CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 31, 2015, 07:37:32 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.
109346 Posts in 12660 Topics by 4866 Members
Latest Member: jamejia1967
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 36
31  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 67 T400 Transmission Mount on: November 15, 2014, 03:07:33 PM
The T400 mount was changed from 3872247 to 3895831 sometime between Jan. 67 and end of production. Reference 69 P&A, REV. 10-1-69, Gr. 4.081. Only reference in 67 AIM is for non BB T400 mounts.
Anyone know when this may have happened?
I am venturing a guess that the 2nd design 3895831 would be correct for my 67 05E build.
Bob
32  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68 Camaro TH400 mount on: November 15, 2014, 01:54:54 PM
SS396,
3872247 with orange paint marking is the 67 1st design ( 4 1/4" between bolt hole centers). 3895831 with white paint marking is the 67 2nd design and is used in subsequent years. Maybe some one knows when this change took place but it would have been done sometime between Jan. 67 and end of 67 production.
Bob
33  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original battery hold down bolt on: November 14, 2014, 12:33:37 PM
Mine, which I believe to be original, is a 5/16"-18 recessed hex head with a captured conical washer and a reduced-diameter round flat point (we called them "dog-point" bolts in the plant).
[/quote]
Washer is 7/8" in diameter, and it does have serrations ("teeth") on the bottom.
John,

Two different styles of washers and two different styles of bolts = ?
Bob
34  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original battery hold down bolt on: November 11, 2014, 03:39:54 PM
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=2899.0

Maybe JohnZ can re-post the pic. I couldn't get it to open.
To All,
Before we go further, please read Phillip's attached thread as we seem to have a communications gap.
Two different style bolts and two different style conical washers = my questions. Which style and if both ( AIM indicates only one), then why the lead point and conical toothed washer?
Bob
35  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original battery hold down bolt on: November 07, 2014, 01:03:31 PM
Clamping force required, that's all. They worked out the force required for the battery and generated the spec. Sure don't want to have the battery loose or crack the case.
.
Kurt,
I can agree with you fully if the bolt 3758783 is as Chick described from his 68 survivor. But if we assume that the bolt 3758783 is a lead point with a toothed conical washer as on other survivors, we have to ask, which style bolt is correct? If they are both correct then the AIM's are incorrect and can be noted.
Bob
36  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original battery hold down bolt on: November 07, 2014, 12:15:04 PM
John,
How would the bolt stay tight at half of it's recommended torque?
Is the plastic case compressing and compensating for the lack of bolt stretch or are the teeth on the conical washer keeping the bolt tight?
Bob

"Recommended torque" on a fastener is determined by Fastener Engineering based on the type of joint and the joint materials involved; the fastener's job is to establish and maintain clamping force in the joint, and the torque required to do that is a function of the materials in the joint.
In this case was the conical toothed washer used to maintain clamping force because of the soft joint? If not, why was toothed washer specified in this case?
Bob

I guess you'd have to ask the responsible release engineer about the specifics.
John,
Thank you for your input to my questions and as always I usually learn something from your replies.
Any DRE engineers out there that could respond to my final question would be appreciated.
Bob
37  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original battery hold down bolt on: November 07, 2014, 01:52:49 AM
Chick,
Yes.
The questions I have asked have arisen from reply #1 which indicates two types of bolts being used on survivors but only one type was factory specified.
Just trying to find an engineering answer to my reply #6 and now reply #10.
Bob
38  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original battery hold down bolt on: November 06, 2014, 11:11:30 AM
John,
How would the bolt stay tight at half of it's recommended torque?
Is the plastic case compressing and compensating for the lack of bolt stretch or are the teeth on the conical washer keeping the bolt tight?
Bob

"Recommended torque" on a fastener is determined by Fastener Engineering based on the type of joint and the joint materials involved; the fastener's job is to establish and maintain clamping force in the joint, and the torque required to do that is a function of the materials in the joint.
In this case was the conical toothed washer used to maintain clamping force because of the soft joint? If not, why was toothed washer specified in this case?
Bob
39  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original battery hold down bolt on: November 05, 2014, 03:29:34 PM

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.

On the battery hold-down application, the bolt is bearing down (through the clamp) on a molded tab that's part of the plastic battery case - a "soft make-up" application; too much torque, you break the case and have acid everywhere. Other applications using the same bolt join two steel parts, with "hard make-up" joints.
John,
How would the bolt stay tight at half of it's recommended torque?
Is the plastic case compressing and compensating for the lack of bolt stretch or are the teeth on the conical washer keeping the bolt tight?
Bob
40  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
41  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
42  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
43  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
44  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
45  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
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 36
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 0.161 seconds with 18 queries.