CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2014, 08:35:29 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.
97527 Posts in 11718 Topics by 4581 Members
Latest Member: Cooper48
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 32
421  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Charlotte Autofair on: August 31, 2006, 11:24:09 PM
Can't make it, Lake, but it's quite a show! The 1st time I went was back in the mid-'80s, and it was a thrill to walk up on the 2nd turn of the track and actually FEEL how steep that thing is banked! TV doesn't do it justice. I went looking for an Edelbrock TM-1 Tarantula manifold and found one. The number of vendors is staggering--it took a whole day just to walk around the race track infield looking at all the stuff! Who are you with?
422  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 camaro multi leafs or mono on: August 30, 2006, 10:04:49 PM
Dunno about '69s, but according to my GM books, any '68 Camaro 327 over the base 4bbl engine (327/250hp) should have had multi-leafs, and that also meant it had a 12-bolt, but they were rare as hen's teeth. No 2-barrel 327s seem to have had multi-leafs. I've seen a 327/275hp 4-speed '68 with a 12-bolt and multi-leafs, but only 1. Every 2bbl car I've ever seen had mono-leafs, '68 or '69. I guess it's possible, though.
423  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct Hood Hinge Finish on: August 28, 2006, 10:27:01 PM
If yours are worn out you can still get the gray phosphate hinges from GM, but the supply is running low. More and more are coming through painted black.
424  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: How Much Do You Drive? on: August 27, 2006, 12:10:13 AM
When I finish my '68 it'll be driven regularly to work unless bad weather is predicted, with lots of cruising and drag strip time thrown in--no Trailer Queen for me. I want to DRIVE it--high gas prices be damned. My daily driver now is my '87 IROC, but it ain't a '68 and never will be. I've owned my '68 since May of 1985, and it was my daily driver until 1992, when I acquired a mortgage which is now paid off and I can dance again. I've raced it, gotten laid in it, been profiled by the cops--the whole shooting match. We've all made memories in our Camaros--good and bad--and I'm living for the day I can turn the switch and hear that 406 blast alive with a ragged idle and the promise of even more good times!
425  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Camaro won't start on: August 24, 2006, 10:20:04 PM
My '68 did the same thing, and after replacing everything and even running a temporary contact switch under the dash for a Band-Aid, I found the problem; the contacts in the plug where the purple wire runs through the firewall had corroded, and the switch wouldn't energize the solenoid. This one about drove me nuts! I cleaned the contacts and the car starts fine. Hope yours isn't this complicated, SS. Good luck.
426  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: rubber or polygraphite bushings??? on: August 21, 2006, 11:40:47 PM
I used Energy Suspension urethane bushings throughout, too--including the rear spring pads and all shock bushings. My A-frame bushings squeak but the engine is not back in the car yet, and they will "settle in" after the car gets the full weight back on the front end and it's driven for a bit. Squeak or not, urethane beats rubber hands-down in my opinion because it won't dry-rot and eliminates virtually all the deflection that rubber bushings have even when new. The car will ride a bit more stiff, but Camaros never rode like a 98 Olds anyway. Unless it's a by-the-book restoration, I vote for urethane. My 2 cents.
427  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: New Shell Vs Fixing mine on: August 20, 2006, 12:27:44 AM
I can tell you this, guys--if you do decide replace the sheetmetal on your car, spend the extra money for the best you can find. No sheetmetal on the market is as good as the original GM, and the cheaper stuff is even worse than the "best" aftermarket. I had to replace the header panel, fenders, doors, tailpan and deck lid on my '68--all of it Goodmark, touted as the best--and NONE of it fit right. I spent $1000 on aftermarket sheetmetal and had to pay a professional bodyman $1000 to fix the damn mess and put it in primer. It's why Waynechipman got $1000 for a NOS fender! The GM stuff isn't available anymore and I had no choice, although I did score a GM cowl panel. If I had it to do over again I'd have patch-paneled my GM stuff and actually saved money. Despite what their advertisement says, Goodmark is made overseas, too, not in the USA. If you have a restoration business locally I'd make friends with them and they can recommend the best stuff currently available. If not, I've found that Year One is a super bunch of guys to do business with, although they're more expensive on the average. Modern Chevrolet in Winston-Salem, NC is also a great source. And you guys have to also remember that the magazines have an agenda when they run an article promoting things--they get kickbacks like any other business and will tell you the great things and leave out the warts, or are ignorant of them. MY 2 cents. Ain't this Camaro restoration thing fun?
