Messages

16

Restoration / Re: 1969 z28 flywheel

« on: October 26, 2007, 03:38:34 AM »

I think that it's very interesting that the 67Z has the distributor and starter dated
about three months ahead of the engine build date.

I hope I got the math correct on that this time.

Are those acceptable time frames for those components?

69er

17

Restoration / Re: 1969 z28 flywheel

« on: October 25, 2007, 07:50:43 PM »

My apologies Paul, I was looking at the engine casting date compared to the assembly date. That span of time
is a little over a month.

Thanks for your input.

So, the casting date of the flywheel compared to the engine assembly
date can be cast at least 6 days ahead. I'm sure their may be other examples
where the casting date of the flywheel could be more or less.

Thanks again.


69er

18

Restoration / Re: 1969 z28 flywheel

« on: October 25, 2007, 02:52:08 AM »

John Z,

I was just looking at Jerry's website. He has some facts on an original unmolested 1967 z28. The engine data is as follows:
3914678 CASTING DATE J97, ASSM DATE V1121MO. The flywheel data is as follows: 3791021, DATED K157.
If I read this correctly the flywheel was cast a little over a month before the engine date stamp on the engine pad.

So, could some flywheels be original to the car but yet be cast up to a month earlier than the engine stamping date.

Maybe it was different in 1967.

what do you think?

69er

19

Restoration / Re: 1969 z28 flywheel

« on: October 25, 2007, 02:10:19 AM »

What about CE blocks did they get flywheels installed?

69er

20

Restoration / 1969 z28 flywheel

« on: October 23, 2007, 04:44:50 AM »

In comparison to other engine part date codes, where should the date code be
for a 1969 z28 flywheel.

For, example should the date code of the flywheel be before the engine casting date code?

How far ahead should this date code be. For example, if your engine has a March cast code
what should the cast date code be for the flywheel for it to be a matching part?

thanks I hope I was clear.

69er

21

Restoration / Re: Rear Stripes - again

« on: June 02, 2007, 04:50:19 AM »

John Z.

What are the possibilities that the stripes were to be installed on a camaro with
a factory installed spoiler. I noticed that the width of the spoiler almost matches
the extra space between the top of the stripe and the bottom of the rear glass.

It appears that my spoiler was dealer installed (no camaro emblem on the trunk lid). The
stripes on my camaro go all the way down the trunk lid.

So, what I am saying is could the factory worker have received the stencil that was to
be for a factory installed spoiler. But, he notices that the build order for the camaro has no
rear spoiler. But, he still uses the same stencil but moves it down so that the entire
trunk lid is laid with a stripe, but now leaves that extra space between the top of the stripe
and the bottom of the rear glass.

Let me know what you think, I hope I was clear.

Valleyhugger

22

Restoration / Re: Service Order Block

« on: May 10, 2007, 02:36:05 AM »

Mr. zdld17,

Are you saying that the first warranty block did not have full floating piston pins?

69er

23

Restoration / Re: Service Order Block

« on: May 10, 2007, 12:40:07 AM »

Mr. zdld17.

When you received the warranty replacement engine. Do you know if it came with full floating piston pins?
I am just wondering if GM changed the connecting rods to press fit due to the problems that were
being encountered with the full floating piston pins.

69er

24

Restoration / Re: Cylinder blocks

« on: April 29, 2007, 03:50:57 PM »

I agreee jerry with what you are saying. Getting a correct period dated block is best. But, would a temporary
solution be to purchase just the bare block and bolt on the remaining origianl components to the block?

I just thought that as a solution you buy a brand new block use your original parts, you might need new
pistons, but the rest would be original until you find that block.

Any thoughts?

69er

25

Restoration / Cylinder blocks

« on: April 28, 2007, 04:53:59 PM »

Jerry,

I have noticed that the pricing of cylinder blocks with the correct casting numbers and dates
for first generation z28's sometimes go for very high prices. I understand why this would
be so for restoration purposes. But, on the other hand taking the point of view from a
technical standing, what is wrong with purchasing a brand new small block with 4 bolt mains
from GM. When you buy a brand new block, you get a standard bore, the mains should be
straight and no cracks.

Is this an option if you have a early z and are going to be restoring it?

69er

26

Restoration / Re: 3030 duntov camshaft

« on: April 14, 2007, 07:37:25 PM »

Why would someone pay up to $500.00 for what is being represented as an original
factory 3030 camshaft when they could by a replacement that is better and cost
under $200.00 with the lifters?

69er

27

Restoration / Re: 3030 duntov camshaft

« on: April 09, 2007, 08:27:11 PM »

I'm not sure if it's a comp camshaft or crane camshaft. But, it's sold through GM performance parts.

Here are the part numbes.
12364052 blueprinted replacement for factory part number 3849346 (mechanical camshaft)
12364054 blueprinted replacement for factory part number 3972182 (mechanical camshaft)

So, Jerry would this camshaft be acceptable for a restoration of a 1969 z28?

69er

28

Restoration / 3030 duntov camshaft

« on: April 08, 2007, 09:05:13 PM »

Jerry,

I noted an original 1969 z28 3030 camshaft sell on ebay without the lifters for several hundred dollars.
I also found that GM performance parts sell the 3030 camshaft manufactured through crane camshafts.
They list the cam as having the same specification with the addition of being blueprinted. The cam
comes in a kit with the solid lifters. Is this a good replacement for a worn original camshaft or should the
restorer try to buy an original camsaft?

69er

29

Restoration / Re: Rear bumper bracket rivets

« on: April 07, 2007, 01:18:31 AM »

Are the rivets being discussed the ones that attach the license plate bulb bracket to the
bumper itself?

69er

30

Originality / Re: std transmission flywheel size

« on: March 31, 2007, 05:51:42 PM »

could a #3856579 flywheel be a good substitute.

69er