CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 28, 2014, 12:09:54 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.
103593 Posts in 12177 Topics by 4697 Members
Latest Member: greygoose01
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27
361  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 camaro 3927184 intake on: June 28, 2009, 08:41:35 AM
Based on the date it would probably be service replacement manifold. It would apply to a variety of applications.

Fill tubes can be added at any time. The '69 Z/28 manifold had a soft plug where the fill tube would have been installed but they never used the hole for anything.

-Mark.
362  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 Gas Tank on: June 27, 2009, 06:16:36 AM
the GM tanks will probably be pretty well beat up if you can find one. They were shipped/stocked loose without any box or packaging for all those years. They probably cost a bunch too. I went repro and they look and fit great. The functional quality of the repro is excellent. I can not say either way if the repro is 100% correct or not but I really like it.

-Mark.
363  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Timing in the distributor on: June 26, 2009, 09:29:03 AM
This is usualy a semantic discussion whe  ever it comes up. The best answer includes all the ignition advance information or else somebody will get confused every time. Roll Eyes

If you include initial advance plus all the centrifugal plus all the vacuum advance it should usualy add up to around 52 degrees for our old school wedge head SBC's.  Grin This would be at a high rpm cruise situation. Like driving down the highway and not under any additional load.

More advance than that is typicaly too much, and less than that may leave efficency (power) on the table.

If you want to address wide open throttle ignition advance, you do not count the vacuum advance in that calculation. Vacuum advance does not function with your foot to the floor so it does not add anything to the equation. The rule of thumb for that sum of initial plus all the centrifugal is about 36 degrees. That is the number to shoot for.

This "36 degrees" is the field you play in when you are trying to pin down the curve for high preformance, improve the idle, and have a good transition from idle to part throttle . The 2 components of this "36 degrees" are initial setting plus all of the available centrifugal advance. If your car likes it when you give it a higher initial setting, then you can increase the inital setting BUT you would want to decrese the available centrfugal advance available in the distributor centrifugal advance menchaniaism. The goal is to keep the sum of your initial plus all the available centrifugal advance equal to about 36 degrees. One goes up, the other needs to come down. You either hurt power or hurt the engine with more or less than 36.

If you follow the math you will see that the vacuum advance mechanisim is probably best if it provides about 16 degrees of advance at cruise. It just ends up that way. 36 + 16 = 52   Smiley

Typicaly you may find your car likes maybe 12 degrees initial advance and a centrifugal with about 24 degrees available in it. That works as a baseline for a performance ignition curve for many applications. You may need less initial and more centrifugal but the sum should remain close to 36. Bigger cams may enjoy even more initial advance. You would have to play with it to get it perfect.

Hope this helps somebody.

-Mark.
364  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: sealing compound on: June 25, 2009, 03:10:16 PM
It was very close to the gray 3M Dum Dum but it had a string in it, presumably to help with handling the stuff. You can use the 3M strip caulk in a box to be very close to original minus the string. Plumbers putty works well too.  Smiley

-Mark.
365  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Clutch won't disengage on: June 24, 2009, 02:37:35 PM
Yes I can see the markings on the disc.  I have decided that I am going to try the GM fork(3892632) which is shorter and more angler.

Thanks
-Jon

Jon,
If you can see the disk markings on the disk while the pressure plate is installed then that is the problem. The "flywheel side" sticker goes tward the flywheel so you could not see it with the pressure plate installed. If that is all that is wrong it is an easy fix.



-Mark.
366  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Clutch won't disengage on: June 24, 2009, 11:15:43 AM
The clutch disc is in the right way (marked flywheel side), and centered.  I wonder if the fork is right.  Mine is the 14066235, but somebody mentioned the 3892632 is the one I need.  Who knows??


Can you see the marking/sticker through the pressure plate fingers while it is bolted together? You mentioned the "flywheel side" markings so that makes me ask. Sorry if that seems to be a strange question but I want to help rule out the possibilities.  It may have been marked wrong? The symptoms are pointing right at the disk or the pressure plate. The other possibilties include some lost motion in the linkage.

I once had to remove and replace the tranny and clutch 3 times in one day. The parts looked fine on the bench but the clutch would not release when installed. The final diagnosis was discovered when the counterman and myself assembled the flywheel to the clutch assy on the bench. The pressure plate fingers were warped but this was not visualy obvious when you looked at the parts just sitting there loose. We could see the warped fingers problem when we assembled them together but when apart the PP fingers looked perfectly straight. A replacement clutch was the solution.

