CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 26, 2014, 06:14:56 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.
106611 Posts in 12428 Topics by 4790 Members
Latest Member: gmein
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] 43 44 ... 60
616  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Non dripper valve cover questions. on: May 06, 2013, 04:24:35 PM
Hi Mark, I sent you a PM.


FWIW - I have a set of NOS polished ones with the drippers that I had Jerry refinish for me.  They now look like the original '69 dull finish die cast covers but they DO have drippers for better rocker arm lubrication. GM redesigned them for a reason.

-Mark.
617  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Jack date question on: May 06, 2013, 10:51:46 AM
Would an 06A early June car have a 9E jack or a 9F jack? I just bought what was supposed to be a 9E but it is a 9F and I don't know if I should keep it or return it.

Thanks guys.
618  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Battery Side post or top question on: May 06, 2013, 10:33:23 AM
I'm satisfied now, the local Chevy dealer here has the 78-6YR for $124.00 with a $16.00 core charge in stock so I will go with it. I looked at Lectric Limited's cables and will probably go with those, $48.00 a piece. Any opinions?

Thanks guys. Good info if anyone wants to make that change from top post to side post battery and cables.  
619  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Battery Side post or top question on: May 06, 2013, 08:52:10 AM
I'm not too worried about originality where the battery and cables are concerned. Kind of tough on the owners who have the oem cables trying to find a battery that matches their cables. Now I just have to find the right cables to buy now that I know what year battery. Thanks Pace.
620  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Non dripper valve cover questions. on: May 05, 2013, 07:28:32 PM
My first thought was there was a left and a right as far as the drippers, so I assumed the non drippers were too. What I have seen the past month on 2 sets I have bought there was probably one casting and the oil fill hole got punched out and the then they got clearanced for the intake left and right later.  There is a lot going on about these covers. I'd like to know how the dull finished ones were done versus the really polished ones that are being sold today.  

There is still some online stuff I'm reading about trying to restore the dull finish. Looks like a lot of work to do the dull finish AND the polished finish.




Did all the 418 covers have a dull finish?

I forgot to chime in on the first part of the question - my originals and all of the unrestored cars I have ever seen had "mill" finish cosmetics - they are smooth, but not polished. IMO bead blasting ruins the finish - about the only way I have ever seen as an effective way to clean them is dip them in carb cleaner, but you have to be carefull with that as well (some cleaners are so aggressive they can open up or pit the surface). True, they get worse with age and oxidation, but polishing them is not correct, nor is bead blasting. I will have Jerry restore mine when I get to the point where I need them done.
I sold a set of mid-80's NOS dripper covers a while back - they were polished covers, and you could really see the heat cracks were showing up in the casting dies. Shortly after I bought them, GM superceded the part number again, making that the third part number away from the original 418's that I know of. BTW, as you know, both original L&R covers did have the same casting number, as any number of posts will mention. Took me years to get word on that - I thought somebody had replaced one of mine with a duplicate side for a long time.

Regards,
Steve
621  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Non dripper valve cover questions. on: May 05, 2013, 05:01:54 PM
Hi Tim. Yeah, someone knows what it cost to do this and I think JM isn't the only one who does it. Would be nice if anybody that has had it done would speak up. I kind of think the ones I have may have been buffed. There was some kind of tub that vibrated that had these light gray stone looking things in it at one place I worked at years ago, but I don't think they have it anymore. I remember seeing it back in the 80's. I wonder if that is what reskins these things.
622  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: HELP STOLEN IROC ALERT!! on: May 05, 2013, 03:33:21 PM
Yes sir. What Danny said. Seen a lot of friends burned this way giving title out without getting all the money up front. I won't even let the car out of my sight until I know the money is in the bank if it's even a check. 
623  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Non dripper valve cover questions. on: May 05, 2013, 03:24:35 PM
Hey guys. Needs some help here please. I've been doing a search on the non dripper valve covers and found loads of info here, TC and online. I picked up a set of non drippers, both #418 and have 3" notches for the intake. Did all the 418 covers have a dull finish? Looking at my set there seems to be a slight shine to them but not like the new ones I see offered online, ebay and so on. Did the dull finish get lost in the aging process? I'm just curious. I'm not sure if I want to leave them as is or send them out for reskinning. They are really stained and after reading most of the search stuff I found I don't think I want to touch them.

I'm trying to find pricing on having them reskinned as well, but it seems like that is not noted anywhere I have looked. I want to compare prices before I commit to sending them to anyone. So, if anyone can clue me in on prices and who has the best price I can at least make an educated guess who gets to do them. There must be a high end price and a low end price and what they look like. My car is unrestored so I really don't think the high price reskinning is what I need.   
624  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Battery Side post or top question on: May 05, 2013, 09:43:30 AM
Not much in the local area for anything AC Delco unless I hit the dealer up.

