CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 02, 2014, 11:32:54 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.
105018 Posts in 12268 Topics by 4728 Members
Latest Member: MartySS
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 112 113 [114] 115 116 ... 161
1696  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Camaro on Ebay on: March 04, 2013, 03:33:51 PM
The letter C in the axle code shows it is not a '69 Camaro rear, but a '70 Nova rear. The the '661 tranny case was not used until the '70 model year, or the late '69 production Camaros.  Should have a '660 Muncie case being an early built car.

FYI..  There's another thread concerning the use of the 'C' prefix (3 char codes) for late '69 Camaro rears as well...
1697  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Front Brake pads - 69 Z on: March 04, 2013, 03:12:09 PM
I'm reworking my front brakes.    I have rebuilt my calipers, and had the rotors surfaced.   I thought I should probably put new pads on at this point, since the *original* ones (I think they are actually pads I installed in the mid 70's and drove on for a couple of years), which are worn about 1/2 down, and the car has 'sat' for 33 yrs.

Alas!  When I started looking for replacement pads, all of them I've found are a *different configuration* than what was original on the car.   All of the ones I've found available now have added area for holes which the caliper mounting pins go thru (on the outboard pad).   They *look* totally different, although it seems they will work, and might even have some advantage over the original configuration.   A mfg photo showing the addition is attached.

Since I'm attempting to maintain the factory originality of the car, what should I do?   
1)  Use my existing pads, even though worn, as the car probably won't be driven very much?
2)  buy the available pads, and *remove* the additional metal from them before use?, or
3)  Do the judges overlook such changes?   
4)  Another option I've heard of, is to send the original pad metal backing to a 'brake rebuilder' who will rivet new pads to the old metal?   

PS.  I haven't yet found a source for option 4, but I've been told it's possible..

What say you fellas?
1698  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 'EY' coil springs.. update on: March 01, 2013, 12:29:16 AM
I talked to all the suppliers, even bought a couple of sets of springs as recommended.   None of them even came close to matching the appearance (number of coils,etc) so I was not going to iistall them...  now, if these springs don't make my car sit/ride right, then I might have to go wtih one of the others, but first I wanted to try with a matched appearance spring.   I'll update when I get some weight on my front end...
1699  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 'EY' coil springs.. update on: February 28, 2013, 09:18:22 PM
I was unable to find any springs which matched in appearance, coil wire thickness, and number of coils to the original EY springs..   I went to more trouble, more time, and more $$ in trying to match up the physical characteristics as well as the functional characteristics.   My original EY springs had 8-1/8 loops, and were ~0.60" wire size.   I haven't yet got the weight back on these springs to check static height, so that is my last question to be answered.
1700  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Muncie question M20 and M21 on: February 27, 2013, 04:05:37 PM
Gary,

As discussed earlier, there are so many possibilities of combinations of Muncie parts (once they have been broken, repaired, combined, etc), it's difficult to deterine from external id cues.    Your trans seems to be a 'wide ratio' unit now based on your testing.   It also seems to be a 'combination' of parts, rather than a complete trans as manufactured by GM-Muncie.   Since it isn't your original trans (NO VIN), it doesn't much matter;  clean it.. check it. and use it as it is if it's in good condition.   (Wide ratios seem to work better with the Z28's anyway - if the 302 is present - as it gives you a bit more gear when pulling off - which the 302 needs unless it's revved above 3-4K..  *G*   OR unless you have very big gears (4.11 or greater ratio).
1701  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Muncie question M20 and M21 on: February 27, 2013, 12:53:04 PM
Gary,
The 'B' on the end of P9E28B' says it was an M21 when manufactured (that part of the trans), but after 44 yrs, most of the transmissions have had something done to them!  Smiley   break off ears, change the front housing, etc.    Is the VIN on the trans consistent with your car VIN?     Yes, you should be able to put the trans in first gear, and turn the input shaft until you get 1 complete turn on the output shaft.   At that point, have you rotated the input shaft about '2.5' turns (2.56 first gear meaning M20), or about 2-1/4 turns (meaning 2.20 first gear or M21 trans).
PS.  I've heard so many different things about the 'number of rings on the input shaft' which differed, and with so many possible changes in the trans over the years, I don't pay much attention to that particular feature.
1702  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 Z28 Radiator Re-coring ? on: February 27, 2013, 12:15:38 PM
...
The radiator shop in Nashville that did my friend's Z is Tanks and Tabs, 801 Fesslers Lane, Nashville, 800-874-2559. I went on the website for them, you can select the core # for the '69 Z, but it won't give you anything but the number. ....

Steve,
Thanks a lot for the tip.   I've been talking to the shop you reference, after searching everywhere I could think of for a new radiator or core that correctly matches the original one (without success until talking with Joe at this shop).   This shop is now a Northern shop so they go by that name.   Joe just told me they will remove the top/bottom rail/braces from my core, clean them, and send them to their core supplier, who will install my original top/bottom rails on the new core and send it back to Northern, who will install the core on my tanks!   I think this is the best *original* solution I've found.    Cost expected to be approximately $360 to about $480, depending on the number of fins/inch (from 12 to 16)?.   The original radiator seems have from 12-14 fins/inch.   Does anyone know the original spec exactly?

