CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 20, 2014, 12:15:23 AM

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.
107548 Posts in 12507 Topics by 4812 Members
Latest Member: oldbop88
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 24
46  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: building a garage on: December 20, 2012, 04:18:28 PM
Definitely go way bigger than you think you need.  It will look huge when empty, but it will fill up quick - trust me.  My garage is 36 x 36.  It allows you to put two cars in end-to-end, but only if you don't have anything like a work bench up against the back wall.  Another thing to watch out for is support beams/columns.  You don't want any.  They turn a lot of garage space into a lot of unusable garage space.

My only other suggestion is if you plan to use the garage for collector cars and daily drivers.  Put a partition between the 2 areas.  You will want to keep your collector car area separate.  I ended up installing an industrial curtain in my garage to accomplish this.
47  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Rear Wheel Well Plugs - Before or After Undercoating? on: December 20, 2012, 09:16:44 AM
Our 68 plugs were clean Jeff.
Chick - Are they rubber or plastic?  
48  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Rear Wheel Well Plugs - Before or After Undercoating? on: December 19, 2012, 01:02:26 PM
Were the plastic plugs in the rear wheel wells (3 each side) installed before or after the undercoating was applied to these areas?

My originals had some undercoating on them, but I think it was from a quick re-coat that I did back in the 80's. 
49  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Restoring Original Ball Joints on: December 01, 2012, 08:35:10 AM
Follow-up:
I received the boots from Bair's.  They appear to be a fairly generic boot with no grease relief like the originals.  That doesn't really bother me, but they are very thick & stiff, with almost no 'give' at all.  Not sure if they are usable.

If I undertake this job, I'll probably buy the repro ball joints before pulling everything apart.  That way I can choose from the Bair's boots or pirate the boots off the repros.
50  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original Convertible Well Liner Material on: November 22, 2012, 07:03:54 PM
Thanks for the pictures Ed!
51  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original Convertible Well Liner Material on: November 21, 2012, 08:29:55 PM
Ed-
Is the flocking really white?  It looks more of a charcoal color in the picture.

So the black vinyl is about the same grain as the soft interior trim?  If it's not too much trouble, I would greatly appreciate a picture of the inside.

It's interesting that the vinyl side is toward the interior of the car.  I thought that the vinyl side went toward the trunk compartment.  The well liner I got from Electron Top has the vinyl side toward the interior, and I thought it was a mistake.  Maybe that one is correct.

Thanks for the help,
Jeff
52  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Original Convertible Well Liner Material on: November 21, 2012, 05:54:08 PM
Does anybody have a picture of both sides of an original factory convertible well liner?

I had a new top put on my car back in the 80's and the well liner was made out of what appears to be a black lightweight convertible top material.  It's canvas/cloth on one side and pinpoint black vinyl on the other.  The replacement from PUI is cloth with a smooth vinyl on one side, and the vinyl appears to be glued to the cloth, and is pulling away everywhere it was folded.  It looks awful.  The replacement from Electron Top is cloth with a grained glossy vinyl on the other side.

So, does anyone know what is factory correct?
53  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Restoring Original Ball Joints on: November 19, 2012, 11:38:36 AM
Update:

I just spoke to Brian Bair at Bair's Corvettes (www.bairs.com).

They have replacement boots for the original upper ball joints, part number 5093 for $6 each.  Brian advised that they normally remove the ball joint to replace the boot.  He said to carefully remove the ring, then replace the boot & put the ring back on.  Unfortunately, they don't have the ring or boots for the lower ball joints.

I also got a set of the threaded upper ball joint rivets from them, part number 5090C.  Brian advised that these are forged, grade 8 strength, and made in the USA.
54  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Restoring Original Ball Joints on: November 18, 2012, 06:59:11 AM
Here is a post that I found from a while back.  The pictures lead me to believe that the metal sleeve holding the boot on can be removed (although it probably was never intended to be).

Attached is a picture of the different upper ball joints. The left one is a 28K original (mine), the center one is a NOS 3963842 (ebay), the right one is a SS-195 from Classic Suspension (Chevy). The spot welds are very visible on the NOS compared to the original, but the appearance is correct. The SS-195 has a round or bubble top. The rubber boots are held on with the metal band that is shown on the original part.

