CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2015, 02:11:33 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.
112318 Posts in 12904 Topics by 4940 Members
Latest Member: navan
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2]
16  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / Re: '67-'68 Penske Camaro Sunoco Blue on: May 17, 2011, 11:20:23 PM
Very much, thanks Jon!  I found the shop (T/A Performance Restorations) that restored the '69 Penske car, and they wouldn't share the codes, proprietary info!  Ha.  If you're ever out at an autocross I owe you a beer!
17  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / '67-'68 Penske Camaro Sunoco Blue on: May 16, 2011, 02:59:11 PM
I'm sure this has come up before, but I'd be interested to know if anybody has the inside scoop on the "Sunoco Blue" used on the original Penske/Donohe Trans-Am Camaros.  I've got just about every book and read every website out there.  Even found a number for "Molin Auto Body" in PA where they were originally painted (no longer in business).  As best I can tell "Sunoco Blue" was actually several different colors over the years, depending on the car, which shop was painting it, what Sunoco specified as their blue at the time, etc.

I took a pic last August of the '67-'68 cars at the Monterey Historics last year: 

My car is in the body shop now, and I like the darker blue of the car on the left (#15), not the lighter blue (#16).

I actually like this blue even better, but I can't tell if maybe it's just it being an old photo that makes it look so dark:

So I guess what I'm looking for, is if anyone here has any insider info on the paint codes, or shops, that graced these cars, such that I could do a fitting reproduction.  I've done lots of looking at GM factory paint codes and such, it's tough to find anything that isn't a metallic of some sort (which these are not).

Thanks again to the awesome Camaro Brain Trust!!!  Smiley
18  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Carb jetting for '67 Z/28 on: May 06, 2011, 12:14:04 PM
Thanks for the info Jerry!  The wacky thing I'm doing, is running this car in a class where I'm not actually allowed to change the jetting, unless there is a factory prescribed method to do so.  So, I need to find something that details what the stock jets were...and if I want to change them from there, I have to point to a factory manual or something, that describes the process.

So far I haven't had luck on either front.  Closest I've found documented is the jetting for the '68 302, the 68/76. 

Jerry, in your experience, what's the best jetting for the 302, with headers, high-flow exhaust, and a good ignition?  Car will weigh around 3000lbs. with 4.88 rear.

Thanks again!!!
19  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Carb jetting for '67 Z/28 on: May 05, 2011, 12:21:37 AM
I'm the crazy guy building a '67 Z28 clone to autocross with the SCCA (

One thing I'm curious about, is what was the original carb jetting in the car in 1967?  I have all the factory manuals, but none of them mention it, at least not in the engine sections.

In the 1968 manual, I've seen it specify #68 primaries and #76 secondaries, same jetting as the SS396.  Does any documentation exist showing jetting for the '67 Z?

Other thing, does any of the factory documentation (not race prep guides, but service manual type stuff) prescribe any sort of jet changes?  An example, maybe for customer cars at high altitude?  Haven't seen it in the books I have but maybe I don't have all the right ones.

Thanks again to the super Camaro brain trust!!!
20  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Allowed/Required Modifications for 1967 TransAm Cars on: March 15, 2011, 02:11:50 PM
Hi Chad,
I have to stick with whatever transmission was originally available for the car, and I believe the '67 Z28s only came with the M21.  I'm not sure if my trans is an M21 or not, haven't had a look at it in a while.  I can rebuild it to new specs, but am not allowed to perform any performance-enhancing modifications to it, things like those fancy sliders.  That part has to be all essentially factory.
21  Model Specific Discussions / Trans-Am Camaros / Re: Allowed/Required Modifications for 1967 TransAm Cars on: March 13, 2011, 01:12:33 AM
Hi Rick,
Doubtful any of that Trans-Am stuff is going to be legal in STX Wink

A great group of folks here, a lot of my pre-purchase research was performed quietly on this site.  If it weren't for the high quality of data available, I might not have had enough to go on to make the purchase.

22  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Rec. source for door and interior parts? on: October 05, 2010, 02:12:15 PM
Getting into the restoration on my '67 coupe.

The car's passenger door is perfect, it opens and closes like new.  I see on the door itself, a big GM stamp pressed into the metal.  The driver's door however, sticks and rattles, the outer skin wobbles, it's a mess, no GM stamp.  I can see inside a sticker, I think it said "Classic Industries".  Considering the lack of the GM stamp on the inner portion, I'm going to guess the whole door was replaced - does Classic Industries make a good door?  At this point I can't tell if it is a good part put together poorly or just a bad part.  Is there a replacement door I could get that matched the quality of the OEM door?  Or somewhere with NOS stuff?

