CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 23, 2014, 01:03:25 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.
105668 Posts in 12339 Topics by 4754 Members
Latest Member: Jake
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
31  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 steering column help on: June 15, 2009, 08:00:00 PM
Lots of other columns will interchange: 69-74 Nova, 70-77[?] Camaro. Save the original, modify the replacement.

oh indeed, that was always the plan... unless i can find a tilt column cheap. LOL
32  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 steering column help on: June 15, 2009, 07:58:41 PM
HI RatPack,
 
i'm not using Raised Port heads, and Jere didn't mention any problem using the 105 design with stock heads...in fact he did confirm that they work with the stock heads... I don't know if the column arm is only a problem with the raised port heads or not, but he did confirm that the arm is an issue in my case, so i'm assuming that it doesn't matter which heads I use....

DUH... forgot about the key Provision.  i guess I'll just have to cut it off and get another column if I ever want to put the stock parts back on.

the original 106 only comes now in 1 5/8 and i wanted 1 3/4 so that rules out the original design.

the Hooker SuperComps that you spoke of are 1 7/8, which would be fine for a 406, but the ones I have experience with are 1 3/4 and I know for a fact that they hit the steering linkage underneath the car... i've used those headers before and aside from that issue, they are nice... the other problem with hookers, as i've said before (at least the 1 5/8 and 1 3/4 versions  are that they hang rather low... much lower than the stahl, Dougs, or any other header i've seen.)

the 1 7/8s look nice, but they are way to big i'm guessing for a 302 street car... even if i'm running the 140 cam...

when Speaking with Jere, he claims that his 1 5/8 (model 106) made 25 more HP than the orignal 1 3/4 bill thomas headers from 1967.. he said that the big reason was the fact that Bill used 2.5"radius bends, and his headers use 3"radius bends... i'm not sure how much of a difference it makes, but Jere seems to really know what he is talking about.

if I don't go with Stahls, i'm gonna get the 67 or 68 repop headers...  i just didn't want to pop for that much money... oh well.

Thanks

Aaron
33  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 steering column help on: June 15, 2009, 05:17:36 PM
So my only option is to cut the arm off or use a 67-68 column?

If so, that sucks

Aaron
34  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / 1969 steering column help on: June 15, 2009, 02:21:23 PM
anyone know if the "reverse lockout" arm can be removed (without cutting) on a 1969 Column?
I'm ordering a set of Stahl headers and they say the model I want won't accomodate that arm.,
So either I cut it off, or figure out a way to remove it, or disengage it so that the arm can be pushed down far enough to clear the header, and still be able to turn the key off.

any help would be greatly appreciated...

Aaron
35  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Stahl Headers anyone? pix please? on: June 12, 2009, 06:46:38 PM
So I spoke at Length with Jere Stahl today about headers for my Z>. I'm just not wiling to pop the 1500 for the repop ones, especially since they aren't correct for a 1969 no matter what...

anyway...

he states that inorder to clear with 1 3/4 tubes, I need to cut off my column reverse lockout arm... the only header they make in 1 3/4 is the new model 105.

i don't want to cut my column apart, in which he said that the old version (106) will fit w/ powersteering, but only in 1 5/8.

anyone have the 106 or 105 on their car.. and can I see a photo of how they look? and if there really is an issue with the column reverse lockout arm.

I suppose i could swap to manual steering.. but that would suck.

if necessary, i could find another column to bastardize, paint green, and install...

any help would be appreciated.

i'm trying to find the best set of 1 3/4 headers for my car, and I believe Stahl to be the ones, just don't want to have to do serious and unrepairable damage to my column to make them fit.

Thanks

Aaron
36  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: anyone use a lightweight flywheel behind their 302??? on: June 09, 2009, 12:53:17 PM
thanks...
I just spoke to Mcleod... Red suggested the RST line, which is actually a lightweight dual disk.
has a 9.5 ring so lower inertia??

he said it would be perfect for my 10.5lb Fidanza flywheel I just got.

very minimal pedal effort and can hold 800 hp....

my Z ain't that hot LOL, but good to know that it will handle the 400hp I can throw at it now.

