CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 28, 2015, 09:01:27 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.
110355 Posts in 12746 Topics by 4884 Members
Latest Member: makemine69
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Z/28 motor mounts on: June 07, 2013, 03:46:35 PM

Good question and a good point about motor mount safety.  I drive my car and occasionally really run thru the keep the carbon cleared out!!!  I used new locking style motor mounts and will take a hit on show points in necessary.  This will only matter if/when I take my car back to a national Camaro event where I could get it judged again.  PS: My car scored 973/1000 or Gold at the Camaro Nationals back in 2000, and no issues were raised regarding the motor mounts during judging at that time.

If I had a very rare, numbers matching "museum piece" and aiming for a 1000 point show car that was only unloaded from a trailer and driven to a show spot, then I would make every attempt to find NOS, very clean original, or very accurate reproduction non-locking motor mounts.  Remember, the rubber in NOS or clean original motor mounts will have deteriorated and may not be safe for driving the car frequently.

Just my opinion on this.  I respect all Camaro owners for what they use their cars for.  But if we intend to drive them, and drive them hard, please think safety...and don't put any extra "bulges" in your beautifully finished hood!

2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Z/28 motor mounts on: June 07, 2013, 10:49:22 AM
I ran across this discussion and referred back to my Jerry MacNeish fact books.  I have edition #1 and edition #4.  The motor mount part number was corrected since edition #1 from 3990519 to 3990918. Sorry for the confusion.

I dug up the 35 mm pictures I took of the components during my restoration (I restored my '69Z from 1995 - 2000 and did not have a digital camera back then).  I took digital pictures of my printed 35 mm pictures of the engine frame mounts 3945507 and 5508.  The part numbers are stamped in to the mounts and best seen after the mounts were clean from sand blasting.  I purchased the newer locking style mount mounts from Rick's 1st Generation back when Rick George owned and operated the store. The motor mounts fit well with no problems.
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro battery on: May 21, 2013, 08:00:03 PM
Hello 69Z28,

Sorry for the delay; I have not been on CRG for quite some time.  I purchased a Delco ACD 78-7yr battery, item #19001631, professional grade car and truck, maintenance free battery.  It’s a 770 cold cranking Amp (CCA) rated and has never failed me for the seven years it has been in use.  The first one was purchased in 2000, and sure enough, 7-years later in June 2007, I purchased the 2nd unit. I use a battery maintainer if the car sits for more than 6 weeks or longer.  I try to at least drive the car once a month (give or take a few weeks) on a 10 mile trip during the winter if the streets are dry to keep everything in good working order and keep seals lubed. 

My side post negative cable is marked 6297650 AU, the positive cable is 6297683 AR, as noted in the AIM, Section 12 A11 on page 162.

4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro battery on: April 29, 2013, 10:43:25 AM
Last year at the Spring Mecum auction, which is held here in Indianapolis where I live, I reviewed an exceptionally nice survivor, very low mileage, Dodge Daytona "wing" car (okay, okay...not a ‘69Z Camaro which is my 1st love, but I really enjoy all muscle cars...particularly survivors).  I talked to the owner and the only non-original component under the hood was the battery.  He keeps the original in the trunk.  He purchase a very nice reproduction jell battery but I do not recall where.  I do remember that it costs about $450.

Has anyone had experience with the new repro jell batteries which are supposed to be very reliable?

Years ago, I purchased a very nice dated code Y77 side post battery for my 05A '69Z from New Castle.  As Jerry M explained, it was not 100% technically correct as it had 3/8-16 terminals on both the Pos & Neg.  This battery was the only one I could find at the time, and could not fine the correct reverse polarity repro cables to be 100% correct.  Did I recall reading (perhaps some fictional stories) that GM dealers in service after the original car sale, would replace the original Y55 side post reverse polarity battery with a Y77 and changed out the cables?

My repro battery lasted for about 3 - 4 years (I kept it on a battery maintainer anytime the car was not being driven for a period).  I cell died and I could start the car to get to a car show, but it was DOA when I tried to drive home from the show.   I have a good reliable Delco battery in use now and the "neutralized" repro is the trunk for show only.