I also need to replace pretty much the whole interior, and all the wiring.  Everything I have now is stinky, worn out, or both.  I'm not as finicky on this stuff as I am on the door, but would like suggestions for a place that offered good value for those components.

Oh, last thing - how do I get the window crank and door latch pulls off?  I've got the whole drivetrain out and front half of the car in pieces, but I can't figure out how to get the door panels off...  Huh

23  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 Z28 questions on: March 26, 2010, 02:11:35 PM
Haha, you guys are good.  Smiley  Don't forget, that allowance all carries with it a restriction-

Substitute parts which provide improvements in performance (e.g. superior gearing, lighter
weight, better camshaft profile, etc.) are not permitted under this allowance.

The hard thing about the no-longer-in-production thing, is it doesn't allow you to put better-performing stuff in.  For instance, I probably can't get OEM carpet and sound deadening pad, so I need to show whatever I have in there is no lighter than what was stock (if protested).

For engine components, it's even more complicated.  Things that are more "durable" or have increased ability to withstand racing/high revs, even if they're not lighter, can also be considered performance-enhancing.  An example might be replacing a cast component with something forged.  Though I think the 302 had all forged internals?  In any case, I am best off from a legality perspective if I can find OEM parts.

Normally protests don't happen at local events.  But every year I make the big trip from San Diego to the midwest (used to be Topeka, KS, now it's Lincoln, NE) to compete against the best in the country.  Everybody there has a lot of $ and time invested not just in their cars, but in the travel and general preparation.  It's there, people really look at each others' cars, and protests happen.

The other thing about the '67 - pretty sure it's the only year it could be had without a heater, and all the HVAC stuff is more weight savings.  We also have a funny rule in there (actually it's in Section 13 of the Rulebook, the Stock allowances, which the Street Touring category inherits) - any car before the 1968 model year, is allowed to replace its distributor.  At this point I'm not sure if the '67 302 used points or the transistorized ignition, but in any case, the ability to put in a modern distributor with tunable advance curves, should be an advantage.
24  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 Z28 questions on: March 25, 2010, 07:11:20 PM
Hi Randy,
No worries, I didn't take your post as suggesting I cheat.  The project sure would be a lot easier with some corners cut!  I am fortunate for the community dedicated to the preservation of these cars, the great knowledge and documentation present will be a big help.
25  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 Z28 questions on: March 25, 2010, 12:09:59 PM
Hi Dutch,
Unfortunately in the SCCA, we are limited to campaigning US-spec cars only.  If there was some way to get a '68 without AIR in the US, that would be great, but I would need to be able to show such a thing was possible.

Something that's different about SCCA autocross vs. road racing, is our legality is competitor policed vs. tech-inspector policed.  Since the Camaro is a lot older and uncommon, my competitors aren't going to be in a good position to know what to protest or why.  If I am protested for an illegal cam or conrod or steering box or something, the "burden of proof" falls on me to show, using factory documentation, that the parts are indeed legal.  Whether I am protested or not, the more important underlying thing is that it's important to me to build the car as legally as I can - the effort of putting together something really different and unique is pointless, if I have to cheat to make it competitive.  I don't begrudge racers in other forms of motorsports for doing what "bending" of the rules is necessary to remain competitive, but in autocross, a totally amateur motorsport, that isn't really the spirit of things.

For sure, the Penske team had quite an influence!  The shock mounting point change for '68 is a big one.  By '69 the floodgates had really opened, though again, I wouldn't be able to leverage the special-order dealer-installed stuff like the crossram.

JohnZ, I didn't know of Jerry MacNeish before finding this site, but since then have seen his name come up quite a bit, and I've caught several of his impressive 10-second Youtube videos.   When I'm ready to put together a motor he's definitely someone whose ear I'll be seeking!  In the meantime I'll see what sort of Service Letters and other bulletins I can find relating to the Z28.

Thanks again everyone!
26  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 Z28 questions on: March 24, 2010, 10:12:33 PM
The car's power to weight ratio will be its strong suit.  Our speeds in autocross are very low, the fastest we usually get going is mid 60's mph.  With a 3.73 rear and 25" tires, the car should be good for close to 70mph in first gear.  However, the emphasis in autocross is on the car's handling, which will not be the Camaro's strong suit, but since it'll be close to the same weight as its competition, on the same size tires, so I think I can get it close in that department.
27  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 Z28 questions on: March 24, 2010, 07:18:24 PM
Hi Marty,
Yep, that is part of the reasoning for wanting to do a '67 - it was the only year of the three you could get one without the AIR/smog stuff.

