the holes in the firewall as they relate to options. T

Originality / Re: Auto or manual from the factory...can u tell...
« on: February 13, 2006, 04:00:48 PM »
Get the assembly manual look for the extra hole.There's know way that i know to discern the 3sp from the saginaw 4sp.If everything is gone you can build it to your liking.   T

Originality / Re: Auto or manual from the factory...can u tell...
« on: February 13, 2006, 02:58:46 AM »
Look at pg. 10 in the AIM UPC 0 A8.5. I believe all 3/4 speeds had the extra hole (3C)for the back-up lights.The wiring ran from the trans up through the firewall to the wiring under the dash inside the car.My 67 and 68 had this.They both had 3 speeds.The AIM references this for the and 3/4 speeds.This hole is about 1" and difficult to hide or remove,nobody would bother unless its a high end clone and a well informed Camaro guy.All the 4speeds had the extra speedo hole and the cut-out in the tunnel,auto's hand a single hole in the tunnel for the shifter cable unless you had the M11 option(this a rare option) it used a 3/4 speed cut-out.3 speed used the same speedo hole as the auto.That leaves the afore mentioned hole for the back-up lights without the extra speedo hole it would be a 3 speed.Without the hole for the back-up light it would be a auto.Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.  T

Restoration / Re: Lug wrench color?
« on: February 10, 2006, 07:02:00 AM »
Heartbeat City advertises the straps(NOS)on E-bay periodically and considering the price of everything else he sells they're not that expensive.You could call him and ask if he has any left.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23