Messages

46

Restoration / 1967 Oil Pan with dent and pinhole -- replacement recommendations, please

« on: August 20, 2022, 10:22:37 PM »

1967 350

I dented my factory oil pan 25 years ago over a speedbump and it has a tiny pinhole leak in it.  Just a steady little drip that is enough to make a mess, but not enough to ever really lose any significant oil.

With my engine out, it's a great time to finally fix this.  My assumption is that this isn't fixable, so a replacement is required.  My goal is to stay as factory correct as possible.

Should I just grab an OER oil pan, get a GM 465221 oil pan and paint it orange, or is there some other route I should go?

Thanks.

47

Restoration / 1967 Exhaust Manifolds: restore, paint, do nothing

« on: August 20, 2022, 09:47:20 PM »

1967 350 engine, #s matching, all original, and I'm going for the original/factory look.

I just pulled my engine, so now is a good time to refurbish and restore my engine components.  One of the items is the stock exhaust manifolds.  I'll replace the studs (which were incredibly easy to remove -- so surprising), but I was wondering about the manifolds themselves.  Right now, they look like a typical exhaust manifold from virtually any car older than about 3 years.  A bit dirty with the reddish surface rust on them.

Should I

• Do nothing.  Just get new studs, gaskets, and then reinstall as-is
• Have them sand-blasted, but do nothing else
• Have them sand-blasted and then painted/coated to look perpetually silver/natural metal
• Something else?

48

Originality / Re: Braided steel rope around 350 engine, 1967

« on: August 20, 2022, 08:06:21 PM »

Thanks for the replies.  My car was a CA car with A.I.R. in it, originally.  The cable definitely didn't look home made.  Looked very professionally constructed by somebody.

I only had the cable on one side.  It looked exactly like the cable on the right side in this pic and was looped into place exactly like the instructions in the background in the bottom left (around the manifold and through the engine mount) -- the second cable and bracket were not present:



Then, based on people's notes above regarding a recall, I found this brief excerpt online:

Report Date: December 29, 1971
Campaign Number: 71V235000
Component: ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING:ENGINE

Summary: THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT A SEPARATED MOTOR MOUNT MAY ALLOW THE ENGINE TO LIFT, WHICH MAY AFFECT THE THROTTLE LINKAGE, MOMENTARILY INCREASING THROTTLE, POSSIBLY TO FULL THROTTLE.

Consequence Summary: UNEXPECTED LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL MAY CAUSE LOSS OFVEHICLE CONTROL AND AN ACCIDENT.

Corrective Summary: INSPECT ENGINE MOUNTS AND INSTALL RESTRAINTS WHICH WILL LIMIT ENGINE LIFT AND ELIMINATE POSSIBLE SECONDARY EFFECTS TO THE THROTTLE LINKAGE DUE TO ENGINE MOUNT SEPARATION.

Indeed, the motor mount on the driver side (opposite where my cable was located) was separated ... for how many decades, who knows!

[...]
And I found this old thread with a lot more information, including the original recall letter from GM.  I originally posted this when I was busy removing the engine.  I'm now sitting down and have time to research this further.  Very interesting stuff.  I still don't understand why I only had one cable, instead of the two prescribed by the recall.  But, I definitely need some new engine-side motor mounts!!

https://www.camaros.net/threads/gm-motor-mount-recall-1967-69.170417/

49

Originality / Re: Braided steel rope around 350 engine, 1967

« on: August 20, 2022, 01:00:30 PM »

Taking out my engine and found something curious to me. It’s a 1967 350 motor. 11A build date for the car. Engine is numbers matching and I’m 99.99999% positive that it’s never been out of the car. I’ve owned it since 1989 and it had only 32,000 orig miles at that time.

Anyway, as we dig into it, we found a braided steel cable fastened with a bolt/nut on the passenger side (similar to a steel shackle). It wraps around the exhaust manifold and through the engine mount. I have no idea if this was original and what it is for.

I attached a pic, but it was hard to get anything decent to show the full shape and how it sits against the mounts and such.

Any ideas would be helpful ... e.g., was it original, should I put it back when I replace the engine, etc.

Thanks.

50

Originality / Braided steel rope around 350 engine, 1967

« on: August 20, 2022, 12:59:00 PM »

Taking out my engine and found something curious to me. It’s a 1967 350 motor. 11A build date for the car. Engine is numbers matching and I’m 99.99999% positive that it’s never been out of the car. I’ve owned it since 1989 and it had only 32,000 orig miles at that time.

