CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2014, 01:28:01 PM

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.
106632 Posts in 12432 Topics by 4790 Members
Latest Member: gmein
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 35
16  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original battery hold down bolt on: November 05, 2014, 11:51:55 AM
Seems to be two points of view here and in other threads I have looked at.
Let's look at the facts as presented in the AIM's
Same part number 3758783 and torque used in all three years of production for this particular bolt.
Why would the torque of 60-80 in lbs (6.6 ft lbs) be applied to this bolt when the same size bolts in the same area have 120-180 in lbs (12 ft lbs) applied to them.
I believe that the toothed conical washer was specified and thus the lower torque value.
If anyone has ever tried to change a battery in a first gen then you know why the lead point on the bolt was specified, especially with AC (67-68).
I bring these points of view, not to start an argument, but to reason why this particular bolt does not have an accepted specific style and measurement.
Thanks,
Bob
17  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Air Conditioning Center Dash Vent on: November 02, 2014, 01:49:33 PM
I need some help in finding what the original spacers for a 67 05E as discussed above looks like.
Originally in early production  the spacer was 3891763 but was revised in 3-8-67 to 3925719 according to the 67 AIM. In 68 the 392719 was used in production until 11-?-67 then the spacer was replaced with 9776399 and seal 3891764 was removed according to 68 AIM. I believe 9776399 spacer is actually felt as discussed above ( thank you Ed).
But, I need to know what was used in 67 and preferably some time after Jan 1  67.
Any help would be greatly appreciated in clearing up this issue.
Bob
18  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 68 Air Conditioning -Sealing on: October 31, 2014, 03:41:11 PM
Looking at the 68 AIM 11-13 B3 shows a radiator support revision in 7-13-67. Could this have for the addition of the illusive dimples?
Bob
19  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Part numbers for 67 front and rear glass reveal clips on: October 29, 2014, 06:23:36 PM
Phillip and Steve,
I want to thank you both for the original 7693140 and replacement 8736586 part numbers.
Just for information the W & E Sales Co # is 389.
Thanks again.
Bob
20  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Part numbers for 67 front and rear glass reveal clips on: October 22, 2014, 09:38:14 PM
My 69 P&A only goes up to group 9.777 and have tried searches.  Does anyone have the GM part numbers for the front and rear glass reveal molding clips.
I want to order the clips from W&E Sales CO but they require a part number. They have many to choose from with no sizes given.
Bob
21  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 67 vent window rubber, clips ? on: October 18, 2014, 10:35:40 PM
There must have been a reason why GM installed them.
Anybody???
Bob
22  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Black Paint on Chrome Parts on: October 18, 2014, 10:01:19 PM
Sauron
Which of the two procedures would produce the best long term solution for application in Florida? I prefer to use a gun but I am not a professional.
Bob
23  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Galvanized finish on 67-68 tail light housings, hot dipped or electroplated? on: October 17, 2014, 10:59:39 AM
Interesting observation and topic! I checked my housings and found the 05B NOR used Phillip heads on L&R side and the 04B LOS used Phillips on one side and hex heads on the other.
I don't know if it was a NOR vs. LOS thing or a transition from one head type to the other starting around 04B (good idea for a poll?). I doubt it would be one of those 'as long as it fits' usage being the assembler would have to switch out the tool to screw them on.
  I attached images of the NOR and LOS fasteners and a closeup of the hex fastener marking  used on the LOS tail housing.

Mike
My Nor 05E are all hex with G&L head markings.
Bob
24  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Black Paint on Chrome Parts on: October 17, 2014, 10:46:41 AM
Sauron,
When using the SEM Texture Coating is the PPG 9317 topcoat sprayed wet on wet?
Bob
25  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Black Paint on Chrome Parts on: October 16, 2014, 06:47:56 PM
Sauron,
Please explain dash faces. Are you talking about the interior metal trim for 67 and dash in 68 and 69?
Bob
26  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Black Paint on Chrome Parts on: October 13, 2014, 11:14:27 PM
Mike,
Yes and the center vent and AC control panel. What thinner is used with the GM reconditioning black? How long does it take to cure? You think the GM paint is a little too glossy? The best I can remember is that the black used had very little gloss if any.
I believe something like the black back ground used on gauges was used on the center vent and control panel. Looking at the factory parts the paint would have to have covered in a single coat as there is no tape edge where the black ends and chrome begins and in some of the corners there is only a mist of paint.
Bob
27  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Restoring a galvanized finish ??? on: October 12, 2014, 10:43:07 PM
I stand corrected.
Bob
28  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Restoring a galvanized finish ??? on: October 12, 2014, 07:33:37 PM
Gary,
I would be interested in what you use and how they turned out.
I believe the vinegar is the key to the shine but keeping the shine is another question.
Bob
29  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Black Paint on Chrome Parts on: October 12, 2014, 07:22:26 PM
Have several parts that have been re-chromed and was wondering how the black was applied on factory parts. Looking at the factory pieces there does not seem to be any primer used to promote adhesion but the factory black was perfect after +40 years. You can look in the corners where the paint is thin and there is no signs of chipping or lifting.
I have researched this topic and really do not like the idea of sanding with 600 grit and using etching primer especially on the 67 tail light housings. I spent allot of money to chrome the housings and not destroy the rough definition only to destroy it with primer and paint.
Anyone know how the factory paint was applied and what paint, Sims, Worth, Rustoleum 7777, (?) could be used to get the closest to original?
I am leaning towards a thin slow drying enamel with the possibility of heat to help drying. Something along the lines of the original body painting process.
Bob
30  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 67, front bumper fit problems on: September 15, 2014, 02:00:53 PM
If you take the lower header off, will all the bolts fit in their proper holes? Upper bolts (4) only.
Bob
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 35
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 0.097 seconds with 18 queries.