Does anyone know where you could buy just the rubber boots?

Mike




"Classic Suspension" is tough to find any info on.  I have an older 2010 catalog from Rick's, an they specify the 'correct' components as being from Classic Suspension.  So, I went to the Classic Headquarters catalog and they state that their correct suspension/steering parts are from Classic Suspension.  I'm thinking CS is basically CHQ stuff. See here:   http://secure.classichq.com/64-74-UPPER-BALL-JOINT-CORRECT-EA--P99.aspx
55  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Restoring Original Ball Joints on: November 17, 2012, 06:46:08 PM
I posted this over on Team Camaro, but figured I'd post here as well to see if anyone has restored their original ball joints:

My 68 Camaro has the original ball joints.  The car was maintained religiously, so the ball joints are all good.  I was checking things over the other day and saw that one of the uppers has a cracked boot.  For those familiar with original ball joints, I have the following questions:
1)  Is it possible to replace just the boots?
I was thinking about buying a set of 'correct' reproduction ball joints made by Classic Suspension, then carefully removing the boots and installing them on my original ball joints.

2)  Can a new boot be installed on the upper or lower ball joints without removing the ball joint?
On the uppers, it looks like the boot is held in place with a sleeve.  Not sure if I can remove this sleeve without taking the BJ out of the A-arm.
On the lowers, it looks like I could just swap the boots.

So, has anyone done (or attempted) this?
56  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Trunk sound deadner on: November 13, 2012, 12:11:50 PM
Jeff, can you post a picture of yours?
Ed-  I was just editing my post as you were typing.  See above.

I have a NOS trunk mat I purchased a long time ago.  If it needs protection from the heat, then I definitely want to put something down there.  The original tar-paper type material came apart when it was removed for refinishing the trunk.
57  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Trunk sound deadner on: November 13, 2012, 12:03:46 PM
Gents, he's referring to the trunk paper that was added by Fisher Body on deluxe interior cars.

This one's a 68, but 69 is basically the same.

Any info on whether a convertible would be different?  My 68 convertible has a piece of 'trunk paper', but it isn't located above the muffler.  It runs front to back on the RH side of the trunk recess.  It appears to be the same shape as the picture Ed posted.  I wonder if this was simply a production mistake.

58  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Problems with glass bead blasting on: November 11, 2012, 12:07:52 PM
Sounds like I have the same cabinet as you.  I have only used Biasil sand and Black beauty in mine.  I use a small shop vac on the port with the cone filter.  The air intake on the back is open (no filter over it).  I have no issues with dust unless the filter in the shop vac clogs.  I actually run an old shop vac without a filter in it now.  I set the shop vac outside and run a long hose to the suction port - filter clogging problem solved.  The gloves get sucked straight in as you mention.  So, check to make sure the vacuum isn't plugging up with fine dust.

How much pressure are you running to the blast gun?  As already said, it seems like your compressor is overpowering your vac and pressurizing the cabinet.

2 other suggestions for this cabinet:
1)  Make shields for the inside light from the clear protector tubes sold at HD or Lowes
2)  Buy or make clear shields for the main window
59  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Rear Axle U Bolts on: November 09, 2012, 12:51:25 PM
  Just ordered two u's from Heartbeat the are supposed to be identical to factory ones. 
You may want to double-check what you are buying.  The HBC description gives the correct dimensions, but the picture shows an incorrect u-bolt with the flattened area and smaller diameter shank.

AMK has the correct ones.
60  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Rear Axle U Bolts on: November 09, 2012, 07:57:36 AM
My 68 L30 12-bolt had one u-bolt and two t-bolts for each side.

On a related note, make sure you get the correct 3930054 u-bolts.  AMK has the correct u-bolts as part number B-11621.  The 'correct' u-bolts that the parts places sell (the ones with the flattened area) are not a match to the original 3930054 u-bolts.  If you're interested, Chick (68camaroz28) posted some u-bolt comparison pictures over on Team Camaro:  http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=182584&page=30
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 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 0.089 seconds with 18 queries.