Anyway, as we dig into it, we found a braided steel cable fastened with a bolt/nut on the passenger side. It wraps around the exhaust manifold and through the engine mount. I have no idea if this was original and what it is for.

I attached a pic, but it was hard to get anything decently

Any ideas would be helpful ... e.g., was it original, should I put it back when I replace the engine, etc.

The only thing I could think of was one of those safety cables to keep the engine from twisting or bucking ... but wasn't that a big block thing?  I can't imagine putting that kind of restraint on a stock 350 small block engine.

Thanks.

51

Restoration / 1967 Rearview Mirror -- Original Mirror became wobbly

« on: August 12, 2022, 02:30:52 PM »

I have done ZERO to diagnose or try to repair, so this could be an extremely silly proposition and question.

But, a while ago, my rearview mirror suddenly lost its friction.  It's all wobbly and just sags down and won't stay in place anymore -- gravity won the battle.  It's the original chrome-backed factory rear view mirror. 

Can I restore the grip?  Is there a set-screw I can turn, a bushing to replace, or is it just a worn out part now?

Thanks.

52

Restoration / Re: 1967 Front Windshield Replacement -- Tips, Advice, Best Parts, Etc.

« on: August 12, 2022, 02:18:03 PM »

Link

https://ecs-automotive-concepts.myshopify.com/collections/gm-glass

Thanks, Jim.  Do you have personal experience working with ECS?

Also, is this glass tinted (soft ray) or just clear glass?  I couldn't tell.  I'll reach out to them, either way, but was just wondering if you had any more insight on the vendor and products they sold.

Thanks for the tip.

53

Restoration / 1967 Front Windshield Replacement -- Tips, Advice, Best Parts, Etc.

« on: August 11, 2022, 03:25:14 PM »

I have a cracked front windshield.  It's the original glass on the car, so it's sad to see it go.  I'd like to stay as close to factory-correct as possible.  The original markings read:
Shaded
Soft-Ray
SAFETY [shield with LOF diagonally down-right) PLATE
AS1             YA
LAMINATED
M4

I have the A02 tinted windshield option ([1] W on the cowl tag).

So, I have a couple of questions about replacement:

1)  Where should I get new glass?  Best places? Part numbers?  Sources to avoid?

2)  I've never replaced glass before and have no glass-handling tools.  Is this a DIY job or should I be taking it to a shop?

3)  What else should I order?  Seals, gaskets, trim, felt. lubricant, silicone, etc.?

4)  What else am I missing?  What are the the things that fit the "I don't know what I don't know" part of this job?

Thanks.

[BTW, I am familiar with the CRG report on windshield.  So, I don't need the reference or help decoding the YA date code.  Thanks.]

54

Restoration / Re: 1100750 alternator build date

« on: August 08, 2022, 03:36:52 PM »

I can't answer the build cycle of alternators in 1967, but I happen to have an 11A C60 car that pulled the 61A alternator.  Interestingly, mine is a Y car from Van Nuys, too. However, mine didn't get the RS package and mine is Y-Y.  Anyway, my alternator is stamped as such:

Top Stamp:
1100750     61A
6K21     12V NEG

6K21 = 1966, October, 21

So, if our cars were built the same week in the same plant, then I'd suppose you'd want an alternator stamped near the date of mine above.

I don't know much about the stamps on the back, but ... On the back, there is a stamp for "DELCO - REMY" and then a circle with these numbers stacked inside:

423
6119
466

Hope this helps a tad.

55

Originality / Re: Black trim on a 67 RS/SS

« on: August 08, 2022, 03:31:53 PM »

[...] Was the guy just screwing with me or was such an option available? 

Those aren't the only two options available.  There are plenty of people out there that are inaccurate and incorrect without being maliciously so.  There's a difference in lying, "screwing with you," and simply being wrong.  My guess is the answer to your question is neither -- the guy wasn't screwing with you, but there definitely wasn't an option for that trim.

SS-327, t-tops, convertible Z/28 (outside the one unicorn '68), and factory 427s in 67/68 cars are just some of the more popular incorrect assertions about 1st Gen Camaros.  Few of those folks are devious liars.  Most are just blissfully ignorant.

