CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 31, 2014, 01:02:49 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.
105862 Posts in 12354 Topics by 4762 Members
Latest Member: HarryQ
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 116 117 [118] 119 120 ... 164
1756  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.
1757  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
1758  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.
1759  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 Z28 Radiator Re-coring ? on: February 24, 2013, 12:15:41 PM
OK..   after a month or so with my radiator at the shop, the shop gave up on finding a 'stock appearing' core that would satisfy me, so I picked up my radiator (I hate having my parts sit around in a shop longer than necessary!).   

My hope is that I can find a proper core for the '69 Z28 Camaro, that the local radiator shop couldn't find.    I will call the 'Tanks and Tabs' shop (suggested by Steve) in Nashville on Monday morning, but I'm interested in ANY manufacturer that you guys might know of who makes replacement cores for our cars?

I took several photos and measured the core size:   
It's a 3 row;  21" wide, 17" tall (not counting the top/bottom braces), and 2" thick.

Note:  The braces top and bottom, which are apparently unique as this was the issue with my local radiator shop, are soldered in almost a continuous way across the top and bottom of the core, and my shop was not confident they could remove and replace them on a new core.   The new cores available to the local shop had a totally different top/bottom brace.
1760  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: z28 front backing plate and steering bracket bolt finish on: February 24, 2013, 11:57:23 AM
My understanding is they weren't painted; ie. bare metal.. Mine didn't show any evidence of having ever been painted, but when I cleaned my parts up, I found some orange and blue paint splashes (for id?) on the spindle eye mounts...
1761  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster on ebay on: February 24, 2013, 12:27:46 AM
TO my knowledge it has never been changed.   It was on the car when I bought it in 1976, and it's 'dated' appropriately for my 09C car??   but everything is speculation/educated guesswork after 44 yrs..  Smiley
1762  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster on ebay on: February 23, 2013, 10:16:26 PM
Mike,

My car is a LATE 09C (Sept 1969)..  I'm sorry if that throws a kink in your data.. Smiley
1763  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Z/28 motor mounts on: February 23, 2013, 12:24:19 PM
The Lucas restoration photos and others have had the drivers side mount changed sometime in the cars history, probably the engine mount recall program GM had back in 69 by GM dealers . Very common to see that type mount, the original type mounts I posted are very rare to see, especially the drivers side as it allways broke due to Engine Torque.
 When I ran the Corvette/Camaro shop we put lots of headers on and had to manipulate ( Bend) headers into proper postion lots of time. Put the car on a hoist and insert  long 2x4 trimed to fit into the collector and get someone to help you carefully pull down on the 2x4 gradually until you have the clearnce needed. You would be surprised how easily they will move. The trick is to gradually pull so as not to kink tubes or break welds. Done it lots, it works.
I appreciate your comment;  I've leaned on the header a bit when I installed them the first time, but was afraid of breaking apart welds with too much effort?   GIven your suggestion, I suppose I'll just use your 2x4 suggestion and 'lean harder' and see what happens..  Smiley
1764  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Z/28 motor mounts on: February 23, 2013, 12:15:53 PM
Tmodel66 posted: 
"Gary after re-reading your post I believe your problem is the header. You have changed nothing except the header so it has to be. My reasoning is you said the Anchor are like your originals so your originals were working before the headers.  Correct?"
....

Well.  the GM 3962748 mounts may have come from a '70 LT1 I had, rather than the '69 Z28.    those mounts are shown as 'original' for the '70 350 engines in the '70 P&A catalog.   I now suspect the problem is the headers, although I'm not perfectly confident about the mounts, since I don't have the original 302 mounts.  As many have said, Chevy used non-interlocking mounts from '55 thru '69? and they often broke apart due to engine torque.  I've changed out many over the years on various small block chevys I've owned when the mounts were in 'two parts' when removed. Smiley   Seems chevy tried many solutions to the 'engine torque' issue before they finally addressed it..  ie. the 'tie down' mod/recall, and I suppose finally the interlocking mount.  I still need to decide which of the mounts I have is 'closest' or 'most acceptable in original unrestored judging' or survivor classes before I put my engine back in.
1765  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Where to send starter for rebuild. on: February 22, 2013, 11:09:28 PM
I second what Lynn posted; it's not much to a starter motor..  cleaning, lubing bearings/bushings, and possibly replacement of brushes usually takes care of it.   The solenoid is a separate animal, but can also usually be cleaned and made to work.
1766  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Z/28 motor mounts on: February 22, 2013, 11:02:37 PM
the mount photos posted by 1968 Z28 (from Lucas Restorations) seem to match at least some of the ones that were said to be original, with one interlocking mount (2748?), and one non-interlocking (GM 3939728?).   Paceme and first gen addict both said their cars had the interlocking mount on the LHS, and the non-interlocking one on the right...  that seems to be what is pictured in the Lucas Restoration photos.
1767  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Z/28 motor mounts on: February 22, 2013, 10:55:47 PM
The Anchor PN (2283) listed for the '69 big block 396 was ordered last week on the suggestion of Tmodel66, and received today.   
This part seems to be a great 'duplicate' of the GM 3962740/2748 PN, an interlocking design, minus the GM pn's on the side.   Which is what was on my car originally, and which I believed were too tall, causing my new headers to come too close to the floor underneath.  Sad
Now I've got  3 possible pairs of mounts, and unsure of which ones to use...   The Anchor 2283, which *match* the GM 3962740/2748 mounts, both of which are interlocking, and the GM 3886466 mounts (non interlocking).   Any suggestions?

Dang Gary I hate that. They worked for me and I might add it was after I searched and bought from just about every vendor in town. I don't know !!
Well.. maybe that height is correct, and something else is not quite right on my car making the headers hit.  The headers are 'new' so they may not be *right*, or perhaps the rear trans mount is too tall?  Does anyone have a measure for that?  Smiley
1768  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster on ebay on: February 22, 2013, 10:53:29 PM
I just went down and measured mine..    4/32"  or 1/8" ...   the julian date '199' is inverted (when top is up)..  '9204' is not inverted.
1769  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster on ebay on: February 22, 2013, 03:43:57 PM
I received my original booster back today, after rebuild by Steve Grigori (Brake Boosters, Inc).   he does a nice job for a very reasonable price.. I'm pleased.   and the stamped codes are much easier to read now after the cleaning and replating.   
My car is a late 09C car, with '9204' booster, date 199.   
1770  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Z/28 motor mounts on: February 22, 2013, 03:38:17 PM
The Anchor PN (2283) listed for the '69 big block 396 was ordered last week on the suggestion of Tmodel66, and received today.   
This part seems to be a great 'duplicate' of the GM 3962740/2748 PN, an interlocking design, minus the GM pn's on the side.   Which is what was on my car originally, and which I believed were too tall, causing my new headers to come too close to the floor underneath.  Sad
Now I've got  3 possible pairs of mounts, and unsure of which ones to use...   The Anchor 2283, which *match* the GM 3962740/2748 mounts, both of which are interlocking, and the GM 3886466 mounts (non interlocking).   Any suggestions?
Pages: 1 ... 116 117 [118] 119 120 ... 164
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 0.107 seconds with 19 queries.