-Mark.
367  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Clutch won't disengage on: June 23, 2009, 05:42:26 AM
The 621 is fine. They were used on 350's as well as BB's so that should not be an issue. The fork needs to be right but so does the bellcrank.

I suspect your disk is in backwards. The disk spring hub is rubbing on the heads of the flywheel bolts and the extra "thickness" causes the pressure plate fingers to be already partially depressed due to the disk interfearance. Rip it all back out and verify the disk is installed properly. If this is the case, it would explain the adjustment rod being all the way out. I know that is not good news but if this is the case, it is better to know now.

William - the Z/28 used the smaller "403" setup and all the 327's did too. The 350's are a mixed bag in general with some using the "621" bellhousing and some using the "403" smaller bellhousing setup.
368  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Clutch won't disengage on: June 22, 2009, 10:26:42 AM
I have lots of freeplay in the pedal when I adjust the rod that way, and none when I adjusted the rod the other way.  And I called zoom and they say the throwout bearing should be 1 1/4" long , which mine is.
Adjust the "other way"Huh There is no other way that I am aware of.

What did you use to align the disk while you installed the pressure plate? You need to be able to line up the disk real well so the tranny will go in all the way easily. If it is not in perfect alignment sometimes people will rest the weight of the tranny on the disk hub while they wrestle with getting the tranny aligned with the pilot bushing. That can bend the disk and prevent the clutch from releasing.

Does the car just grind going into reverse or does it not disengauge at all? What are the symptoms?

-Mark.
369  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Clutch won't disengage on: June 22, 2009, 06:45:11 AM
How much free play do you have at the pedal. You can put a tape measure tip on the floor and push lightly with your fingers on the pedal pad to see how far the pedal travels before you feel resistance. The spec is about 1" of free travel.

-Mark.
370  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Cool Pic on: June 22, 2009, 06:38:06 AM
Check out the reflection in the paint. I think it looks cool.

Here are some more.






I have had it for a few weeks and I like it a lot!  Grin

-Mark.
371  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Proper Painting of Underside of Cowl Induciton Hood on: June 21, 2009, 06:15:11 AM
if you set your hood on a pair of saw horses you will see the part he is talking about is the "sides" of the hood. There is an area where the spot welds can be seen from the side. The bottom of that edge is sharp from the sheet metal being cut there before the hood was formed and all of that part got paint. it will be a vertical surface. the underside of the hood was not masked so it is possible to get some small amount of overspray past the edge of the outside.

-Mark.
372  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: New tall bumpers guards, they donīt fit! on: June 16, 2009, 11:25:43 AM
I know the repro rear tall guards for '69 were a very poor fit. The repro weight was heavier, the finish was better and they were much more smooth as compared to NOS GM parts BUT the fit against the GM bumper was totaly unacceptable. I suspect they were formed wrong after they were notched if that makes sense.

I sent them back and bought GM NOS Smiley Smiley Smiley

-Mark.
373  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 steering column help on: June 16, 2009, 11:18:10 AM
Aaron,
If I am seeing this right, you should not have a problem.

If we are talking about the backdrive linkage that needs to be removed so the headers fit then this is no big deal. The backdrive links unbolt from the column and the frame with 3 bolts and 2 C-Clips. You can hold the column tab up in place (wire?) and deal separately with the backup lights in several possible remedies. I had to do this for the Hooker Super Comps when I ran them.

I have since gone back to cast iron manifolds now and reinstalled the backdrive links. No fuss, no cutting anything.  Smiley My steering column lock was already disabled by removing the star wheel at the snap ring so maybe that would help?

-Mark.
374  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: medium green interior, dark green dash pad? on: June 12, 2009, 02:35:28 AM
These show it pretty well. The color looks to match up pretty well with frost green body color especially with the rosewood custom interior pieces.





-Mark.
375  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: medium green interior, dark green dash pad? on: June 11, 2009, 05:08:42 PM
The pillar post mouldings were medium green. The dash pad was most probably medium green but it has been so long since I saw it that my memory may be a little fuzzy. The dash pad went straight to the trash can long ago. I still have a few medium green pieces kicking around in a box in the garage. I know I have some decent pix I could post later if needed that I collected from other complete medium green cars.

My car came originaly medium green comfortweave deluxe interior. It had been dyed back in the '70's before I owned it and the seats had been swapped out for black standard ones. NOT a pretty color I guess. Wink It was a very rare color for a good reason.

-Mark.
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27
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 0.09 seconds with 18 queries.