Cheers.

56

Originality / Re: 1967 SS Camaro tires

« on: August 07, 2022, 11:33:55 PM »

[...] Now I just have to convince myself that it is alright to spend $328 per tire plus taxes and shipping for redlines [...]

As I mentioned before, JEGS has $100 off coupon and free shipping.  So, it's $303 per tire, plus taxes, and free shipping.  It's still a massive punch to the face, but you get to skip the knee to the gut when you're keeled over from that punch.

My wheels are 14x6.  Three are from a 69 Chevelle (K 19 10 YW) and the fourth is from a 68 Chevelle (K18 5 7 XB) -- they were on the car when I bought it in 1989, so I have no idea where they came from or why they're mismatched (maybe a tire shop screw up and there's someone else out there with the mirror set to mine). I haven't driven the car with the new tires, so I can't comment on anything related to driveability.

57

Mild Modifications / Re: Factory Camshaft spec's for 1967 L48

« on: August 06, 2022, 02:33:42 PM »

[...] https://itstillruns.com/305-chevy-vortec-cam-specs-7715400.html [...]

This is in no way a criticism of Chuckman, but I quickly glanced at that article and this jumped off the page at me:

"The Chevy 350 engine was originally released by GM in 1967. It has been featured on the Chevrolet Corvette, Chevrolet Caprice wagon and smaller mobile homes. The engine is still produced in Mexico at the GM Toluca plant."

And this is why we can't have nice things.  No mention of the Camaro.  It's no wonder that people forget that not only was the 350 available in the Camaro in 1967 (yes, they do, I have had heated arguments with Chevy guys who swear the 350 was NOT available in the Camaro in 1967), they forget that is was only available in the Camaro in 1967, and that the engine was specifically designed for the Camaro's launch in 1967.  The 350 SB should be synonymous with Camaro, but, sadly, it's not.  People can write entire articles about the 350, including its history, and fail to mention the Camaro.  [me quietly weeping]

Here's a conversation from a Corvette forum. I don't own a vette and don't know these guys, but I'd bet they're pretty sharp on their cars:  https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c1-and-c2-corvettes/1124838-1967-327-350-hp-camshaft-question.html

58

Originality / Re: 1967 SS Camaro tires

« on: August 05, 2022, 10:45:04 PM »

Mine doesn't have disc brakes & I have the contraband, never-actually-used "Chevrolet Motor Division" dog dishes (my center caps don't say "Disc Brakes").  I just can't stand any of the wheel covers from 1967.  Mine wears rally wheels from a 69 Chevelle, I think.

Anyway, here are the after pics and a couple of wheel closeups:

59

Originality / Re: 1967 SS Camaro tires

« on: August 05, 2022, 01:23:10 PM »

I'll hold off buying any tires until I see your before and after pics.  Thanks again. 

My wheels/tires are at the shop today.  I'll post the after shots hopefully tomorrow (8/6) after I get them installed tonight.  Here are the before (215/70R14) and during shots:

60

General Discussion / Re: L78 Values

« on: August 04, 2022, 03:25:03 PM »

I think it's the relative obscurity of the 396 engine, in general, that has held back the popularity of the Camaro BB cars.  350 is a legend, obviously.  302/Z is a legend, obviously.  Then, the really cool GM engine of the day in the BB variety was the 427 in the vette ... and through dealer or COPO modification in the Camaro (and I don't know enough about Nova/Chevelle/Chevy II to know if/where that engine played over there).  In 1970, the 454 came out and that was that.  302 - 350 - 427 -454 ... and nobody really remembers the 396 (and, by "nobody," I mean the casual fan, not the Camaro or GM enthusiast).  So, I think it's taken time for the market to recognize the rarity and the value of the 396 1st Gen Camaros.

I liken it a bit to the Mopar cars.  They weren't worth much more than their weight as scrap metal up through the early 200s.  Then, all of a sudden, people remembered that those engines were absolute monsters.  I still think the styling isn't in the same zip code as Mustang and Camaro (and Corvette, Nova, Chevelle), but the market eventually remembered the rarity and power of those monster Hemi engines ... and their values went through the roof almost immediately.

In some ways, I think that's a similar story to the L78, L34, L35 BB 1st Gens.  The market (casual people) just haven't paid enough attention, but that has changed and is changing.