Messages

886

Restoration / Re: 69 camaro BB 4 speed shifter mount

« on: May 10, 2009, 08:53:19 PM »

The original '69 Camaro/Firebird aftermarket Hurst install kit reused the original GM mounting plate per the instructions. It is one of the few cars out there where Hurst did not use the common universal plate they provided with all the other install kits.

If you buy a current production Hurst aftermarket install kit for this application, it will have a 2-piece Hurst provided mounting plate setup from the ones I have seen. It is a one year only Camaro/Firebird only situation. You have to use these special pieces of the shifter will be in the wrong place and won't fit the console.

-Mark.

887

Mild Modifications / Re: Flywheel

« on: April 29, 2009, 02:42:15 PM »

You can't mix and match the factory stuff much. 621 bellhousings will require the starter for the large flywheel AND the larger flywheel. The flywheel can be drilled with both clutch patterns and either large or small clutch will work but the smaller flywheel will not work inside a 621. The flywheel does physicaly fit inside the bellhousing but the starter nose cone that is required to drive the smaller flywheel will not bolt up.

-Mark.

888

General Discussion / Re: Which Camaro Numbers Book Is Better?

« on: April 28, 2009, 01:10:40 AM »

Hooper's books are older and have many improperly restored photos in them.

Colvin's books are very good.    Jerry MacNiesh puts out some very good books so have a look at his too.

-Mark.

889

General Discussion / Re: New cam in the Z... video

« on: April 11, 2009, 09:32:22 PM »

Aaron,
What were you looking to do when you changed from the 30-30? The lobe centers seem to be very tight on that new grind you put in there.

I realy like the Crane I put in. Idles about the same but starts working much sooner in the RPM's and screams up to the 7000 Plus redline. I needed more grunt and this one did the trick. 238°/248° @ .050" and .480"/.500", 114 LSA on the card. The specs say it is supposed to float at 7400 RPM but I have not gone that high with it.   

I don't kow if you can get one like it anymore. Crane seems to be in trouble right now. 

-Mark.

890

Restoration / Re: Smog pump rebuild on 1969 L35

« on: April 09, 2009, 12:49:39 PM »

Rebuilding must be done by a pro.

De-vaning a pump can be done by anyone with a socket wrench to pull the back off and a screwdriver to break the vanes. They are a carbon-like material and snap rather easily. The pump will be trashed but it will not pump air anymore.

I don't trash the pump vanes.  I just put holes in the underside of the rubber hoses that go to the check valves (screwed on to the trees). Nobody sees the holes and rubber hoses are very cheap & easy to replace, unlike the pump vanes. I remove the extension tubes from inside the manifolds and insert the screws (points up) to block the tree openings and the whole thing looks stock but is non-functional. Just another way to do it. FWIW.

-Mark.

891

General Discussion / Re: Adjusting rocker clearance on 30-30 cam.

« on: April 08, 2009, 10:31:02 AM »

my 302 idled with 11 inches of vaccuum with the 30-30 set at .030

when i put it down to .026 i lost 4 or 5 inches HG, exacltly in the ballpark that Glenn just said......subsequently, the Powervalve had to be changed, and I'm sure other things would need to be adjusted for optimum performance... i.e. jetting, timing

this effectively makes that big arse cam even bigger... especially in a no torque 302.

now... on top of that... a 64 or 65 FI vette (which also used the same cam) will not idle properly on that low of vaccuum... I tried it on that car as well...


seems like .004 couldn't possibly make a difference, in the lash setting... but if it makes enough of a difference to kill 5 inches of Vaccuum???

A

 

.004" tighter lash added 12 degrees of set-to-seat duration with your 1.52 rockers. It's not the lift that gets you, it's the duration.

With the stock stamped rockers (lower ratio), you should not see such a huge drop in vacuum when lashing at .026".

-Mark.

892

General Discussion / Re: Adjusting rocker clearance on 30-30 cam.

