CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 23, 2014, 09:34:03 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.
102309 Posts in 12074 Topics by 4661 Members
Latest Member: 23bull
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 46
526  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: 69 rear end on: April 14, 2011, 12:07:52 AM
Here's a good pic. of the Vent tube in place.
527  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 / 68 Heater Control on: April 12, 2011, 11:05:40 PM
Thanks Ed, very helpful !
528  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Research Topics & Reports / Re: Original 67-69 Camaro driveshafts - information requested about your car on: April 12, 2011, 10:37:58 PM
>>>bcmiller;
   I am going to post another picture I took of the Driveshaft with measurements, I am going to use this as a diagram to restore the Driveshaft back to original condition.
529  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 67 / 68 Heater Control on: April 12, 2011, 12:16:51 AM
 I just recently found out that even though interchangeable, original 67 and 68 Heater Controls are not the same, they have different color background.   original 67's are black, and 68's supposedly blue, is this correct?  If so what are the repops like?
530  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Heater Control Lens on: April 12, 2011, 12:07:55 AM
Sorry, I just realized you're talking knobs only.  Yes, I think they are all interchangeable.
531  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Heater Control Lens on: April 12, 2011, 12:04:04 AM
@>BlackoutSteve;
  67 and 68 Heater Controls fasten into the dash in a horizontal position, 69's are vertical.  Definately not the same.  I just recently found out that even though interchangeable, original 67's and 68's are not the same, they have different color background.  As for 69 thru 81 being interchangeable, maybe.  Same?  Doubtful.
532  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Research Topics & Reports / Re: Original 67-69 Camaro driveshafts - information requested about your car on: April 07, 2011, 10:36:49 PM
I forgot to add it has U-bolts to attach the rear universal to the Rear-end input shaft.
533  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Research Topics & Reports / Re: Original 67-69 Camaro driveshafts - information requested about your car on: April 07, 2011, 10:34:28 PM
  You have perfect timing, that's right where I'm at with my restoration.  My car is a '67 V8 Coupe, 11 A, Los Angeles built.  Has the standard 327 - 2 bbl. engine with Powerglide trans.. The Driveshaft length is 50 in..  I have not found the Casting #( I assume it's on the end flange)(I haven't got that far cleaning)  The Rear end tube Code reads: PW 0919 G.  The paint stripes are Orange/White(I've included a pic.)  And the U-joint flanges are Clocked.  Let me know if you really need that Casting#..
534  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Firewall Insulation fasteners on: April 06, 2011, 08:27:26 PM
  I am wondering how many fasteners were used to attach the Firewall Insulation on a early '67 Coupe W/O Air.  I'm getting some conflicting information.  Some of the Dealers say you need 4, I'm looking at the 67 AIM - UPC 1  pg. A6.5  it shows only 3.  I saved 2 taking the car apart, the one in the middle and the 1 lower right in the diagram.  And I believe I found the hole for the one at top
above the accelerator.  Any body out there know, is the AIM correct?  Or is there another one somewhere?
535  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct Idler Arm for 67 on: March 27, 2011, 12:03:39 AM
 Maybe I miss stated.  This is not a NOS GM part, but it does line up perfectly for proper geometry.  I am attaching 2 pics., the new part is a little heavier casting.  The casting # on the new replacement is; 14  256    04.   My original part # is; 3908385  8  GMT.   I had a MOOG  K6099  which was listed as correct for my 67, it wasn't even close to matching up to the original.
536  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct Idler Arm for 67 on: March 26, 2011, 11:54:26 AM
 Forgot to add, I know the picture don't look the same, but he explains that in his description.
537  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Correct Idler Arm for 67 on: March 26, 2011, 11:51:03 AM
  For anybody out there looking for a CORRECT Idler Arm for a 67, this one is correct.  As some of you may know, most of them out there don't match up correctly.  I just received one of these, and it matches up perfectly to my old one.  Little more expensive, but if you want it right.
  http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=380167624592&viewitem=&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT#ht_500wt_749
538  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: "Pink" Connecting Rods on: March 04, 2011, 10:48:21 PM
I am having a very reputable business build my engine, I was just asking about the "Pink" rods because I'm planning to have my stock rods magnafluxed and shot peened.(and new ARP bolts)  He said all "Pink" rods he has seen didn't look to be any different than stock ones.  I told him what I had heard, he said that seemed logical.  We are building the original 327 basically to L-79 specs., but balanced and a little "massaging the heads, and a little more modern Comp Cam grind.  Using a 378260 Forged Crank , 3782461 "Fuelie" heads, and an original *610 Intake.  Even a correct Z Water Outlet, at first glance this engine will look exactly like a 302.  We are expecting around 375 hp..
539  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / "Pink" Connecting Rods on: March 04, 2011, 04:49:26 AM
  I have recently learned, I don't remember where, that the only difference with the "Pink" Connecting Rods that were so popular "Back in the Day", was that they were Shot Peened and Magnafluxed at the factory.   And that the "pink" dot was dabbed on to confirm this.  Can anyone here confirm or disprove this theory? 
540  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Did Interior Panels have Date codes? on: January 23, 2011, 11:47:53 PM
 I am replacing my Interior Door Panels (bottom edges are very ragged), I was looking at the back of the original Door panels and Rear 1/4 panels and I see what looks like Date codes.  And they match up with other Date codes I have found(weeks 43 and 44)on the car.  I am going to try to post pics..   I also found what looks like part #'s :  7639331 LF on Drivers panel, and 7639330 R? on Pass. panel.  I Did not find such a # on the 1/4 panels.  Have you seen this before?
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 46
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 0.096 seconds with 18 queries.