CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2015, 11:09:07 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.
112315 Posts in 12904 Topics by 4940 Members
Latest Member: navan
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24
31  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 window fuzzies - ordered Repops on: July 22, 2013, 08:41:10 AM
I can't comment about ordering Steele and getting RePops.  I bought a set of RePops ages ago for my convertible with reveal moldings and noted the same issues.  Also, the RePops are way too think.  I threw them in the trash (since it was too late to return them).

IMO, your best bet is to order the PUI fuzzies.  They are very close to the originals.
32  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 SS RS Wheel well moldings on: July 15, 2013, 07:54:54 AM
For 68, the front moldings differed between Z21 Style Trim Group & RS.  The rear moldings were the same for both.
Here is additional info on the 68 moldings:
33  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 wheel rear wheel opening molding correctness. on: July 10, 2013, 09:24:42 AM
I bought mine from Heartbeat City and he lists 1967-68 mouldings and 68 Rs mouldings separately.
Almost all vendors list them the same way, and I don't know why. 
I actually like the look of the longer moldings on the rear, but I installed the correct shorter ones on my car (luckily I bought a nice set of NOS ones ages ago when prices were reasonable).
34  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 Standard gas cap fitment problems on: July 10, 2013, 09:18:24 AM
I agree that the cap contour doesn't match the tail panel, but you're planning on getting the cap centered in the opening, correct?
35  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 wheel rear wheel opening molding correctness. on: July 09, 2013, 02:06:12 PM
They had two different wheel well moldings for 1968.Non RS 68 moldings shared the same ones as the 1967 Camaro.68 RS Camaros had the molding stop at the rocker crease.    
Can anyone actually confirm this?
I have looked through all the original parts listings on, and the longer 4229493 & 4229494 rear moldings are listed as applicable only to the 67 Camaro.  The shorter 7795063 & 7795064 moldings are shown as applicable to all 68 Camaros.  I have original pictures of my 68 non-RS car that show the shorter moldings.

Here is an example from the GM books:

1967 Only:

1968 Only:
36  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: upper and lower control arm finishes on: July 03, 2013, 11:59:51 AM
Scott, I'm pretty sure judging at Camaro Nationals now will give a deduct if the dog bones are not black.
A friend had his 69 Z at the Nationals in the Bow Tie Class with the dog bones 'natural'.  They noted that the dog bones should be black, but not the nuts.  No deduction.
37  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 Convertible Top Boot Snaps on: June 28, 2013, 03:19:29 PM
I am still looking for some of these boot snaps.  If anyone has a set, please let me know.  Condition isn't too important as I will have them re-chromed.
38  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: '68 door weatherstripping suggestions on: June 28, 2013, 01:38:44 PM
I already commented on the exterior fuzzies, I think PUI is an excellent source for these.

For the door weatherstripping, my vote is for NOS.  I had a few sets of reproductions, but nothing fits & functions as well as NOS.  Be prepared to spend $1000-2000 for the pair.
39  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Heartbeat City reputation on: June 27, 2013, 11:43:46 AM
I have dealt with HBC almost exclusively over the past 8 years or so.  As others have stated, you need to do your homework regarding whether or not a part is really 'correct' , regardless of what the description on the HBC web site states.  For used/restored parts, or NOS stuff, I always call and talk to Jim before buying.  I have sent back a few "mint" used parts and "show quality" restored parts over the years.  Customer service has always been excellent.  Otherwise, I've been very happy and found that they have some interesting parts available. 
40  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Vacuum Advance - Converting to Full Manifold Vacuum on: June 15, 2013, 02:28:56 PM
^^Thanks Todd.  I don't think I'll need to install a clip on the pin - the new bushing fit very snug, and the original rubber/plastic bushing was on there for 44 years without a clip.

My VAC should produce 16 degrees crank advance at 14" vacuum.  With an initial of 10 degrees, and 24 degrees mechanical advance, I should have a total advance of 10 + 24 + 16 = 50 degrees at higher-rpm cruise.  My total idle timing should be 10 initial + 16 vac = 26 degrees, and my maximum WOT should be 10 initial + 24 mechanical = 34 degrees.  All these numbers seem to be very good based on my research.  I don't have access to a distributor machine, so I'll have to set up the distributor on the car & see how it runs (and adjust as necessary).
41  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 Z exhaust and smog systems on: June 14, 2013, 03:34:56 PM
Not everyone who bought Gardner has done so without regrets: Maybe they resolved their issues by now.

