CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 31, 2014, 09:31:10 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.
105862 Posts in 12354 Topics by 4762 Members
Latest Member: HarryQ
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 30
301  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.
302  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.
303  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.
304  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Under Cowl Panel Paint on: May 01, 2011, 11:05:06 AM
Yep.....it's a Norwood.  Sure looks like a tape masking job to me.  On the passenger side you can see some underspray of the cowl black paint underneath the masking tape line.
305  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: correct stock piston for 69 Z28 on: April 29, 2011, 02:43:34 PM
For the technically correct piston..... This link is to the NHRA approved piston list for the stock classes.

     http://www.nhra.com/userfiles/file/NHRAAcceptedProducts.pdf

Scroll down to the 302ci engine under the Chevrolet section and it will show the manufacturer and their piston number...it also shows the stock specs for the pistons.

The TRW L2210AF is close but they are machined for the wrong size rings.
     
306  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Under Cowl Panel Paint on: April 27, 2011, 02:28:01 PM
A couple of cowl shots of my original 07C Z28.....

     
     This is the driver side showing the masked off area between the body color (white) and the cowl color (black)
 
     
     This is the passenger side showing the masked off area.
307  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Research Topics & Reports / Re: Original 67-69 Camaro driveshafts - information requested about your car on: April 18, 2011, 04:54:51 PM
Original 1968 Z28, Norwood, 07C, 50 inches (or darn close), staggered yoke alignment, orange and white stripes (13 inches from centerline of yoke to center between the two stripes), attachment looks like u-bolts that are flattened where they go around the u-joint.
308  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68' Z/28 on ebay for 45K on: April 14, 2011, 04:53:40 PM
My car is not a Z. It's an L48 7A with 6/26 engine stamp. Maybe the Z's had a different rhythm.
Thanx guys I will do some more research. I was under the assumption that Norwood built cars should have about 7 to 10 days between the build date you mentioned, Engine and Car. Cause they didn't have to take the train ride out West... Correct??

 Maybe I could be wrong, it doesn't happen often, but could be.. JUST kidding.....Danny
I seen some discussion that the 302 engines had a longer lag time than the run of the mill engines.  Maybe someone else has more info on lag times....like JohnZ.
309  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68' Z/28 on ebay for 45K on: April 14, 2011, 12:00:57 PM
Still hard to tell Danny. If you are interested in the car have the seller forward you another pic of the engine pad including any other details that would make you comfortable. Stress to him that the pic on EBay is out of focus... as for the POP all the important info was cropped or left out of the pic.
X2..... That's what I was thinking also...would like to see the engine info on the POP as well as a better photo of the pad stamping.  The engine build date is awful close to the car build date (one week).  My 07c Z28 has an engine build date of 06-19 (one month prior to my car build date).  This car has a VIN of over 4,600 prior to my VIN, yet the engine build date is three weeks after my engine build date (one week prior to this car build date).  Could be a fluke here but it still looks suspicious...as Danny states.
310  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68' Z/28 on ebay for 45K on: April 11, 2011, 10:30:31 PM
the POP shows to have J50 (power Brakes), it should show J52 (power disc brakes) which is what mine shows
After closer examination the POP does seem to show the (J50&J52) Power disc brake option but it doesn't show a radio option.
This car has a VIN 4658 units before mine, has a transmission one month prior to mine, and the engine manufacture date is one month after mine.
311  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68' Z/28 on ebay for 45K on: April 11, 2011, 07:29:07 PM
I have a '68Z, I am the second owner, bought it in '72, and it is an 07C car.  My numbers sure don't match up with this car, especially the POP.  I have to go to a baseball game right now but when I return I will match up my car and post some differences. For one, the POP shows to have J50 (power Brakes), it should show J52 (power disc brakes) which is what mine shows.  As I said I just took a quick look at the POP, will try to look closer later.
312  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Shifter id please on: March 26, 2011, 06:07:24 PM
Rodent....
It is stamped MUNCIE on the handle and it appears that it is for a '67 or '68 Camaro.  The same basic shifter was used for both the Muncie  and the Saginaw transmission....The one used for the Muncie transmission had MUNCIE stamped on the handle and the one used for the Saginaw transmission had nothing stamped on the handle.    The shifter rods were different for each transmission.
313  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1968 L/89 on: March 23, 2011, 08:29:14 AM
All big block engines were assembled at the Tonawanda (NY) engine plant.
314  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Rear spring mount on: March 13, 2011, 11:03:13 AM
Is rear end suppose to be perfectly centered? Drive shaft centered in hump of car? Should tires have same clearence on both sides?  
In a word.....Yes....if stock Chevy.  With your modifications....I guess whatever works.
315  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Rear spring mount on: March 12, 2011, 04:09:26 PM
Looks like they have moved the rear spring mounting inboard of the rear frame....it should be centered on the frame.  Another big clue is the sectioned gas tank...the end has been lopped off several inches.  I am enclosing a link that shows the proper rear spring mounting.

     https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_qJUMs8K9xz4/SOl5km0ZFHI/AAAAAAAANCM/Z8XpE3OcI0w/s800/100_3854.jpg
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 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 0.122 seconds with 18 queries.