CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 18, 2014, 02:38:25 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.
107469 Posts in 12503 Topics by 4810 Members
Latest Member: rustoleumm
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 30
331  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Descaling and rust removal using molasses and water on: August 05, 2010, 11:34:42 PM
I never knew about this!!
http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/53656-molasses-and-rust-removal.html

I'm giving it a try right now.  Smiley
Let us know the results.  I have been using Evapo-Rust for some time now and it works great but am tired of paying out the nose for it.  Would love to find something that works great yet it doesn't empty your wallet.
332  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: attaching 68 grille to lower valance on: August 03, 2010, 06:57:04 PM
Specs on my original hardware:

     Screws -      10-16x1/2", hex head

     J or U nuts - 10-16, 13/32" from center of hole to the bend of the nut
333  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Gas tank cleaning - need help on: July 10, 2010, 04:41:30 PM
POR15 and several other companies have cleaning/restoration kits on the market. They all generally involve having to remove the tank and using caustic liquids (acid), so I'd suggest having it boiled out at a radiator shop and then restored. If money is a big issue, then you can do it yourself, but it does take considerable time and effort.
My mechanic's shop does do this and his price was really reasonable when you consider your time.
I found out the hard way that boiling in a radiator shop does work but it has it's draw backs.  When I was working we had a tank on a diesel suburban boiled and it worked great for awhile......then it started to run very rough and had no power.  The mechanic removed the fuel filter and cut it open and it was clogged with specks of black paint....that threw us for awhile til it finally dawned on us that the black paint specks looked like radiator paint.  The radiator shop had not rinsed the tank very good or it took awhile of driving for the sloshing fuel to dislodge the remaining specks of paint.
So if you do have it boiled then make darn sure you get it rinsed completely clean.
334  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: How many CRG team members have a 68 Z/28? on: July 10, 2010, 10:26:29 AM
Check out my signature.....was originally purchased in August of '68 at Jay Chevrolet in Sweetwater, Texas.  The owner bought it for his wife who then drove it for 30,000 miles. Owner traded if for a Cadillac in '72 at a car lot in Abilene, Texas, 50 miles away. I happened to be in that city and drove by the lot and there it sat....I had to have it so I traded my '67 Impala SS for it.  Brought it back to Sweetwater and it has been here since.

Another little tidbit....the original owners wife had an add-on air conditioner installed....believe it or not.
335  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Muncie shifter change on: July 03, 2010, 10:17:34 AM
Looking at some shifters , I remember a question that has come up before on 67-68 Camaro Muncie/Saginaw shifters.

There is a large "T" stamp on some on the chrome stick where it would be covered by the boot. Some have it and some don't.
I don't think there was a difference in the shifter and don't think the "T" was a Chevy code.

The 69-71 Camaro used a Hurst then 1972 and up used a "ITM" shifter that was stamped ITM.
So maybe the "T" was a vendor stamp.
Joe....looks like to me there was more than one vendor for the sticks.  Right now, I have two sticks, one with the "T" and one without the "T" and they do not appear to be 100% identical.....a few cosmetic differences between them.  So this makes me believe that there was indeed more than one vendor.

Have you ever compared one stick (T) to the other (no T) and looked to see if they were 100% identical?
336  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Muncie shifter change on: June 30, 2010, 12:08:10 PM
Victor,
Yes, the evidence points to the Muncie handle. Specifically for late cars, I know of an 06C BB car with a Muncie handle and rare396bronze mentioned the 06A car.

Why did they replace them? Just like any other warranty part - because it had a problem (esp if they were used hard). The reverse lockout assembly was a bad design and the design was changed - I don't recall when that occurred. There is a service bulletin on it, IIRC.
Victor......The shifter on my 07c Z28 had "MUNCIE" stamped on the handle.  The shifter is long gone now, Hurst replacement back in the late 70's, but I am currently looking for a good original now.

As Kurt mentioned above there was a replacement for the reverse detent and I am including a link showing the exploded view of the shifter and the two detents.

     http://picasaweb.google.com/111239732860979894494/CamarosNetPhotos#5480485472922550210

Also....if you look at the AIM, M20-A4-Item #3, you can see that there were two different part numbers for the shifter lever control.  3934286 for the low performance engines (Saginaw transmissions)...this should be the shifter lever with no stamping. 3934290 for the high performance engines (Muncie transmissions).....this should be the shifter lever with the "MUNCIE" stamping.  At the bottom of the sheet there are no revision entries indicating any changes to the above specifications.