Aaron
37  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: anyone use a lightweight flywheel behind their 302??? on: June 07, 2009, 08:26:04 PM
i found a fidenza 9lb job..

also found that GM makes the 15lb L88 type...  it is nodular

the Fidenza is aluminum with steel insert...

i was just worried that 9lb was too light for a street car... especially a  302 with the 140.   not  a whole lot of torque there...


the next question is ... borg and beck or diaphram....  i shift above 7000 rpm... and don't mind a heavy pedal...

Aaron

38  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / anyone use a lightweight flywheel behind their 302??? on: June 07, 2009, 08:51:39 AM
i posted this in Mildmods, and only had one response, but i'm going to order my clutch and p/p today, and wanted to firm up in my mind if i'm going to go with the OE flywheel again, or get a lightweight version.

the car has a wide ratio muncie with 4.10s , 302 with the 140 cam.
i had no trouble easing away from lights with the current flywheel, but i'd like the car to rpm a little quicker and this seems the obvious way to do it, i just do not want to make it impossible to pull away with too light of a flywheel.

anyhelp would be great.

thanksd

aaron
39  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / lightweight flywheel in a 69Z on: June 05, 2009, 02:41:15 PM
anyone done this? i'm about to switch my muncie to a 2.87 first gear trans, with the original 4.10 rear gears.. so the car will have great 1st gear.

i am thinking of shelving the original flywheel and putting an aluminum lightweight flywheel.

anyone done this or have any suggestions on what to get?
Thanks

Aaron
40  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 exhaust question on: May 02, 2009, 12:58:29 PM
ordinarily, I'd agree with this statement, but the ZL1 he is referring to is a well documented car and clearly lends credibility to this topic. Additionally, that car was right off the Berger Showroom floor.

41  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: exhaust systems manufactures on: April 30, 2009, 08:39:37 PM
what isn't "perfect" about the D&R stuff...
does it hang crooked or something?

Aaron
42  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / exhaust systems manufactures on: April 30, 2009, 08:19:54 PM
hi gang,
i am pretty sure that Gardner is the cats meow with these OEM style systems..

but what are the opinions on the systems offered by Ricks, Heartbeat City, D&R etc?

i need a resonator/transverse system for a late 69Z and am pretty sure to be getting a Gardner, but really wanted stainless...

don't even know if I can get it from anyone in stainless, but aside from that, i've not heard good things about the fit on these systems..

can anyone elaborate good or bad news on the systems they installed on their cars?

Thanks

Aaron
43  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 1969 exhaust question on: April 26, 2009, 10:50:44 AM
hi, got a Sept69 build Z28.

currently have Gardner Chambered on it, but I want to put the correct system on, which I read to be the transverse with resonator system per Jerry's book.

Are there any documented cars built much later than the official change over that did not have resonators?

i'm only asking becasue I want my car to be as correct as possible, but would rather not put the resonators on.

car currently has headers so it isn't a big issue at the moment, but i plan to do some showing this summer and if I take the headers off, i'm gonna put the correct exhaust back on.

Thanks

Aaron
44  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: new videos of my Z with the offroad cam... enjoy on: April 24, 2009, 10:47:00 AM
My 22 month old son's comment at the end of the video says it all.

Tell me he was strapped in a child's seat.

nope, he was just rolling around in the back seat bouncing off the rear side panels. LOL

actually a child car safety seat is permanently strapped into the back of all my cars.
we used to move it from my truck, to the Z, to my 1964 Bonneville... but it became too much of a hastle trying to move them and make sure they were installed safely...
so we bought one for each car.

the only one that gets moved is from the Bonneville to the 64 Corvette. LOL

A



45  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / new videos of my Z with the offroad cam... enjoy on: April 23, 2009, 07:55:56 PM
Here are a couple of videos. The first is is a 15 second in-car video 1st and 2nd gear .. getting on the e-way.
i eased the pedal down at about 3500 rpm, and granny shifted about 6800 rpm
wound 2nd to about 7000 if memory serves. Earlier in the day i did powershifts at about 7800 rpm... but the biasplys didn't fair too well grabbing 2nd. My 22 month old son's comment at the end of the video says it all.


enjoy the clips.

Aaron

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTgT0VCytGc



and




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTgT0VCytGc
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
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 0.081 seconds with 18 queries.