CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 20, 2014, 01:03:46 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.
104579 Posts in 12238 Topics by 4719 Members
Latest Member: Baconcks
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 30
286  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 Small Journal 350 on: July 27, 2011, 10:25:29 PM
Now that is strange....why would there be a crankshaft with large rod journals and small main journals.  About the only way that would happen is if they had a large journal crank with bad main journals and they then ground down the mains to the smaller size and stuck the crank in a 327ci block.  That would be a one of a kind animal.
287  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 Small Journal 350 on: July 27, 2011, 10:08:16 PM
You only mention the main journals as being the smaller size.  How about the rod Journals?  Are they they the smaller size also?

Also I checked my July issue of the 1969 GM parts manual and there is only one part number for a 1967 & 1968 350ci crankshaft.  So if they ever did make a crankshaft with a small journal they never expected to replace it....they would have to replace the whole short block instead.

As to the engine pad.....did you repaint the pad when you rebuilt the engine?   The original engine pads from the factory were never painted.
288  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 Small Journal 350 on: July 27, 2011, 09:42:40 PM
What is the casting number and casting date of the block?
289  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 Small Journal 350 on: July 27, 2011, 03:46:23 PM
Do you have the casting numbers located on the crank?  Do you know for sure whether it is forged or cast? 

Also, you mentioned that you rebuilt the engine, did you send the crankshaft out to a machine shop?  If so, did they turn the journals?
290  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: '69 Quad Carb, correct linkage on: July 27, 2011, 12:25:26 PM
Update to my original reply....here is a document showing the return spring attachment.

     
291  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: '69 Quad Carb, correct linkage on: July 27, 2011, 09:50:49 AM
Update to my original info.  Here is a link to a better photo of the throttle rod:  http://www.parts123.com/parts123/yb.dll?parta~showpic~Z5Z5Z50000358f~Z5Z5Z5FCAHW~Z5Z5Z51~Z5Z5Z5~Z5Z5Z5

Here is a link to a photo of the accelerator spring bracket:  http://www.parts123.com/parts123/yb.dll?parta~showpic~Z5Z5Z50000358f~Z5Z5Z5FAQYR~Z5Z5Z51~Z5Z5Z5~Z5Z5Z5

Both of these can be found at:  http://www.parts123.com/parts123/yb.dll?userwatch~dynamicSearchPage~cadeiije#1967-69%20Camaro%20Parts

I can get you a diagram of the spring attachment area but it will have to be later in the day....have to go now.
292  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: '69 Quad Carb, correct linkage on: July 26, 2011, 06:27:40 PM
First check out this link to see if the throttle rod you have matches this one....http://www.heartbeatcity.com/store/product/13679/Camaro-Throttle-rod-assembly-327-350--68-69/
The Gm parts manual shows that the correct part number for the throttle rod is #3923539 and this Heartbeat City description states that their rod is an exact reproduction.

For the connection of the return spring....see the Heartbeat City description also.  If you don't have this AIM as they described....it shows the return spring is connected to a separate bracket, part #3930791, that is bolted on top of the coil mounting bracket base.
293  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 302 Rocker Arm Nuts on: July 22, 2011, 04:04:36 PM
can't see them under the valve cover so I would not lose sleep over it. I would assume they used both designs.
Just to show you how this could be true about using both designs....I have an original '68 Z28 and the engine has different exhaust manifold bolts on different sides of the engine.  Apparently the bolt bins on each side of the engine had different bolts in them and the assembler installed whatever was in the bolt bin.  I also have seen different bolt numbers installed on the body assembly other than the ones called for in the AIM.  So either the bolt bins had the wrong bolts in them or the assembler installed whatever he grabbed out of the bin, regardless of the number.

So....as  Forrest would say "Life is like a box of chocolates...you never know what you are going to get".  I think that might describe the assembly line at times.   Roll Eyes
294  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Radiator support seal L48 A/C on: June 29, 2011, 11:53:31 PM
See this link.....http://www.amkproducts.com/Catalog_PDF/151-164.pdf.  Look on page 159 for B-10702...this is the  clip that holds the weatherstripping to the radiator support.
295  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Last 1969 convertible on: June 13, 2011, 04:19:19 PM
What about the dual exhaust....not on the window sticker and I don't think that a 307 came standard with dual exhaust.  Am I wrong?
296  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68 kickdown lever on: June 07, 2011, 09:03:43 AM
1969 AIM of the kickdown......

     
297  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68 kickdown lever on: June 06, 2011, 08:01:49 PM
My 1969 P & A Catalog states that the 3924412 fits 1968-1969/ALL  TH400.  No mention of any differences for the carb.
298  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: front spoiler on: May 28, 2011, 10:53:28 AM
My 07C '68 had the same scenario......when I got the car in 1972 the spoiler had already been torn off and there were pieces of the plastic under the screws.  The screws were hex head machine screws with hex nut/captive washers on the backside.  The holes in the valence were clean holes.....no signs of threads left by self tapping screws.
299  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Chevy orange engine paint on: May 27, 2011, 11:50:55 PM
Jerry,

This is exactly the detail I was looking for. Thanks for the Lucas link!
Marty,

Why don't you look at this link..... https://picasaweb.google.com/LucasRestorations
 
It is the menu of the gallery of photos by Lucas Restoration showing numerous cars that they have restored or currently in the process of restoring.  The car that I am currently taking these photos from is the one entitled Keith's RS/SS. There are 5 albums on this car and look at them all to see the before and after photos.

Very good work that these guys do and the photos do show that.


BTW....I'm sure that the engine and sub frame work was done by Jerry Mc...he usually this work for them.
300  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Chevy orange engine paint on: May 27, 2011, 11:35:57 PM
I know there are a few threads on this same topic but they seem to be scattered & hard to trace.  Does anyone have detailed pics of a completed small block (350) they would care to share? I am looking for detail on what should and shouldn't be painted.
Check out this link for Lucas Restoration as they present some photos of a 350 engine that has been restored....there are a lot of photos but look through them until you reach the engine and front subframe section.

     https://picasaweb.google.com/LucasRestorations/KeithS68RSSS5#

The photo of the engine in this quote is not quite the original paint job....this is actually a photo of the engine showing a quick and dirty paint job using a rattle can and I think the the engine was even in the car at the time of the painting.  This photo was taken before the restoration and during the tear down phase.
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 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 0.081 seconds with 18 queries.