CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 20, 2014, 03:13:52 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.
107564 Posts in 12508 Topics by 4812 Members
Latest Member: oldbop88
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 30
346  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: my new 1968 Z/28 on: April 10, 2010, 01:20:30 PM
Very Cool!  Reminds me of my first Camaro.  68 Lemans Blue, blue interior, white stripes car.  The one that got away.
Also, I noticed the dealer emblem in the trunk, Slayton, TX.  Just up the road about 100 miles.


Good luck with the restoration.

Kris
Hey Kris....what part of West Texas you from?    I'm On I20.
347  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: my new 1968 Z/28 on: April 10, 2010, 01:17:21 PM
Slaton is up the road 110 miles for me.

Yes the thermostat housing is not right...should be a cast iron one.  The bracket attached to the alternator is actually the smog pump bracket....the alternator was actually mounted on the driver side of the engine.  The smog pump was mounted on the passenger side of the engine.

BTW....if you need any info on the 68Z let me know....I have an original one for reference.....see my signature.
348  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Rear defogger on: April 09, 2010, 10:57:40 PM
Dave.....Is your car a convertible?  The parts book shows a blower gasket #3929038 but it is for the convertible only.
349  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Rear defogger on: April 03, 2010, 09:03:27 PM
My '67-'69 P & A says this:

     Grille- #3899746 coupe
     Hole trim cover- #3899736
     Case- #3015043
     Motor-#4918684
     Fan- #3016769   

The '68 Assembly Manual states that there is a complete case, fan, blower assembly which is part #3014891..... should be the same for the '69 coupe.

350  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Rear defogger on: April 03, 2010, 12:13:06 PM
Close as I can get with my parts books is somewhere in the 1971 to 1975 time frame for various Chevrolet cars.
351  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Starter Solenoid Number on: March 28, 2010, 08:14:09 PM
My '67-'69 P & A states that it should be #1114356 for the #1108367 starter and the #1108361 starter also.  My '68 Z28 has the original starter and solenoid and the number stamped on the solenoid is #1114362. There were probably several different numbers for the production line units but only a few service part numbers. This was to cut down on the number of parts needed to service the vehicles.
352  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 spoiler part# 1st design on: February 27, 2010, 12:35:44 AM
My 67-69 P & A manual lists it as #3916673, but I seriously doubt that you will ever find one of the originals.  The best deal I've seen is the #3916673 one being sold by Classic Muscle in Winston-Salem, North Carolina....although it carries the same number as the original, it is a reproduction.
353  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: z28 harmonic balancer? on: February 19, 2010, 09:19:50 PM
My original '68 balancer does not have the fins....Looks like the finned ones were on the earlier Corvettes.
354  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1968 Front Spoiler! on: January 29, 2010, 11:49:04 PM
Sonet, just check the piece of plastic you found under the screw, if it has a texture on it you have your your answer.  Mine had the early design and personally like it better.
Thanks for the advice....but  they are now gone to the trash....oh well...live and learn...LOL.  But like I said earlier, the original owner said he didn't remember ever seeing any kind of bracing on the spoiler and he also said it had a rough texture so I believe the first design is the way to go.

Thanks for the input Chris....
355  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1968 Front Spoiler! on: January 29, 2010, 11:43:28 PM
I learn something new every day!  And have to replace my incorrect parts, sell them, and try to survive until I find the next thing I purchased incorrectly... :-P  Though, I do believe that back when I purchased half this stuff, there were few options.  Plus, I don't think there was this wealth of knowledge.  Or the internet... heh heh
That is so true.....Back when I first got the car I tried to find a replacement spoiler and the only thing I could find was the one with the braces.  Now, finally, the original looking first design is available.  And yes back then I didn't know there was more than one design.  Learn new things every day.
356  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1968 Front Spoiler! on: January 29, 2010, 01:31:39 PM
After reading these trhead on the 68 spoiler, I'm thinking for the last 33 years I've had the late design on the 02E car. Who has the most correct early design on the market?
Thanks, Joe
Joe.....Here are a couple that I found...there are a lot of vendors advertising the early spoiler, and even giving the early part number, but when you look at them they don't look like the original early spoiler. These three do look like the original:
 
     http://www.rickscamaros.com/product.asp?pf_id=SB-15&dept_id=3350   
     http://www.parts123.com/parts123/yb.dll?userwatch~dynamicSearchPage~cadeiije  (then type 3916673 in the search box)      
     http://www.heartbeatcity.com/store/product/14394/Camaro-Front-spoiler--correct-style--68/
357  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1968 Front Spoiler! on: January 27, 2010, 08:57:42 PM
Well......one step forward and two steps back.  There is a hole in the subframe but it is only a 1/4" and it is centered......don't know if it is there for a center brace....would have thought it would have been larger if it was, more like a 5/16".  That smaller hole got me to thinking again so I called the original owner of the car and asked him if he remembered the spoiler on the car and what it looked like.  He said that for sure it didn't have any braces on it and that it hung down about 5 " and it had a rough texture.  Well to me that sounds like the first design spoiler....so I guess I am back to getting the first design unless someone comes up with any new evidence.

Again....thanks for every ones input.
358  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1968 Front Spoiler! on: January 26, 2010, 08:45:47 PM
Thanks Ken......Yeah I found the hole on the subframe and that is what got me to thinking about which one is correct.  I did find a sentence in the CRG info on spoilers that stated the change in the production line to the later spoiler might have occurred in may '68...So that would place my 07C car in the later category.  I am the second owner and when I purchased the car in '72 the spoiler was already gone so I am pretty sure the hole in the subframe was put there by the factory.  Have you noticed the difference in spoilers on any of your '68 restorations?

Thanks again for your input......BTW....I am considering the prospect of having someone restore my Z28.....would you be interested?  If so, let me know and I will give you a call.

Jerry G.
359  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Cowl Tag vs Vin # on: January 26, 2010, 01:36:17 PM
The vin number is unreadable, ebay # 200432176656, search 68 302, look at the block assembly date???
Looks like there is an 18N and then it looks like the rest of the number runs into a rust spot.  My original 302 block with a date of  F138 does not look like that block....my block does not have the HB on the front and it doesn't have the two big hole plugs under the timing cover...don't know what difference that makes.
360  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 3917291 sbc heads 2.02's or 1.94's on: January 24, 2010, 12:10:19 AM
The castings are the same.  The combustion chamber on the 2.02 heads have some machine work done to unshroud the intake valve.  It is fairly easy to have the 1.94 heads machined for the 2.02 valves and be correct.  A lot of the time the original 2.02 valve heads have had a valve job or more and the seats are deeper in the head so a rebuilt 1.94 is more desireable.
X2 on this idea....I replaced the heads on my Z28 with a good used set of 291's with the 1.94/1.50 valves.....even found the right cast dates.  Had the machinist  replace the old valves with new 2.02/1.60 valves and had him to unshroud the intakes.  Those heads looked like new ones when I got them back.
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 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 0.088 seconds with 18 queries.