CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 21, 2014, 01:23:33 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.
103301 Posts in 12154 Topics by 4689 Members
Latest Member: merle
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 z28 flywheel on: October 25, 2007, 10:38:34 PM
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
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 z28 flywheel on: October 25, 2007, 02:50:43 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
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 z28 flywheel on: October 24, 2007, 09:52:08 PM
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


4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 z28 flywheel on: October 24, 2007, 09:10:19 PM
What about CE blocks did they get flywheels installed?

69er
5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / 1969 z28 flywheel on: October 22, 2007, 11:44:50 PM
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
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Rear Stripes - again on: June 01, 2007, 11:50:19 PM
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
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Service Order Block on: May 09, 2007, 09:36:05 PM
Mr. zdld17,

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

69er
8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Service Order Block on: May 09, 2007, 07:40:07 PM
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

9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Cylinder blocks on: April 29, 2007, 10:50:57 AM
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

10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Cylinder blocks on: April 28, 2007, 11:53:59 AM
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
11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 3030 duntov camshaft on: April 14, 2007, 02:37:25 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
12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 3030 duntov camshaft on: April 09, 2007, 03:27:11 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

13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / 3030 duntov camshaft on: April 08, 2007, 04:05:13 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
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Rear bumper bracket rivets on: April 06, 2007, 08:18:31 PM
Are the rivets being discussed the ones that attach the license plate bulb bracket to the
bumper itself?

69er
15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: std transmission flywheel size on: March 31, 2007, 12:51:42 PM
could a #3856579 flywheel be a good substitute.

69er
Pages: [1] 2
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.