5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 a.i.r. deep groove pump pulley on: November 23, 2012, 09:01:32 PM

Sorry for the late response but work and other commitments have kept me quite busy lately.

When I restored my car during 1995 - 2000, I used a company named ASL to restore a number of my brake components.  They had a number of smog systems for sale.  When it came time to invest in a smog system, ASL was out of business.  I called Rick George who operated Rick's 1st Gen Camaro Parts and he gave the name of the guy who restored smog systems for ASL and his business.   I called and chatted with the guy and he happened to have a complete date code system correct for my car.  I guess it was my lucky day.

If your looking for a system,  inquire at the Camaro restoration supply companies.  I also have found Hemmings Motor News be a good source.

6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 a.i.r. deep groove pump pulley on: October 21, 2012, 08:57:27 PM
Here is a picture of my 458DA smog pulley.  My smog system was missing when I purchased my 69' Z28, but fortunately I found a very nice complete survivor system with dated holes clamps and the crossover hose. 

I hope these pictures helps and good luck with your project!

7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 69 Camaro upper fender bolts on: June 02, 2012, 10:25:31 PM

Give AMK a call,  they may sell you the small order that you need.  I have placed several small orders under $30. But I have spent a good amount of $ with them when I restored my car so AMK may have waved the $30 min order.

8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Documenting 1969 Fasteners on: May 05, 2012, 10:18:12 PM
Thanks IZRSSS and Paceme.

Your screws look like AMK screw B-11183, an 8-18 x 7/16 with a .38 encapsulated washer, in plain steel.  I'll may order these and give them a try.  One issue I have is that the passenger side was never drilled and attached with a screw,  and to drill the hole will require removing the fender.  Maybe I'll be lazy and not go to the trouble just as the boys one the Norwood line back in '69! LOL

Any suggestions?
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Documenting 1969 Fasteners on: May 05, 2012, 09:42:09 AM
While we are on the subject of screws, can those with unrestored ‘69s cars or ‘69s with the original hardware intact, show a picture of the correct screw that holds the Front Windshield Lower Molding outer clip to the body.  See picture of the molding for reference.  You can see this clip and screw when you open the door and look into the inner fender area


10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Documenting 1969 Fasteners on: May 05, 2012, 09:33:46 AM
Hello All,

It has been a while since I have been on this discussion thread and have a lot to catch up on.

Here are pics of my cowl panel area screws.  My car is a Norwood build 05A or 1st week of May car as a point of reference:

#9421479 Cowl Panel Screws. AIM Page 27 Detail #2: (AMK #B-12172, but they come as Phosphate; they need to be replated silver Zink). I got these from Larry Christensen.

#4874119 Cowl Panel Top Plastic Plug.  AIM Page 27 Detail #3: (AMK - no listing).  I believe I got these from Larry Christensen).  PS - These are not screws but this topic concerns the cowl area so I included them.

#447143 Windshield Washer Nozzles.  AIM Page 29 Detail #2: (AMK #B-11070 in the correct Zink Silver plating).

#3933052 Windshield Wiper Motor Linkage.  AIM Page 26 Detail #2: (AMK #B-10884 in the correct Zink Silver plating).  They are my original screws and it is hard to ID the bolt head.  I am sure there will be several suppliers as this is a common screw used across several car models at that time.  AMK head mark is "A".

Regarding the format, I like the format shown that appears to be a MS Excel file.  If Excel is used, it can be sorted several ways to make look up research easier, and pictures can be pasted in the file.  Excel can be copied in to a PDF format should a color book ever be generated from this information.

11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 Z hood stampings/dates markings locations on: May 01, 2012, 10:49:38 AM

Thanks for your input.  So far we have:

Car Build date w/Hood Date Code
05A with 18th week - cowl hood, Norwood car
05A with 18th week - cowl hood, assembly plant not stated by kurt s
08C with 26th week - cowl hood, assembly plant not stated by BULLITT65[/li][/list]
12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Sound bites of stock '69 Z28 exhaust systems on: April 24, 2012, 07:56:14 PM
I copied over some links from a different but related discussion about chambered exhaust. 

