CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2015, 10:57:40 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.
112404 Posts in 12912 Topics by 4944 Members
Latest Member: 68RS/SS
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 130 131 [132] 133 134 ... 149
1966  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stupid question of the day on: September 26, 2006, 09:32:03 AM
Actually, "modifying" was a popular past time in the 60s and 70s.  In fact, lots of us who are restoring in the 00s got our start modifying back then.  Reasons: the Z label was popular, hideaway headlights were cool, and the Y chromosome (make that the Why-not chromosome).
1967  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Sealer between blower motor and housing ??? on: September 25, 2006, 05:13:37 PM
The only sealer that the 68 Chassis Service Manual mentions is in the blower assembly replacement and repair.  If you haven't already looked, take a look at figure 4 on 1A-3.
1968  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: How Much Do You Drive? on: September 24, 2006, 07:20:37 AM
Well, finally got up to 50 votes...

Gonna shut this down soon...

Thanks to those who voted and posted...

If you haven't, please do!
1969  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Best way to preserve the build sheet? on: September 22, 2006, 12:32:35 PM
Yes, have it laminated, but before you do take a digital picture of it.
1970  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Under hood weather stripping and decals on: September 21, 2006, 04:44:08 PM
I'd love to know if GM found a problem in the 67 that made them put the seal on the 68...
I figure the "stickum" on the 68 seal probably didn't last till you got home being exposed to motor heat, so the clips in 69 make sense.
And after John's explanation, I think I'll try to find the seal and clips and put them on my 68 original or not.  My car doesn't overheat with the A/C running, but I can tell it doesn't get real happy about it in July.
1971  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: brake line leak..pulling my hair out!! on: September 21, 2006, 10:09:44 AM
Niick P,
I'm just offering sympathy and hope:
I had the same problem...  Never got any real "fix" suggested for it.  But after trying about a dozen times, I finally got it seated right.
I know why I had trouble seating it: I'm not a plumber and that's what this is... a plumbing problem. 
Here's the hope: I got it fixed in January and no leak since!

I should add that my brake lines appear to be original...
1972  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Under hood weather stripping and decals on: September 20, 2006, 08:45:11 PM
What's really interesting is that the 68 A.I.M. has a note (#10) for the seal to "Remove backing for installation", indicating that the seal used double sided tape to apply to the support.

That helps!  I have original factory air on my 68, but no seal... and no holes for clips. 
1973  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Under hood weather stripping and decals on: September 20, 2006, 03:23:42 PM
Three questions:
1. Does the P&A list other models that had this seal?  (Maybe those would turn up in the junk yard.)
2. Is there a P/N, description, and/or picture of the clips?
3. Exactly where are the holes for the clips?
1974  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: What size wheels can I go with on a 69 Camaro? on: September 18, 2006, 04:20:15 PM

I'm the last person to check anybody's math...  But let me tell you from practical experience that the wider width will cause the occasional scraping problem.  I "inherited" a brand new set of tires on my car from the previous owner.  (And yes, I'm too cheap to not drive on them.)  But I have 8 on the back and yes, 7 on the front.  I actually get more scraping on the front.  It's not that bad and it doesn't appear to hurt the tire or molding on the end of the wheel well.  But it does scrape any time I hit a bump of "significance".  And yes, my springs and shocks are good (almost too firm a ride).
But let me also say, they do grip and drive well.  It does help to get that much rubber on the road.
You cannot tell that much from the thumbnail pic, but you can see they fill the wheel well.
1975  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Horn Placement on: September 17, 2006, 11:43:12 AM
How about helping me fill in the blanks.
I know from a 68 RS and the 68 AIM that the horns were moved to the center. (As was true for the optional Low Note horn.)  Was that true on all RS models 67 & 69?
"Normally" the horns on a 69 were on straight  brackets off each side of the hood latch brace...?
On 68 they were on the driver's side... How about 67?
Were there any other exceptions concerning horn placement from the factory?
1976  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Charlotte Autofair on: September 16, 2006, 08:21:21 PM
A 68 Camaro (no not mine) won the Class 27H (includes 67 and 68), second time in a row for Charlotte AACA. 

There were over 50 1st Generation Camaros for sale in the car corral.  Prices are WAY UP --the AACA treasurer told me, it looked like Camaro prices had increased by about a third since the Spring show in April.

I had been saying that prices were lower in the South --NOT ANY MORE!  Good News if you've got one...
1977  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 Radio on: September 16, 2006, 08:03:15 PM
This is not going to come as a big surprise... But no, I didn't find original radios cheap at Charlotte this weekend.  Although I did find a few misrepresented, thanks to you guys!

As to the question of repo. original radios.  The rep for Antique Automobile Radios said "Not yet, but we're getting there."  These guys are offering an original radio look with brand new "insides".  They are up to about 64 on the repo.  But the ones I saw looked pretty good.  Price is still high --$450 to $700, but considering the price of an quality original, I suppose it's in the ballpark.  Anyway, here's their site:
1978  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Questions on 68 RS SS 396 smog set-up on: September 14, 2006, 10:15:51 AM
This one's not "apples for apples", but it could help you on your price:

As Kevin said, in the boxes and with the manifolds, it's obviously worth more than this example.
1979  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1967 Washer Pump on: September 12, 2006, 10:07:39 PM
There was a change from 67 to 68 in the washer pump.  The cover for 67 and 68 should look the same (which may explain why vendors offer one replacement).  But the 67 used a straight hose valve assembly and the 68 used a 90 degree angle valve assembly.  (Somewhere in all these posts that valve assembly question has come up before...)
As to where you might find one: if you're looking in the junkyard, also look for an early Corvair (60-62) both 67 Camaro and those Corvairs used the same straight hose pipes valve assembly. Not sure if the Corvair 2 speed motor is the same... probably not.  But what you need is that straight hose valve assembly for 67.
You'll have to get Ed's attention with his P&A for part numbers.
1980  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 SS350 Fuel Pump #'s on: September 12, 2006, 09:12:13 PM
A cell phone call got this out of the October 1, 1967 P&A:

No listing of 6416148.

67 ALL (327, 350) (2nd design),
67 Camaro (302),
67 Chevy w/dual exh. (283) (1st design),
68 ALL w/4BC (327, 350).....................(type 40524)  .............6416886

[some Chevy & Chevelle info. on 40503]
67 ALL (327, 350) (1st design),
68 ALL (307) .........................(type 40503)...........................6416712

Pages: 1 ... 130 131 [132] 133 134 ... 149
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 0.101 seconds with 18 queries.