CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 01, 2014, 06:18:14 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.
103754 Posts in 12185 Topics by 4697 Members
Latest Member: bobs67
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 35
406  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Crate or not? on: October 24, 2006, 11:35:09 PM
I don't know what the carburetor height on a ZZ4 manifold is, but I'm sure the right cowl air cleaner spacer ring would adapt to it. I say use a ZZ4 because you really get what you pay for versus an Auto Zone or other such crate engine. The GM crate engines are brand-new with high-quality parts. If you know or can stroke a Chevy parts guy at a dealership to get the wholesale price, you can save serious bucks over retail. It never hurts to negotiate! GM is hurting in parts sales right now and you could easily land a golden BB. Good luck! 
407  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Best source for resto parts on: October 24, 2006, 10:42:56 PM
Hey Lake....Phil at Classic Muscle has a Butternut Yellow '68 Convertible! Heckuva nice guy, too.
408  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Best source for resto parts on: October 24, 2006, 12:03:51 AM
I vote Year One or Classic Muscle. Rick's 1st-Gen gives poor customer service from my experience and they'll eat you alive with shipping and handling charges. Year One is more expensive but they are great people to work with. Classic Muscle in Winston-Salem, NC sells pretty much the same parts as the rest of them at 5 percent less but they're not as knowledgeable as the folks at Year One. For what it's worth, do your research and know what you want and from what vendor, and buy from Classic Muscle if price is your bottom line. They beat anyone I know of. My 2 cents. 
409  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Crate or not? on: October 23, 2006, 11:50:45 PM
I'd go with the ZZ4--'83 engines SUCKED...lol. A crate engine comes virtually ready to fire up and you'd save all the machine shop hassles. If you can afford it, I vote crate engine. My 2 cents.
410  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 spoiler question on: October 19, 2006, 11:12:22 PM
Who would want a Camaro without one?
411  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 67 Camaro Series 3 Differential on: October 19, 2006, 11:09:44 PM
I've never heard of a Dana under a '67 Camaro from the factory! Dana 60s were way different from the 12-bolt and were original in the (gaaacckkkk) Chryslers. I'm no numbers guru but I guess it's possible a Dana carrier could be in a 12-bolt if that's what you're asking. But the 3-Series carriers were different between a 3.08 and a 3.73. If memory serves me correctly, 3.73 and lower ring gears on a 3.08 carrier required a spacer plate because the pinion gear was so much smaller. I believe the thicker carriers that didn't need spacers started with 3.55s. But again, I know next to nothing about the casting numbers and am relying on memory. Hope this helps and good luck!
412  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Crossram and exhaust manifolds anyone????? on: October 17, 2006, 10:26:27 PM
It's like going to a pie-eating contest constipated--why take in more than you can get rid of? The ugly, restrictive manifolds choke a crossram (or any other) setup at high rpm. Those things were designed to run on real Trans-Am racers with open headers. Admittedly, a crossram setup looks trick, but manifolds would make it even more sluggish at low rpm and strangle it on top-end. And invest in a lot of AC46S plugs if you mostly drive it around town! The sheer plenum volume gas-washes the cylinders at any kind of low rpm with even a moderately high overlap cam like the 30-30. It takes a LOT of tuning to make a crossram run right on the street. My 2 cents and good luck! 
413  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 Window Glass on: October 16, 2006, 10:20:50 PM
My '68 is a very early production model (#1750) and has Astro Ventilation on both windows if that helps you guys any.
414  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Ash Trays on: October 16, 2006, 10:02:40 PM
If you really want to get crazy, buy a zinc-plating kit from Eastwood and plate it! The zinc will give a factory look on the tray itself and on the frame, and of course you can paint the outside to match your dash. You have have the whole thing absolutely clean before you try plating it. I wash my parts with Auto Zone carburetor cleaner and let them air dry, then in the acid they go. The Eastwood kits are fantastic--you can replate nuts, washers, screws--anything that came zinc from the factory--make them look brand new, save money and keep your original parts! On my '68 I've done the tie rod sleeves, suspension nuts and washers, brake components--etc. People are amazed when I tell them they're the factory parts. Just a thought. Good luck!
415  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: new to chevys appreciate any info on: October 14, 2006, 11:51:47 PM
I'm with Dave...original 1st-Gen Zs are getting more scarce by the day. If you want to clone a 302 Criz, you can get a small-journal 327 and drop a 283 crank in it--that's what the factory did! The difference is in the piston pin height, so you'd need 302 pistons but the 327 rods would work. Pre-'68 327s had forged cranks, too. You'd have to install a spin-on oil filter adapter because the '67-back 327s had a canister filter. It can get complicated because in '68 the crank journals got larger and the cranks became cast in the low-performance engines, and the spin-on oil filter was introduced. '69 Z 302s had it all--4-bolt mains, forged crank and pistons, better rods, a windage tray, better heads---etc. '67-'69 was a transition period  and the '69 302 was the best of them all, hence the most desirable. You could clone a '69 302 with almost any 4-bolt 350 block--302s, 327s and 350s were all 4" bore and had 5.7" rods, but you'd need a large-journal 302 crank with the 3" stroke versus the 327's 3.25" or the 350's 3.48", and that means a custom-ground crank these days. Just some food for thought.....lol  Wait until you get into the purple pushrod stuff....chuckle
416  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: new to chevys appreciate any info on: October 13, 2006, 10:30:39 PM
TY Raf...I was talking about "in the day" so to speak, when the rules were much more rigid and technology not so advanced. The cars of today are nowhere near as primitive as in the '60s. Glad to hear a '67 Z has cracked the 10s! I wouldn't call 10:70s deep into the 10s, but I will call it damned amazing. My hat is off to Ben Wenzel Sr. You GO guy!
417  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 307/327/350 on: October 13, 2006, 10:01:37 PM
All 350 cars were Super Sports--that'll narrow it down some.
418  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: A Long Way Away on: October 13, 2006, 09:59:23 PM
Please be careful--that's a dangerous part of the world. Good luck and return safely.
419  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Transmission/clutch noise on: October 12, 2006, 11:43:35 PM
I'd guess it's the throwout bearing, not the transmission. Man, have I been there!
420  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Fuel Lead Additive on: October 12, 2006, 11:36:03 PM
For 10 years I drove my '68 daily and raced it on the weekends with #291 heads and never had a prob with unleaded gas eating the seats up, and that was with a wild cam. Right on, JohnZ. I call B-S on the whole concept. It's amazing what mass-marketing disinformation can get people to worry about and buy!
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 35
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.324 seconds with 18 queries.