CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2014, 05:26:57 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.
105581 Posts in 12330 Topics by 4753 Members
Latest Member: stpatrick
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 102 103 [104] 105 106 ... 163
1546  Orphans - documentation or VIN-stamped drivetrains - in search of the original cars / 1969 - Orphans / Re: 69 Z 19N687352 Original Block on: May 02, 2013, 12:22:44 PM
I noticed the same thing..  2 months+ after casting before assembly??  when the norm is probably a couple of days?
1547  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Muncie ID ? on: May 02, 2013, 12:04:14 PM
Thanks Ed,

I cleaned it and opened the side cover; it is apparently an M20 (from the 2 grooves) although I didn't spin it and count turns.  It is NOT an M22.   
I've never ran the transmission, although I've had it since 1971; installed it briefly in a Henry J, but it was only ran once around a short block.   I let a friend use it for a few months back in the late '70's in his 55 Chevy.   All the numbers from the parts seem consistent with '68-'69 Muncie production, although I know I did swap the front case after I purchased it...  so we know the front case came from a April or May '68 Chevelle (Kansas City plant).   All visible characteristics of the trans are consistent with '68-69 Muncie M20/M21.
The ears and gears look good, and there is no damage, existing or repaired, to the transmission cases. The Chevelle VIN is stamped on the top of the transmission.  I need Camaro $$ more than I need this trans.  Do you have any idea what it's value would be?   
1548  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Heavy duty GM 12-bolt axles on: May 02, 2013, 07:06:25 AM
Hi Robert,
I'm curious why you refer to the 'service duty' axle as 'JL8'?   Do you call it that because that's how a lot of Camaro people today refer to ALL Camaro disk brake rears?    

JL8 is the order/option code for the factory installed rear, but the 'over the counter' piece, I've only ever heard referred to as 'The Service Duty' rear end.
In my mind, only the factory installed rear is truly a 'JL8'.  The Service Duty rear served the same purpose (rear disk brakes) for Trans Am racers, but in a much heavier duty way!   Chevrolet never referred to it as 'JL8' did they?

It would add clarification if we had more distinctive terminology to distinguish the two?  There were other differences between the two rears than just the bearing size and axle diameters.   The posi unit in the Service Duty rear had more plates and heavier duty springs also, and there are probably other differences I don't know of as well.

Does anyone have written documentation for, or know the PN, that the Service Duty rear end (brake to brake) was sold as??  I can't find my copy of the 'original' Power Book; does that identify the rear by part number? or by ??
1549  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 Z28 Carb accel linkage and vacuum hardline? on: May 01, 2013, 08:29:27 AM
Can't you just bend it where you want it to be?
1550  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 Z28 Carb accel linkage and vacuum hardline? on: May 01, 2013, 07:51:09 AM
Zman,
I'm not sure on how such tubes are measured (ID or OD?).. it's a small tube.
From the photograph I sent, it appears the OD is ~ 3/16" (definitely less than 1/4)..
1551  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Was the nose bolted together when the stripe applied? on: April 29, 2013, 09:44:08 PM
If you compare your Camaro to a model A....  the camaro will look great.. Smiley
1552  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: 69 302 motor sitting to long on: April 29, 2013, 02:03:28 PM
I agree with JohnZ...   but besides oil, also make sure you have cooling  and gauges hooked up and working so yuo can monitor engine performance while driving it.. S**
1553  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Willow Run plant about to see the wrecking ball...? on: April 29, 2013, 12:11:57 PM
Interesting article from Hemmings re the Willow Run plant....  maybe we can all pool our money, but it, and convert it to a Camaro restoration facility?  Smiley

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2013/04/29/willow-run-assembly-plant-faces-the-wrecking-ball/?refer=news
1554  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 ralley sport x code ? on: April 29, 2013, 08:58:06 AM
I think he meant 'automatic/ column shift'....    *giving him an extra 'f' to use next time'..  *G*
1555  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Battery Side post or top question on: April 28, 2013, 08:35:16 PM
It was probably much more likely on a 'customer ordered' car.  I've special ordered a few new cars in the past ('70 RR, '73 RR, '77 MC, etc), and each time I did I always ordered *every* HD option they had, which usually included 'HD Cooling', HD battery, HD suspension, etc.    The key was that when it was specified on the order, the additional cost was minimal!   Typically dealer orders did not specify such things, because customers buying cars off the lot likely believed they were all the same.. and all it did was add to the dealer cost.  Example:   Hemi suspension on my '70 RR was an additional $25, and the 15x7 Rallye wheels were an additional $43.   I don't recall what the HD cooling and HD battery were, but it was typically 10-20 ea...
1556  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Muncie ID ? on: April 27, 2013, 03:47:50 PM
2 grooves on the input shaft.

Only stamps on the top was a VIN (8K196xxx) and a '4' in a box near the top rear of the front case.
1557  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Muncie ID ? on: April 26, 2013, 10:51:49 AM
thanks Ed!   I hadn't read that thread before, which addresses the odd suffixes on '67 and '68 Muncies.. Smiley
I'll pull the side cover and check the gears, and while reading thru this thread, I recalled having to change out the front case after buying the trans (which had two broken ears); and I think this stamping is on the front case.  I'll have to go check it out a bit more thoroughly.
1558  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: What carb date for my 06A early June Z on: April 26, 2013, 10:05:24 AM
I have a '941' and an '822' body, both with 4519 and 5583 metering blocks and associated parts; I might be short a couple of bowls for one of them?  The 941 is 'sorta promised' to a camaro buddy.. although we haven't closed the deal after 2-3 yrs.. Smiley

I think anywhere from April to end of May would probably work. Ed says even the 934 would be ok. So 94X, 95X might be fine but I don't know if too close for V0604DZ. I'm hearing carbs can be dated past engine build date? Is that correct? I do have a 4519 block that came with the car when I bought it.

I have a couple of extra bodies and metering blocks I got with a car long ago... what date are you looking for?
1559  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Muncie ID ? on: April 26, 2013, 10:01:11 AM
Attached is a photo of a stamped code on a Muncie trans I have had since 1971.  It seems to be stamped P8D10c, although the 'c' is very small....  Does anyone recognize this stamping to identify it?  I've always believed this trans to be an M22; it has the 'whine', although it's been so long that the side cover has been off, I don't recall even looking at the angle on the gears.   Has anyone else seen a 'c' stamped like this?
1560  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: What carb date for my 06A early June Z on: April 25, 2013, 08:37:44 AM
I have a couple of extra bodies and metering blocks I got with a car long ago... what date are you looking for?
Pages: 1 ... 102 103 [104] 105 106 ... 163
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 0.104 seconds with 19 queries.