428  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z28 Question on: August 19, 2006, 11:41:58 PM
Thanks, Dave. You learn something new everyday! That's why I love this site.
429  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 z/28 what to with it? on: August 19, 2006, 11:36:13 PM
Flow, I know that on a '69 almost everything will work as is--even the small-block frame mounts for the engine. As I said in my post, I've swapped a 396 for a 307 and it was a virtual bolt-in. Correct? No way, but it worked for a hot rod. The heater core clearance was VERY tight, as was the carburetor-to-hood clearance. We used headers instead of manifolds and that simplified things a bit. We even used the 307 10-1/2" flywheel, bellhousing and clutch stuff. The car already had a Muncie and a 4:11 12-bolt out of a Z/28 in it. Seems like we had to change the starter nose for the BB and it did need a bigger radiator. Of course, back then you could get any small parts cheap at the junkyard! It was incredibly crude by correct standards, but the car was already a bastard of mixed parts and the 396 was functional and ran like a bat out of hell. Some of us do some dumb things in our 20s! Hope this helps and good luck!
430  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z28 Question on: August 18, 2006, 10:39:03 PM
The dumb guy's guide--like me!--is to look for 4-leaf rear springs. Only the Zs had them as far as I know, and that's a dead giveaway on the surface. It would also have to have front disc brakes and a Muncie 4-speed. No production '69 Zs had automatics, a/c or were convertibles. Hope this helps.
431  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: 1968 Camaro mono leag to multi leaf conversion on: August 15, 2006, 11:19:09 PM
Don't see what the '67 springs have to do with anything. If you have the '68 springs and new correct perches for the rear axle, it's a bolt-in once you weld the new perches to the axle tubes. If the new springs have the locating tabs (which they should) and the new perches have the locating holes (which they should) it's a no-brainer. You can join them with U-bolts or tabs, either way. Energy Suspension makes some nice urethane spring pads, by the way--inexpensive and they won't rot like rubber. Hope this helps.
432  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1968 D88 stripe ? on: August 15, 2006, 11:01:53 PM
My Fisher Body manual says the stripe was dropped mid-year or thereabouts, due to production problems like L30 suggested. The manual says it was a legitimate option, so who knows if any made it through? It would be cool to see an original one!
433  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: 1968 Camaro mono leag to multi leaf conversion on: August 14, 2006, 11:16:18 PM
Viking, do you have new spring perches for the rear axle? You'll have to have new spring perches to match the multileafs. Monoleaf springs have a locating tab, too, and I don't exactly understand your problem. You can shim monoleaf springs into multileaf perches (not good) but not the other way around.  Can you be more specific?
434  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 z/28 what to with it? on: August 13, 2006, 11:27:25 PM
It's tight, jd, but it'll go.  Wink In the '70s I helped a friend swap a 396 into a '69 where a 307 was and it all bolted right in with no cutting or hammering. That was one tire-smoking rascal....
435  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 z/28 what to with it? on: August 12, 2006, 11:42:16 PM
For my 2 cents there is no way I'd clone it to a Yenko--that's for grocery-getter 307 slugs with 3-speeds and 10-bolts. Even though the car isn't highly optioned, the main option checked on the order sheet was Z/28! I have no idea what the market value of a '69Z without a DZ engine is, but if everything else is original it would be a sacrilege to destroy a 1st-Gen Z in my book. They're getting more scarce every day, and even though you have a Rat in it, the Rat is not a 427! Try building a COPO 427 and a DZ 302 will seem cheap! And you'd have to replace the front springs with big-block springs. Even worse, you'd have to remove the Z 4-leaf rear springs for 5-leaf big-block springs, and the list goes on and on. For what it's worth, if it were me I'd build a nice 350 or 400 that looked aesthetically correct and enjoy the car. The 302s weren't torque monsters anyway, and the extra cubes would make it a blast to drive. 
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 32
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 0.089 seconds with 18 queries.