I just recently installed a Gardner system on my 68 L30 car.  The crimps on the muffler end caps are not perfect by any means, but they are not nearly as ugly as the ones on the muffler that pacecarjeff got.  The waves in the crimps are not too bad, and fairly symmetrical, so they don't look "out of place".  I'm pretty picky, and I think the waves in the crimps aren't noticeable once installed unless you are really looking for them.  The only issues I noticed were; 1)  the lack of slots on the muffler inlet pipes, 2)  the center hangers had to be pushed back a little for alignment, and 3) the RTV supplied for the joints is an acid cure RTV, which is not ideal for this application.
42  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: HEI distributor on: June 12, 2013, 11:36:19 AM
While people are talking about other options besides HEI:  If you want to look stock, remember that the Pertronix may fit under the cap, but it has an extra wire running to the coil and doesn't look completely stock.  I removed the Pertronix and installed a Breakerless SE utilizing the original coil wire.  You can not tell it's there unless you pull the cap.
43  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Vacuum Advance - Converting to Full Manifold Vacuum on: June 12, 2013, 08:09:24 AM
Well, I decided to make a new limit pin bushing to limit centrifugal advance to 24 crank degrees.  I had 2 brass bushings that came with a Mr. Gasket and Moroso advance spring kit.  I sacrificed a brass fitting I had 'in stock', and soldered a piece of it to one of the bushings.  Doing some math using the original pin bushing OD, the slot size, and the original advance, I determined the bushing width required to get me 24 degrees maximum.  I carefully shaped the new bushing, then installed it.  The bushing went about 1/2 way onto the pin, then I needed to carefully press it in place the rest of the way with a bench vice.  I used a little Loctite retaining compound on it just to be sure it wasn't going anywhere.

The bushing was too big at first (better than too small I guess).  So, I carefully filed it until I got 12 degrees movement at the centrifugal advance mechanism (24 crank degrees).  This was a real PITA to file in place, but I didn't want to ruin the bushing by trying to remove it.  Hopefully this exercise was worth the effort.

Making the bushing:

Bushing installed:

Putting things back together:

I decided to try the Mr. Gasket silver & black spring combo as a first shot.:

44  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Vacuum Advance - Converting to Full Manifold Vacuum on: June 11, 2013, 04:42:19 PM
^^Thanks.  That's what I was thinking, but it looks like I would need a limit pin bushing with an offset center hole to accomplish this.  I've never seen one of these.  Do you know if they are available?  I was thinking about trying to make one.  Maybe I'll give it a shot.

45  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Vacuum Advance - Converting to Full Manifold Vacuum on: June 10, 2013, 11:18:00 AM
I have a 68 L30 327 4-speed car.  It originally had the AIR system on it, but the entire system was removed shortly after delivery.  It has the original distributor and the vacuum advance is hooked up to ported vacuum.  The car has always seemed to run well.  Original static timing spec for this car is 0 degrees (IIRC).  So at idle the timing is at TDC (0 initial + 0 vacuum adv + 0 mech advance)  

Based on my research, I want to change the vacuum advance to connect to full manifold vacuum, and play with the springs on the mechanical (centrifugal) advance to start advancing just over idle and be "all in" by around 2800 rpm.  Research also indicates that I want my initial static timing at about 10 degrees, with max mechanical advance limited to about 20 degrees (rough numbers).  My issue is that my mechanical advance plate allows for 34 degrees of crankshaft advance (17 degrees distributor advance).  I measured this on the mechanism, and it corresponds to the stamping of "734" on the part, the last 2 numerals indicating total crank advance.  The original bushing is in place on the mech advance limiting pin, and the mechanism operates smoothly.  With 34 degrees of mechanical advance, I will still need to keep my initial static timing at about 0 degrees so that my high rpm low load  cruising timing isn't excessive ( cruise timing = 0 initial + 16 vacuum advance + 34 mech advance = 50 degrees).

My plan is to:
1)  Install a vacuum advance canister that will provide 16 degrees crank advance at idle vacuum conditions (connected to full manifold vacuum).
2)  Change the mechanical advance springs to start advancing just over idle and be "all in" by around 2800-3000 rpm.
3)  Keep initial static timing at 0 degrees.
4)  Keep existing mechanical advance limit arrangement at 34 degrees (I really don't want to modify the limiting slot).

Is this a good plan?  I know my timing curve will still not be ideal, but this should be a step in the right direction, correct?  Any other comments or suggestions?  This isn't a race car, but I'd like it to perform well.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.094 seconds with 18 queries.