CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 21, 2014, 01:45:44 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.
107599 Posts in 12510 Topics by 4812 Members
Latest Member: oldbop88
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13
151  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: DSE solid subframe mounts - stock bolts too short ! on: August 24, 2012, 09:26:03 PM
Thanks to everyone for their input......I might return them and go with the Global West.

             Dave
152  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / DSE solid subframe mounts - stock bolts too short ! on: August 17, 2012, 01:16:11 PM
I just received my order of DSE solid aluminum subframe bushings. The stainless steel washers that are supposed to be included in the kit weren't there but that's another story.

I noticed right away that the bottom half of the four main body bushings looked thicker than stock bushings. A few weeks ago, I bought new bushing bolts from AMK. They are the same length as the originals. I wanted to see if the bolts were going to be long enough. My subframe is not here right now...... I sandwiched the upper and lower halves of the bushings together, put the new bolt through them, and bolted them to the car. I tightened them finger tight and then backed them out enough to compensate for the thickness of the subframe and the washers that were missing from the kit.

The bolts under the seat don't engage the caged nut all the way. About a quarter inch of thread is exposed on the inside of the nut that the bolt doesn't fill. The bolts at the firewall almost engage the threads on the nut all the way but not quite. I have a reproduction floor by the way. The mounts on the firewall are original.

I have to return the bushings anyhow because the washers are missing. I guess my choices are to have them send me another set of the same and get some longer bolts or try a different brand of bushings. I am past my "returnable" period on the AMK bolts. I hate to waste $40 they cost but not a huge deal if I do.

Has any one run into this problem? ......I called DSE and they said the stock length bolts should work and that they had not run into this problem.
153  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Paint gun....choosing the right one. on: August 07, 2012, 04:07:46 PM
I see where I goofed and wrote HP instead of PSI after the 150. The compressor is actuially 1.6 HP and 150 max PSI. I am all new to this and trying to figure it all out. I am just going by the numbers. The guns are saying they need so much CFM and this compressor says it dooesn't put out that much. Are these numbers deceptive and not the bottom line on determining what will work with what?

                  Dave
154  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Paint gun....choosing the right one. on: August 07, 2012, 10:12:56 AM
I need some recomendations for picking out a paint gun. This is a first time project for me...... I have never used a paint gun before and I am learning from square one on how to do this...... My main goal with this gun is to primer bunches of small parts for my '68. Suspension components, all sorts of brackets, brake calipers, engine pulleys, etc. Most of the things I would be painting would not be more than a foot long. I may try doing some top coating of these parts with this gun too.

My compressor is a 33 gallon, 150 HP max, 5.1 SCFM at 90 PSI, 6.3 SCFM at 40 psi.

I want to use PPG DP90 primer. I have not bought any paint yet but I have the instruction sheet for the DP90. It calls for a fluid tip of 1.4 mm to 1.6 mm and 8-10 PSI at the cap for an HVLP gun or 40-50 PSI at the gun for a conventional gun.

I've been told that you can spray this primer with an inexpensive gun. I have looked at guns at Harbor Freight and other places but most say the require 10 or more SCFM.

So my question is.....am I out for luck being able to spray this primer using this compressor or is there a gun out there that will work with it and do the trick.

Thanks.....Dave
155  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Choice for control arm and subframe to body bushings ??? on: July 13, 2012, 07:44:06 AM
Yes I did...... That is where I got all of the different opinions.
156  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Choice for control arm and subframe to body bushings ??? on: July 12, 2012, 08:32:31 PM
I am needing to choose my upper and lower control arm bushings and my subframe to body bushings for my '68 coupe. I am going to be using the basic Hotchkis TVS system, using my factory control arms.

I am looking for some compromise of good, solid handling and being able to cruise in relative comfort. I read through a bunch of old posts on this subject and came away being more confused than on the right track. There seems to be a lot of mixed opinions out there. Some of these posts were pretty old so maybe there is better information out there now.

The choices out there seem to be original style rubber, polyurethane, polygraphite, Delrin, (and solid for the subframe to body)

I know the original rubber deflects but some folks said their car handles fine with them.

I hear all the stories about polyurethane squeaking. I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR SQUEAKING WHILE I AM DRIVING! But some folks said they have  the polyurethane and haven't heard the first squeak.

I read where polygraphite gives the performance of polyurethane but does not squeak. I looked through every Camaro parts catlog and Jeggs and Summit and never saw a "polygraphite" bushing anywhere.

Some folks thought the Delrin transmitted more noise and vibration while others said they installed them and noticed no difference. Some said because the Delrin allow the control arms to move more freely, they actually allowed the suspension to work better and improve the ride quality.

Some folks liked the Moog rubber bushings. Here is an intersting quote from Moog about their bushings......."Moog bushings are designed to absorb vibration and noise and deliver better handling while providing the performance of urethane without the “squeak” normally associated with it. They are not affected by oils, alkalines, ozone or hydrocarbons; can withstand extreme weather conditions; can carry substantial loads; and will not discolor or crack with age." .......That sounds good and they are  pretty cheap through Rock Auto.

When I was done reading, I wasn't any closer to knowing what to pick than was before I started.

Just wondering if there are any more up to date opinions on what to choose given the kind of ride I am looking for?

               Thanks.....Dave
 

157  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Auto Parts Warehouse - feedback, opinions ? on: July 11, 2012, 01:51:12 PM
Has anyone had any experience with Auto Parts Warehouse ? ( autopartswarehouse.com ) I am needing to order some parts and they are quite a bit cheaper than most on what I need.