Anyway.....just my take on this.
337  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 front spoilers on: June 09, 2010, 10:16:34 PM
does anybody have the 1st design part#?
Jonboy,
I have yet to find anyone who can say what date they changed spoilers on the production line or even if they ever changed the production line.  I did finally decide that my car came with the first design and it was a 07c manufacture...very late in the year....that is why I wonder if they ever changed the production line spoiler.  The part # 3943249, you quote above, is the second design and I think, but not sure, that it was probably a service part and not a production part.  Just my take on it, could be wrong.

I am including a link to my original thread on the subject....it includes all the part numbers and some additional discussion on the subject.

    http://camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=6231.0
338  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 68 Z shift boot on: May 27, 2010, 07:52:48 PM
Thanks.  I have purchased stuff from classic muscle and have been pleased.  I'd like to get a GM one if possible, but I never see them.
They have a GM one listed for the console setup.....for the no console option all they show are reproductions.
339  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: exhaust manifold on: May 27, 2010, 11:44:23 AM
I used VHT high temp paint.  Be sure to get the manifolds absolutely clean and follow their instructions.
340  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 3858403 BELLHOUSING on: May 18, 2010, 02:51:40 PM
My original 1968Z housing has a large "7" above the housing number and the only "GM" is in the center of the housing above the machined flange. The two small circles below the housing number are supposed to be other casting codes.  Don't know for sure, but it seems to me that the housings with the "GM" stamped with the housing number only appear on earlier years.....I could be wrong on this.  See signature for my car build date.
341  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Just Testing! on: May 12, 2010, 09:42:18 AM
Just wanted to see if the posting was working.
342  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 MO 302 water pump? on: April 17, 2010, 09:34:12 PM
The 326 pump was produced in two versions from the same raw casting - one version, for trucks, had a 3/4" hole for the large bypass fitting; the other version, for Corvette and passenger cars, had a 1/2" hole for the smaller bypass fitting.

When 326 pumps with the small bypass fitting hole find their way to a commercial rebuilder, almost all of them get enlarged and re-tapped to the 3/4" bypass fitting hole, since the primary demand for them is for trucks, not Camaros and Corvettes; that's why you see so many of them with a reducer bushing to accept the 1/2" bypass fitting. In NCRS Corvette judging, presence of a reducer bushing gets a deduction, as the original factory 326 pump used in production had the 1/2" hole for the fitting.

John -

Jerry MacNeish's "The Definitive 1967-1968 Camaro Z/28 Fact Book" states that the water pump installed on all 1967 and 1968 Z/28 engines had two slightly different designs; one with a 1/2" NPT bybass hole and one with a 3/4" NPT bypass hole.  What may be correct for a Corvette, might not be for a Camaro.

 Wink

Paul
I know my original 326 water pump had the 1/2" outlet because when it went out back around the 70's, I replaced it with one with a different number, different date, and one with the 3/4" outlet.  I remember having to use the reducer for the elbow.  Unfortunately, I didn't keep my original but as of lately I have bought a 326 with a 1/2" outlet and matching date code for my engine.

But it sure cost a lot more now than the replacement back in the 70's.....LOL
343  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 MO 302 water pump? on: April 16, 2010, 08:30:06 PM
Yeah that is a #175 water pump that was removed from the engine and if you look closely you will notice that it has a 3/4" outlet on top of the pump with a 3/4" to 1/2" reducer and then the 1/2" elbow on top of that.  Also if you look at the date code of the water pump, it does not line up with the date of the engine manufacture.....I would say that it had been probably installed in the past to replace a faulty original. 

If you look at the completed engine on album #3 you will notice that the 1/2" elbow is screwed directly into the pump indicating it now has a pump with the 1/2" outlet.  That 1/2" outlet is what the #326 pump has.  I would say that for sure they had now changed the water pump over to a correct dated one.

Just my observation......
344  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67-68 shifter mounting bracket bolts on: April 15, 2010, 06:17:17 PM
Marty.....do you have that double nut that goes on the back of the shifter mounting plate...also the square one on the front of the mounting plate?  The complete mounting hardware, bolts, nuts, and washers would be a plus.  And you wouldn't happen to have a complete shifter assembly would you?

Thanks for any help you can provide......
345  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Script Valve Covers on: April 14, 2010, 10:30:59 PM
Are these the ones you are talking about?

     http://secure.classichq.com/59-67-Chevrolete-chrove-valve-covers-pair-P1276C213.aspx

I believe these are the ones that are the best on the market.  They also have the 1968 plain chrome ones that are exact reproductions.
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 30
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.103 seconds with 18 queries.