But I've got two trips to make to Nashville in addition... to avoid possibility of shipment damage.
1703  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Smokey Yunick on: February 27, 2013, 10:20:38 AM
I agree with you Joe....   I never had the impression that Smokey was 'rolling in money'...   and certainly the trip to Bonneville cost someone a LOT of $$... and Chevrolet has also fed money and parts to 'favored son' shops..   Smiley    (makes one envious thinking about some of that) *G*
1704  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Z/28 motor mounts on: February 27, 2013, 12:49:04 AM
FirstGen..  Thanks for that older reference; it was helpful reading more background.   From all of this, I've gotten the idea that there were one or more changes in motor mount PN and/or configuration thru the '69 production year, so we should try to ascertain when the changes were (I think JohnZ had a post in the thread you refefrenced which identified May, June and maybe August of 69 for changes), and what parts were used when.   The change to the '70 motor mount may indeed have been before the actual '69 Camaro production ceased, so that is still an open question in my mind.

I think the (3" wide) Anchor motor mount that the parts store sold me may have been for the big block; Are the big block frame stands wider (3"?) as opposed to the small block frame stands 2-3/8 to 2.5" width?
1705  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Z/28 motor mounts on: February 26, 2013, 06:02:51 PM
I have original 3886466 mounts, as well as a pair of original '#3963700blk/3962748green/3972740gold  3974735gold nut and3980701' *(the one with all the PN's molded on the side of the rubber); mine had no paint left, so I'm unsure what pn it was sold as but I'm going to call it 3962748 to be consistent with what I called it in the earlier posts.   I also have just purchased 2 Anchor 2283 parts; they are identical in appearance and all measures to the 3962748 parts.

                                                                           GM 3886466               GM 3962748/Anchor 2283                       *Anchor 2267*             

A.  WIDTH = distance between the fwd                                2-1/2 "                                2-1/2" (-)                                            3"
and aft 'pin hole' (which straddles the frame stand)

B.  THICKNESS =Distance from center                                  1-5/8"                                    2"                                                   1-1/2"
of Pin hole to the block surface (back of mount)

C.  OFFSET  =  distance in plane of block                               1-1/2 "                                1-1/2 "                                              1-1/2 "
surface from the top row of holes in the mount
to the block, and the 'pin hole'  for the engine
retaining bolt.

*   I'm not certain these Anchor mounts are 2267, as I've tossed the boxes and they aren't labeled, but they are what the local auto parts store sold me
for 'small block' mounts (and 2267 is what Anchor shows as 'correct' for small block Chevy V8 - but they aren't correct for the 302/Z28 engine.

**   The width of the frame stands as measure on my car are ~ 2-3/8" ...

***  The Anchor 2283 appears identical to the GM 3962748 part, with exception of the molded PN's on the 2748...
1706  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Z/28 motor mounts on: February 26, 2013, 12:06:58 AM
I've got several of these mounts and I will take some measurements to go with the photos tomorrow and post them.  
For tonight, I thought I'd share with you all what the Chevrolet Parts and Accessories catalog, 30A, effective October 1, 1970 has for group 0.027   MOUNTING ASSY. - MOUNTING UNIT, Engine (also see group 4.081).   This shows what Chevy was selling across the counter and using in their service department less than a year after the '69 Camaro production stopped.  This catalog covers 62-70 Passenger cars, Chevelles, and Novas, and '67-70 Camaros.
What is interesting to me was that the original type mount posted in photos earlier by a couple of folks with the thick rubber at one end of the thru bolt to hold the engne mounting to the frame stand, seems to have been available in 'mirror' images for the left and right side...?   (Types B and D in the illustrations).
1707  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: RPO U17 - firewall hole size on: February 25, 2013, 09:30:52 PM
My late 09C Z28 has the flat bottom Air Cleaner, although most of the parts on the car, including the engine, are dated late August.
1708  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster on ebay on: February 24, 2013, 03:28:41 PM
I just commented that it *could* have been, but when I cleaned it, there was also a residue of the gold chromating... so I suspect it was 'spray bombed' before I bought it in '76, and then I do remember 'touching up all the black'..      hot rodder that I was.. Smiley   I'm fairly certain this is the original booster; the two owners before me were not 'car people' (a teenage girl and an undercover policeman -  who had it only a short time).   The car had been kept washed/waxed and cleaned (appearance wise), but there had been little maintenance done in the '60K or so miles it had on it when I got it.   Of course, there's no way of knowing 40+ yrs later, or even 7 yrs later, when I purchased it.
Note:  The dates on the brake switch (9-199) exactly match the julian date on the booster; the master cylinder was dated 175... further making me believe all those parts are original to the car, as was 99-100% of the parts when I purchased it.
1709  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Sunoco 260 on: February 24, 2013, 01:41:43 PM
Great Info JohnZ..  Smiley   and SUPER photos...   I always love seeing pix of your auto den..   uh...  I mean..  garage.. Smiley
1710  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: z28 front backing plate and steering bracket bolt finish on: February 24, 2013, 01:37:55 PM
John is correct (as usual)  Smiley ; the bolts are 'dark' and appear to have been phosphated.   I was thinking that they weren't painted (which they weren't).  I had to go peek at my photos,and I also see that I was wrong about the 'orange and blue' paint splashes; what I was recalling as 'orange' actually appears to be pinkish?   see photos attached.
Pages: 1 ... 112 113 [114] 115 116 ... 161
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 0.112 seconds with 19 queries.