I have read reviews on them online and they are quite mixed. Just wondering if anyone has ordered from them and how the experience was?

Thanks,
Dave
158  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Choice for compressor, blast cabinet, paint gun ??? on: July 09, 2012, 07:53:31 PM
Lynn....Thanks for the reply,

The things I am looking to clean and paint are things such as suspension components, brake calipers, pulleys, brackets and odd and ends like that. All of these things have some combination of rust, grease, and old paint on them

I have have tried hand scrubbing with degreaser, soaking stuff in de-rusting solutions, and paint stripper.  And none of them are doing the job on tough stuff! I'll be an old man by the time I finish it all the way I am doing it now......If I had to start and stop because of a low powered compressor, that's still better than what I am doing now............ I want to be able to spray the parts with 2K paints for durability and not paint from a spray can.

I know I can probably farm it all out but would rather do it myself....... My end gaol is to strip these parts to be ready for paint and then put a quality, durable paint on them.

The only place I have to work on my stuff, I do not have access to a 220V hook up................Any other ideas out there on how to accomplish this?

                          Thanks........Dave
159  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Choice for compressor, blast cabinet, paint gun ??? on: July 08, 2012, 02:02:44 PM
I am needing some recommendations...... After trying different methods of de-greasing, de-rusting, and paint removal on many small parts of my '68 (all being time consuming and not all of them being very successful), I am thinking a blast cabinet for cleaning and prepping parts would be the way to go.

So I would be needing a blast cabinet and a compressor. And since I would now have a compressor, I would also want to tackle some small paint work. Primering and finish painting these small parts.

So I would need recommendations on:  A blast cabinet. Harbor Freight has a couple on sale now.

                                                         A compressor capable of powering a blast cabinet and also running a paint gun that I could
                                                         primer and finish paint bunches of small parts. ( It would need to run on 110 volts house current)

                                                         A paint gun for the above.

I don't need anything elaborate. Pretty much the minimums for accomplishing the above. I have been reading up on compressors trying to educate myself a little. The two blast cabinets at Harbor Freight require 9.5 cfm @ 90 psi or 10 cfm@ 100psi.

Any recommendations would be appreciated.................Thanks, Dave
160  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Stance using the Hotchkiss TVS ( Pictures available??? ) on: July 07, 2012, 11:41:21 AM
Yes, the shocks are removed.
161  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Stance using the Hotchkiss TVS ( Pictures available??? ) on: July 05, 2012, 12:44:18 PM
I am pretty certain that I'll be going with the Hotchkiss TVS system for my '68. Before I do though, I would like to get an idea of what the stance will look with it installed.

Has any one installed this system ( 1 1/2 inch or 3 inch drop leaf springs) on a '67 or '68 and has a profile picture of your car showing the stance and the distance between the top of the tires and the top of the wheel opening. If you didn't have a picture, could tell me the distance between the top of your tires and the top of your wheel openings front and rear.

On my car, for some reason right now, there is a 5 inch space between the top of my rear tires and the top of the wheel opening. The car is just rolling shell. No interior, no front end sheet metal, no engine or transmission. Just the empty shell sitting on a bare subframe. Looking back at pictures of the car when it was whole and running, it did not sit up nearly that high in the back. For a car in this state is it normal for the back end to sit up that high when most of the weight removed from the car was from the front end?

I bring this up wondering if I would need the 1 1/2 inch or 3 inch drop leafs in the back.

Thanks............Dave
162  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Two piece brake rotor replacement. on: July 04, 2012, 11:15:16 AM
I've driven my daily driver car and many others with drums and rotors turned way past the specs and never had a problem.  If you're driving so close to the edge that a few thousandths of an inch mean life or death, I'd take a bus.
I have no idea how significant those few thousandths are. Some feel it could be dangerous and other don't...... I would think, however, that the manufactureres build some extra margin into those minimum specs just to cover themselves............How do you get yours turned past the minimum? Do you take them to a shop and they do it regardless of the fact that they are going past the minimum?
163  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Two piece brake rotor replacement. on: July 03, 2012, 06:21:41 PM
I agree about going below the minimum. This car will be a fair weather driver and I hope to drive it a lot. I am going to get a one piece replacement for now. I will keep my originals tucked away.
164  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Two piece brake rotor replacement. on: July 03, 2012, 11:55:24 AM
Dave, the 5100 works fine. Just be forewarned that you may have to get a couple of them before you find two that don't interfere with the caliper. You can also try the 5514 since that's the number AutoZone shows. O'Reily shows the BrakeBest 5100RGS and AutoZone shows the Duralast 5514, so maybe they've changed the hub a little on the 5514 to make it fit. I don't know.

However, do you still have enough meat to turn your originals? The "official" specs are .965" minimum but lots of folks have run them with up to (or as little as) .935" to .940".

Ed

I measured my rotors and they measure out at .950 and .955 inches. Would a shop turn them if they are already past the minimum?

I removed the bolts connecting my original hub to the rotor before I realized I would go with a one piece replacement. I tried to separate the rotor and hub with no success. I can't say I tried real hard for fear of damaging them. If they ever did make just the rotor part and I wanted to use my original hub, what's the best way to separate the hub from the rotor? I am assume they are rusted together.
165  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Two piece brake rotor replacement. on: July 02, 2012, 10:29:44 PM
When I read that about the factory balancing, the person that wrote it said that they saw that in the "68 Chassis Service Manual. I don't have one of those. If someone does, it would be interesting to see what it says.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13
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 0.128 seconds with 18 queries.