CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 30, 2014, 01:17:17 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.
105842 Posts in 12352 Topics by 4762 Members
Latest Member: HarryQ
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28
31  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: widow felts nos vs. A.Mrkt. on: April 17, 2014, 09:08:02 AM
I used "Re-Pops" brand on my '69 with the Custom Interior option and they fit about 95%.  There was an issue with the inside rear quarter fuzzy that I was able to modify to my acceptance.  The tips "might" have ben be a little sharper than original parts but I am sure I reworked them before I installed them.  It has been some time and my recolection may be "fuzzy" as well.  Used the proper bend-it-yourself staples to install the door fuzzies and it came out good enough for me.  I would seek them out if I ever need another set as they seemed to be a better choice in reproduction fuzzies.

-Mark.
32  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Side marker Bezel fastners on: April 09, 2014, 01:58:41 PM
I think you will need to score some of those from a body shop supply house.  You could pull some off a boneyard car if you are worried about exact originality. Add some sealer to the inside of the nuts.
33  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: rear end upgrade 1969 on: April 07, 2014, 03:40:35 PM
I would beef up the 10-bolt and beat the crap out of it before I would try to put a 12 bolt or something else in there.   Save the money and headaches and just fix what you have now.  JMO

-Mark.
34  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Cable Motor Support on: April 07, 2014, 03:37:14 PM
If you ever had the "experience" of driving a first gen with the original mount failed you would remember it.....as long as you survived it. Smiley

The throttle linkage would bind in the WOT position and the car would just roar away down the road ..... nothing short of turning off the ignition key would stop it. WHEEEE!!!!!!

It just looked like some stupid add-on to me when I looked under the hood so why leave it on there?Huh? I just threw it in the trash.  -HA!  NOW I KNOW WHY IT WAS PUT THERE.

-Mark.
35  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stainless Chambered exhaust on: April 01, 2014, 02:08:35 PM
That is the same D&R aluminized system that I have.

-Mark.
36  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Deluxe Door Panel Repair 69 on: April 01, 2014, 11:54:50 AM
Repair it if you can.  The carpet is easier to replace than you think and comes out nice.

-Mark.
37  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Block crayon marks on: April 01, 2014, 11:52:31 AM
Havent seen a lot of these but the ones I did see were horizontal - if that is "OK" written there then it looks like it is on the vertical plane.  (If that maked sense).  It does not look like a typical engine suffix location/orientation is what I would say. 

-Mark.
38  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stainless Chambered exhaust on: April 01, 2014, 11:42:43 AM
The hangar kits are all over the place as to quality.  I actually called D&R and asked them for a "functional" Chambered Hangar reproduction and they had some odd loose Chambered Hangar pieces they sent me to complete my kit.  I still had some of the original hangar pieces under there so I just needed some bits to put it all together.  My car isn't worth buying NOS so I figured why worry about it?  I have pix of NOS hangars somewhere.

Mark, what was the quality of D & R's brackets? My car is not worthy of NOS either. I would be happy with just form and function.

It will vary even from the same vendor.  I called D&R and talked to them directly and discussed it.  They had some odd pieces that appeared to come from multiple designs/suppliers.  Never bothered me.  I used pieces from what they sent and what I stlll had under the car and it worked out fine. 

My rubbers were shot/gone but the GM metal brackets were reused. 

-Mark.
39  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stainless Chambered exhaust on: March 29, 2014, 08:57:24 PM
The hangar kits are all over the place as to quality.  I actually called D&R and asked them for a "functional" Chambered Hangar reproduction and they had some odd loose Chambered Hangar pieces they sent me to complete my kit.  I still had some of the original hangar pieces under there so I just needed some bits to put it all together.  My car isn't worth buying NOS so I figured why worry about it?  I have pix of NOS hangars somewhere.
40  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stainless Chambered exhaust on: March 25, 2014, 03:49:03 PM
Anybody know what hardware is used here marked in red for the chambered exhaust hangers? Seems the part number in the 69 AIM isn't available on the AMK Fasteners site. The hanger kits are available from most any of the Camaro houses but none have complete hardware. At least this particular screw isn't offered anywhere that I can find. Anybody have a pic of one I can compare with, I may even have something in my buckets of GM hardware. I'll need 4.


Gary,
they use a large hex head sheet metal screw is the best way to describe it.  

The repro hangars are not going to fool anyone if they have seen the originals.  The best repro sets out there are just not that accurate.

I tried to tack weld the pipes after the clamps did not get the job done but they leak black liquid condensation all over the system YUK! For my 3rd try I just MIG welded the crap out of it. No leaks now - LOL!

I would start at the front and work back.  You can bolt together the 2 rear chambered sections but leave everything loose until it is all where you want it.  Use the dimensions in the AIM and watch out for rubbing on the inside of the rear tires.

-Mark.
41  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Stainless Chambered exhaust on: February 28, 2014, 12:14:29 PM
Gary,
You may find that those aluminized pipes are REAL thick.  The clamps are going to be struggling pretty hard to make them seal right.  I ended up having to MIG welding the joints on mine.

-Mark.
42  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: How big of a tire will fit on the front of a 69 on: February 06, 2014, 12:24:42 PM
245-60-15's on 7" Rally Wheels here.  I had to bend the lower edge of the front fender extension/moulding forward a small amount.  No permanant damage and clears/looks fine that way IMHO.  The inner side of the tire can touch near the subframe at full lock left or full lock right some times but on my driver car, it just does not matter much.  I would not worry but maybe some of you would.  I might go with 235-60-15's next time (but that might not ever happen).
-Mark.
43  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Multi leaf springs. on: January 31, 2014, 12:07:32 PM
Have you considered the shock absorber differences?  69 uses staggered shocks so you might want to use the non-staggered 67 bottom plates?
44  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: So you think you have a Dana, Nickey,Berger Baldwin, etc...? on: January 29, 2014, 02:41:23 PM
Just to add something to the discussion and respond to the earlier requests....This is what I got when I sent in my money for information on my Corvette.  If we could only have THIS for our Camaros - OMG!



-Mark.
45  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: photos of my 69 build, on: January 24, 2014, 05:14:29 PM
In all honesty - My advise is to look around for a better core.  This one will cost too much and take too long to do it right.  It is worth more as a parts car in my opinion.  Sorry.

-Mark.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28
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 0.154 seconds with 18 queries.