CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 20, 2014, 08:50:22 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.
97241 Posts in 11693 Topics by 4578 Members
Latest Member: ronhill
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30]
436  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 67 BB L78 oil dipstick on: September 06, 2008, 09:31:33 AM
Note.
Changed this post to Originality with new information.
Bob C
437  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: correct dipstick and tube BB L78 on: September 05, 2008, 06:21:26 PM
Update,
Did a little more research between the 69 GM Parts Book and all 3 (67,68,69) assembly manuals (AIM or is that AM) and here is the following results.
67      AIM page 287 L35 A4   Dipstick 3925520 Purple insert.
                                     Tube    3899640
68,69 AIM page 279 L35 A4   Dipstick 3925599 Yel. insert.
                                      Tube   3928901
All numbers confirmed in 69 GM Parts Book (PB).
The 69 PB shows only one pan being used (camaro 3958657) so I conclude that the 67 dipstick is somewhat shorter than the 68, 69. I also have to conclude that the L78 uses the same dipstick & tube as the 67 L35.
Can anyone verify these results with an original 67 .
Are these dipsticks and tubes correct for judging?

Bob C



438  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / correct dipstick and tube BB L78 on: September 05, 2008, 10:54:34 AM
While doing a search, found a reply from John Z. that indicated that there was no part # on the stick only Full & Add marks, "Engine Oil M ". The finish was ( Noblecoating)  and the handle has a yel. plastic insert.Would this description hold  true for the 67 BB L78 ?
The reason I ask, is that the 69 GM parts book shows a different length between the Full & Add marks between the 67 & 68, 69 and a shorter distance between these marks and the rubber insert on the handle.
Does this difference mean there is also a difference in the tube design Or length ?
I notice that there are reproductions (excuse the word) of the 68,69 tubes but haven't seen one for the 67. Is this an indication that there is a difference in the 67 tube?
The 69 parts book has  a specific part # for the 67 dipstick (3902399) and tube (3899640). Does anyone have a 67,68 parts book that could verify?
Just confused. Huh
Bob C


439  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / 67 BB L78 oil dipstick on: September 02, 2008, 11:54:45 PM
To all,
Trying to find correct dipstick and tube for 67 BB. Tryed search but only found responce from John Z that it did not have a part #  but had full & add marks also had " Engine Oil M"on the stick. Did that apply to the 67 as 68,69 had different dipsticks ? What was the shape of the handle, was it a round tube and did it have a color coded plastic tip? Anyone have a picture of a original ?
Jerry M. I know you are a small block man but do you have any idea what is correct for a 67 BB L78.
440  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: sleeves for power steering hoses on: August 05, 2008, 09:48:06 PM
Jim,

Wondering if you might have an overall length on the two hoses  Huh
 
Thanks for the reply  Smiley

 Bob C
 
 
441  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1967 RS Fold Down Rear Seat on: June 10, 2008, 04:24:47 PM
Did you need any pics for your conversion.  I did the same and love the seat.  I use the crap out of that seat for groceries and car show chairs and cooler storage.
I could use some pictures of the latch and covers !
Bob C
442  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: What is the color of the door jamb strikers? on: June 08, 2008, 11:44:22 AM
Jerry,
Is the trunk latch hardware for the 67 also not painted?
Bob C
443  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: sleeves for power steering hoses on: June 08, 2008, 11:15:46 AM
John, thanks for the reply.
Looking at the 67 A.M. page 374 the caption [ HYDRAULIC STEERING 396 ENG EXCEPTIONS ( RPO L35- L78 ) ], I take the word Exceptions to mean that  sheet is to be used for the assembly of L35 and L78. Am I interpreting this correctly ?
Will be at Camaro Nats. in a couple of weeks and hope to meet you and Jerry.
Again thanks for your help.

Bob C

444  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: sleeves for power steering hoses on: June 07, 2008, 11:21:01 PM
Joe , thanks for the reply .

I am in the process of building a 67 w/BB and thought I new the correct components for the power steering system .
The 67 assembly manual shows on page 374 ,2 sleeves, 1 clamp and a clip ( part of steering gear ) and on page 370 it only shows the sleeves and the clamp ( no clip ).
The 68 A.M. shows on page 375 the same as 67 A.M. page 374.
The 69 A.M. shows on page 405 2 sleeves, 1 clip, 1 clamp and a clip ( part of steering gear ) .
I bought a very late 68 ss/rs/396 ( in 69 - July or Aug. delivery ) and it had the 69 set up. I am not sure if it had 1 or 2 sleeves.
Also need to know if the return line hose uses screw or pinch type clamps an optional clamp ( 9424894 ) is shown ?
John Z or Jerry do you have any thoughts on this topic ?

Bob C


445  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: sleeves for power steering hoses on: June 06, 2008, 08:04:03 PM
Up-date
Does anyone have any measurements such as length , I.D. , O.D, thickness of the sleeve, so that I can make some sleeves ?
446  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / sleeves for power steering hoses on: June 05, 2008, 09:46:25 PM
Does anyone know if the sleeves for the power steering hoses on first gens. are available  Huh
Bob C
447  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Headlight door on my 67 RS... on: April 29, 2008, 12:10:06 PM
Claus,
I will try to help you with your problem but first we will have to narrow it down a bit. With the key and lights on, open the right door by hand. Now turn off the lights. Did the right door close. If it did then the motor is OK and your problem is in the headlamp limit switch (no ground). If it did not close the motor is defective. I do not believe that both limit switches could be bad but I guess it possible.
Hope this helps!
Bob
448  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: New Engine...Will Everything Fit? on: March 06, 2008, 12:27:37 AM
Are you going to use your stock fan and clutch or an after market ? If you use the stock setup with the long water pump the fan maybe not be in proper position in the fan shroud, this could cause heating problems. Cry
449  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: The Definitive 1969 Camaro Fact Book (Revised 4th Edition) on: February 27, 2008, 01:47:15 PM
Just received a copy from Rick's today!
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30]
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 0.093 seconds with 18 queries.