CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2015, 07:28:12 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.
112256 Posts in 12898 Topics by 4935 Members
Latest Member: rspallina
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
31  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Throttle return spring Color on: April 23, 2014, 01:06:42 PM
sorry, no clue here, I looked to see what I could learn ,surely someone knows?
32  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Picture of 69 z top of engine wanted on: April 23, 2014, 01:04:31 PM
Yes i read that, but 2 guys have posted (reply 15 & 17) saying they have seen them on 6A cars. So when John says around july or august of 69, I see someone say june and that is around july. We will have to see if more guys post about having it on there 06A cars and what the vin is.
Bullitt, I've recently seen a statement that all June built cars were 6A so it may be late June built cars got this?
33  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Amazing 69 Z/28 Survivor on: April 23, 2014, 09:52:08 AM
Love this stuff, really liking the engine detail shots please keep em coming!
34  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 tilt column research looking for original info on: March 20, 2014, 04:47:41 PM
I found this to be most helpful. Hope it helps. Thanks to Ian Johnson for his research:
Wow again Bentley!! Smiley   Why didn't you post that link a couple of years ago before I spent MANY hours trying to figure out all those differences!!    I finally determined an extra column I had was for a Chevelle, but I NEVER learned about the date codes.. Smiley
Gary I hear you its soo much easier today with the web I have several columns and wanted to know the diffrences - small chance mine is a camaro original either. I am trying to make my car close as I can afford to make it right but like most hotrods all PO have been fools
35  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Lower Rev LO rod for '69 Z28 (late) on: March 20, 2014, 10:11:45 AM
heres a good article I found
36  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 tilt column research looking for original info on: March 20, 2014, 10:07:57 AM
Ko-lek-tor - that was just what I was looking for! good info there
37  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 69 tilt column research looking for original info on: March 19, 2014, 10:17:00 PM
My 69 has a tilt in it and it needs some work, its not working well and needs repainted and I was trying to confirm if is a real camaro tilt or not, I know these were similar for several years but would like to know what they look like- correct for 1969 I have searched here and and very little info and the best thread I found was here
But this looks like a nicely built one but is it right? any pics or info of orig 69 columns would be appreciated
thanks CRG people
38  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / Re: 1967 Green Valley Trans-Am photos on: March 14, 2014, 11:10:44 AM
Thats Cool! I raced my first 69 RS/Z there -like 13.70s? and was spinning every gear change the track was blacktop  I also went to a early Super Chevy at Green Valley around 1980 and those pics brick back memories!
39  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: rear end upgrade 1969 on: March 11, 2014, 04:33:23 PM
I wouldnt bother with 12 bolt(unless your restoring it to be original) the 72-79 Nova 8.5 10 bolts or big 10 are near as strong as 12 bolt and alot easier to find and alot cheaper
40  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: connecting rod reconditioning on: March 11, 2014, 11:38:11 AM
"Dimple" rods weren't used on the 67 350, but to answer your question, yes you can overdo anything.


Sorry Ed but 1967 Camaro 350 rods WERE Dimple, they are very unique in that they used the 11/32 bolt same as the small journal rod, and to clarify they had a raised dimple just under the wristpin area on both side, same as a L78 rod. in the last 40 years I have taken apart and overhauled 3 known original SS350 Camaro engines and they all had them. Very hard to find rods and only used in 1967.
Very interesting - does anyone have some pics of these? I've been playing with camaros since late 70's and I'm still getting educated
41  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 Z/28 (X-33) Trim Tag on: November 12, 2013, 01:35:48 PM
good find Daytona yellow to boot congrats
42  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Oil Pressure Gauge Block Sender Fitting on: October 10, 2013, 04:50:53 PM
Gary the plastic line is avaialable at Ricks  pn# CG-15 but you will still need the fitting and tube to install with this block fitting from what it appears to me. I dont believe the ends on this line kit are correct for the OE block fitting. you would need to cut one end off and add the two earlier listed parts - coorect me if I'm wrong
43  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: m20 bolt markings on: October 07, 2013, 12:23:30 PM
I have a 68 Muncie M20 and the cover bolts all have a letter L on the head seems to be common, the taillhousing bolts seems to be marked SBC

may look at this thread I was trying to determine what was original for my car
44  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 radio delete plate and speaker carboard on: September 16, 2013, 05:46:00 PM
good stuff guys thanks !
45  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Oil Pressure Gauge Block Sender Fitting on: September 11, 2013, 07:38:40 AM

The plastic line will work with a nut replacement, but it needs the internal line sleeve per the manufacturer.
The nut/cone pinches down on the line.
OK that makes sense now, thanks!
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
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 0.078 seconds with 18 queries.