I saw two different sizes of AC Delco side post ONLY batteries last week in a local shop on a battery rack, so they should be available wherever AC Delco is sold..  like your Chevy dealer and many more places.. Smiley
625  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Battery Side post or top question on: May 05, 2013, 09:41:50 AM
Just to clear up any confusion, at least for me anyway, the 69 AIM has 6297683 positive and 6297650 negative for the cables, and what is noted on the OEM cables in the ebay auction link I posted is 6297684 AS positive and 6297651 AV negative. Which of these are the correct printed numbers to look for on the reproductions? Been looking at all available reproductions online and the only seller that show printed numbers on the cables is HBC and those are the 69 AIM numbers. Not that this really makes a lot difference but I might go with Ricks. Anybody bought Ricks? Are the attaching bolts the same size? I don't really care as long as I can screw them on a modern Delco or Duralast battery. The different sizes screws are that important.
626  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Battery Side post or top question on: May 05, 2013, 08:51:26 AM
Hey pace, Initially I wanted to get a Delco side post, but I can use a Duralast if I can't find a Delco. I just need to find the numbers for each one so I can go look at them to make sure before I buy. I don't need a reproduction. My problem also is what side post cables to purchase and where to get them. If my car came with the Y77 I kind of would like to get back to that look of the side post. Looks cleaner then the top most.


Hey guys, I've been trying to find the part number for an AC Delco side post battery for my Z and can't seem to find anything except top post and the dual top and side post. Is there a side post only battery or am I going to be stuck with the dual or a top only?
Gary - You looking for a new Delco, a reproduction R79 or after market with side post?
Duralast by AutoZone makes a side post, and a reproduction is available http://www.restorationbattery.com/r79s.html
http://parts-catalog.acdelco.com/catalog/catalog_search.php lists several side post - note to get the only side options use year 1970 otherwise 1969 is coded to give you dual posts due to the change over.


627  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 0 rocker arms BIG or small 0 ? differences? on: May 04, 2013, 10:44:22 PM
That's cool Lynn. I gotta dig mine out as well. Maybe we all can get together and make some complete sets. I'll PM you when I find out what I have and what I need. Years ago I had two full sets of the small O's but I can't remember what the heck I did with those things. I'm still scratching my head on that one.


I have a pile of each, so I am sure I have some little "O"s I can trade you.

Send me a PM and let me know how many.  It may be a few days before I dig them out.
628  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 0 rocker arms BIG or small 0 ? differences? on: May 04, 2013, 01:44:14 PM
Some are freaked out about using them mixed and some aren't. Personally I think I would use as is as long as the rubbing surfaces are all good on the rocker and the pivot. I have some big 'O' and little 'O' rockers. Does anyone have any little 'O' to trade for big 'O' rockers?


Gary,

    They should be kept together, for the same reason as when you pull a cam/lifters/pushrods - I remember reading this in the overhaul manual (many) years ago, that stated the wear-in or hone pattern that develops between the contact surfaces are unique to those parts, and that the parts have to go through the same process if they are mismatched on reassembly, which could cause accelerated wear/premature part failure. I believe that to be on the high side of extremely remote - if you use assembly lube, and lubricate everything like it should be, they'll probably be fine. I still keep mine together, marked or cataloged.

     I don't consider myself as a professional engine builder, but I built my first one ('57 PowerPac 283, 30-30 solid GM cam, 327-300 heads, 11:1 TRW pistons, original stamped rockers, 43 years ago; multiple small blocks and big blocks (even a couple of FoMoCo's) since. I have never had a reused stock rocker fail, but I have checked them all for problems before reinstalling them. Last I heard, the original 283 was still at it. It's just a matter of personal preference - I know roller tips are better for geometry and reduced internal friction, but I still will use my "O's" until they give up the ghost, or I do.

Just my opinion -
Steve
629  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Starter nose for Z28 starter on: May 04, 2013, 01:37:14 PM
Now here is a 1968122 housing that looks to have a plug inserted in the tip. Hmmmmm. Interesting.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/350777835765?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649#ht_1061wt_1043
630  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Starter nose for Z28 starter on: May 04, 2013, 11:40:41 AM
Well, I didn't get it. It went for $152.00 anyway.  I googled the part number I found for the housing #1968122 and I did find a GM parts seller yesterday and bought one, $37.50 plus $12.00 shipping and handling. If anyone hasn't seen these sites here ya go. As I said in an earlier post, GMPartsDirect refunded my purchase because they said #1968122 was discontinued. Lets hope these guys are good.

http://www.oempartsgarage.com/

http://www.newgmparts.com/partlocator/index.cfm?siteid=213815
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] 43 44 ... 60
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 0.096 seconds with 18 queries.