Reference to the original discussion:

Below are two links to two YouTube sound bites of exhaust systems on the 1969 Z28s for reference and help in choosing an exhaust system for your '69 Camaro.  This first link is from CRG member jmcbeth's completely stock '69 Z28 (…and very nicely restored Z28 I should add…) with the Gardner's transverse muffler system including the resonators.

Jmcbeth’s YouTube Link:

This is the sound bite of my "relatively" stock '69 Z28 302 but recently upgraded during the motor rebuild with Comp Cam's solid roller cam kit 12-770-8, springs, lifters, push rods, cam button, and #1804-16, 1.5 ratio Ultra Pro Magnum Roller Rocker Arms.  Initial timing set at 12 deg. BTDC, idle speed set between 900 - 950 RPM.  Results: Very responsive and reliable power from 2200 to 6200 RPM.  The sound bite is through the stock exhaust manifolds and exhaust system with the transverse muffler, without resonators.  This solid lifter cam was selected to be relatively close in sound characteristics to the stock 30-30 cam, yet more usable power lower in the RPM range.  You will notice it has a bit more crackle in the sound note.

My YouTube Link:

If some else has Gardner Exhaust’s chambered system on a stock '69 Z28, please post a similar sound bite.  This will provide an interesting side-by-side comparison with jmcbeth's stock transverse muffler system with resonators.

Thanks and enjoy the music!

13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Chambered Exhaust Option - 69 Z on: April 24, 2012, 07:25:12 PM

I finally was able to take and edit a sound bite of my '69 Z28 with stock exhaust w/o resonators.  My 302 is "relatively" stock but as I mentioned earlier in this discuss thread, I decided to upgrade the valve train to a full roller cam and roller rockers from Comp Cams as I had specified. 

I just posted the sound bite on You Tube:

I'll submit another post on CRG titled "Stock 1969 Z28 Sound Bites" with links to both our sound bite so it will be easier to find in the future.  If some else has Gardner Exhaust’s chambered system on a stock '69 Z28, please post a similar sound bite.  This will provide an interesting side-by-side comparison with jmcbeth's stock transverse muffler system with resonators.


14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z28 Brake Booster Question on: April 06, 2012, 09:40:30 PM

JohnZ and tmodel66 are correct.  As long as your brake booster precedes your build date, by a reasonable about, you probably have the correct unit.  I have a "05A" or first week of May Norwood built '69Z.  It still has its original "9204" stamped power brake booster date coded "108", or the 108th day of 1969 which was April 18th, which was only about two weeks before the trim tag car assembly date.

If you have the '69 Camaro Assembly Instruction Manual (AIM…a must have if you're restoring your car), page 260 covering the J52 Front Disc Brakes and Power Brake Cylinder Balance Valve & Brake Pipes show the booster and master cylinder as GM #5468165 Cylinder Asm.  This assembly was built and date coded by Delco Moraine when the subassembly was built at the component plant prior shipment to the Camaro assembly plants.  With a few exceptions, this was the situation on many of the subassemblies the GM component plants sent to the assembly plants. CRG has many great tech articles on the date code topic and the assembly process.

Hope this helps and good luck on your project!
15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Chambered Exhaust Option - 69 Z on: April 03, 2012, 11:07:53 AM

I had planned to do that, and I will try to get this done this weekend or very soon.  I have several sound clips but I did them solo and you see me walk from behind the camera to start and idle the car, pull into the garage, shut off the engine and then walk back to the camera to shut it off.  I am not able to edit the sound clip and I need to get an assistant to help as you did.

Prior to rebuilding my engine, I searched and searched but could not find a sound clip of a Camaro Z28 302 with this cam.  Your "stock" set-up and my "modified - stock" set-up will provide a unique side-by-side comparison!


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24
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 0.092 seconds with 18 queries.