« on: April 06, 2009, 01:08:26 PM »

Aaron,
I know we will wait for John to post but I thought I would add a little bit here - The clearance ramps we know are there to cushion the valve train when the lash is taken up. The rams on this grind are .020" tall. I have measured them myself with a dial indicator and a degree wheel. You want the lash to taken up very closely to the top of the clearance ramp but not over the ramp at all. If you have a true 1.5 (or 1.52) ratio rocker arm - and you know it is 1.5, you still want to be close to the top of the clearance ramp but not exceed it. The problem with setting the lash anywhere tighter than the top of the ramp is that the LONG ramps on this grind will cause even a slight decrease in the lash setting to INCREASE the duration. Extra duration on this cam is not a great thing especialy on the intake side. Other aftermarket cam grinds have relatively steeper clearance ramps so a small decreases in lash will not have as much impact on increasing the duration. This grind is far different than a typical aftermarket grind when it comes to the change in duration per .001" change in lash setting. This grind will add 3 degrees of crank duration for each .001" tighter lash spec. Tighter is safer for the valvetrain but the increse in duration is often not desired.

P.S. - I ran the Comp 1.52's and set them at .030" when I still had the 30-30 cam. I run a different grind now.

-Mark.

893

General Discussion / Re: New Valve Springs for '69 302...?

« on: March 25, 2009, 10:45:51 AM »

I put a set of those bee hive springs in my 302 and so far so good. The retainers are smaller so they weigh close to what a titanium retainer would weigh. PAC is the supplier I used for the springs. The retainers and locks came from Comp. It will run well over 7200 RPM without any issues and that is about where I chicken out. It would probably go higher. Crane F-278-2 cam runs very well in my otherwise close to stock 302.   

-Mark.

894

Originality / Re: Deluxe Interior No Gauges or console

« on: February 10, 2009, 05:57:57 PM »

Yours isn't odd at all. 

I have an odd one. Originaly Rally Green with Medium Green deluxe interior (Light Green, not Dark Green) without gauges and without a console.

I have added the guages and console now and the car has been redone (like so many others) in more popular colors. Partly due to long gone unobtainium light green interior parts and partly due to current owner preferences. 

-Mark.

895

General Discussion / Re: dog bone tread

« on: January 28, 2009, 07:18:43 PM »

Fomula 1 Super Stock - I had a set on the back of my '69 Camaro when I bought it back in the late '70's. They made a LOT of smoke. 

Rollin on 10" wide Cragars in the back with 4" Cragars on the front with VW tires. OLD SCHOOL is right!

-Mark.

896

Decoding/Numbers / panel stamping numbers

« on: January 25, 2009, 11:46:37 AM »

I have the old sheet metal that I replaced when I repainted my car. Is there any way to decode the date stamps on the front fenders and where are the codes? I would like to throw this stuff away especialy if they are not original to the car. 

-Mark.

897

Decoding/Numbers / Re: crayon marks behind rear seat

« on: January 25, 2009, 11:39:09 AM »

Interesting.

I was guessing the code anomolies such as mine were an "early" thing, but based on his "normal" looking codes that theory goes away. Our cars are only a week apart.

Maybe it had something to do with specific interior colors or combinations?  We may never know for sure.

-Mark.

898

Decoding/Numbers / Re: crayon marks behind rear seat

« on: January 23, 2009, 10:40:43 PM »

For additional reference, here's the mark on my 69 Z. Trim tag is 10B, Oct '68

Jimmy V.

Jimmy,
Is that a Norwood car or LOS?

-Mark.

899

Decoding/Numbers / Re: crayon marks behind rear seat

« on: January 22, 2009, 02:55:47 AM »

Here is mine in case anyone would like to see it.



-Mark.

900

Decoding/Numbers / Re: crayon marks behind rear seat

« on: January 17, 2009, 05:29:36 PM »

I have not heard definative info on these crayon marking anomolies. I have a '69 Norwood 10A (1968) with a "LG7" on the bulkhead.  This car had a "Light Green" comfortweave interior originaly. Is anyone tracking these data points? I have a picture somewhere if needed.

-Mark.