You're right, I forget the 302 wasn't called/stamped a DZ before '69.  If I've read it right, the '67 block was a normal small-journal 327 block but with a 3" stroke crank.  Of all the engine components, I think one of those cranks will be hardest to find; I think it'd be a lot easier to piece together a DZ, but my view may be biased based on what I'm able to find on eBay...
28  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 1967 Z28 questions on: March 24, 2010, 02:09:35 PM
Hello everyone.  First post, apologize in advance for its novel length-

I am currently in the research phase for a project wherein I intend to construct something of a Z28 clone.  Not to try to pass it off as real or make money or anything, but to race!

As some personal background, I am a die-hard autocrosser with the SCCA.  I've been competing on the national autocross scene for about 8 years now and in that time have managed to win a couple championships.  The thing about me though, is I like to put together cars nobody else thinks to try.  I've beaten Mitsubishi Evos with a Lexus IS300, Honda Civics with a Nissan 240sx, and at the moment I'm the only guy campaigning a Viper against Lotus Elises and Porsche GT3s.  My plan is to build a '67 Z28 to beat up on non-M 3-series BMWs and Mazda RX8's.  There are some other cars that might be easier or less expensive, like a Fox Mustang or an early 90's Firebird 305, but I really like the first gen Camaros and am a ridiculously huge Mark Donohue fanboy.

Autocross has a lot of different preparation levels, or categories, from Stock, all the way to "Modifed".  The prep level I'm interested in running the Camaro in is the first level up from Stock, called "Street Touring".  This class allows only some very basic modifications to the car, much less than what's being carried out by the "restomod" folks.  Our rulebook is here if anyone is interested:

The Street Touring category has a few classes within.  The reason I'm interested in the Z28 is because there's a class (STX) explicity for 4-seat cars with engines up to 5 liters.  Just like in Trans Am! 
As a quick summary, in Street Touring we can change the seats to race seats, we can change the shocks and springs, but have to keep the same spring type.  We can change wheels but are limited to 9" in width, and street-compound tires 265mm wide.  We can change sway bars, and add a panhard or watts link.  In double wishbone suspensions, we can change the upper or lower arms, but not both.  We can replace the suspension and drivetrain bushings, as long as the replacements are not metal.  We can upggrade the brakes to 4-wheel disc and put in a limited slip differential.  On the engine side, we can do headers and a exhaust, and can change the air filters, but that's about it.

The thing about SCCA is their, "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't" rules style.  So all the tricks and tweaks and subtle modifications people usually do (Guldtrand mod, gear ratio changes, porting, cam changes, etc.) aren't legal.  The car would need to have a DZ302 with bone stock internals (engine can be first overbore, but not to exceed .020").  The interior would have to be stock, though we can can upgrade steering wheel and shift knob.  The exterior would also have to be stock, no flaring or cutting.  While the VIN plate doesn't have to specify the chassis as a Z28, everything about the car has to be just as it would have been in 1967, but for the above modifications.  That's what brought me to the "originality" subforum here.

The reason I'm interested in a '67 Z28 is because it could be ordered in a way that faovors this ruleset.  We are not allowed to remove smog equipment, so I'd have to run the smog pump on a '68 or '69.  It also appears as though the car could be ordered without a heater in '67 only, which would be a big weight savings - yes, I am crazy, though I also live in San Diego and  would trailer the car to far-away events.

I can't swap parts between years of Z28, so none of the fancy '69 parts can be used.  Can't use "trunk kit" or dealer installed items either, like cowl induction or the later crossram carb setup.

So here's where I get to finally asking a couple questions-
First, while we can't swap parts between years, we can leverage factory part "supercedence".  This is where the factory revises a part somewhere along the line, and specifies the new part in replacement of the old. Specifically in regards to the DZ302, does anyone here know if the later 4-bolt large-journal block was ever issued as a superceded part for the old one?  For instance, if the year was 1970, and you owned a 1967 Z28 with the original motor, and blew it up while under warranty - when you took the car into the delaer, would the dealer put in another 2-bolt block, or would they give you the revised '69 unit?  This  stuff is all so old now, tracing parts supercedence through old parts books or fiches might be hard.  The reason I ask of course, is it would be much much easier to put together a "stock" 4-bolt DZ302, as so many more were made.

Second question.  I've actually purchased the factory assembly manual, chassis service manual, and the Body by Fisher manual for 1967.  The thing I've found, is the service manual completely leaves out any reference to the 302 motor. My other concern is whether I will be able to tune the carb for the right mixture with the free-flowing headers and exhaust.  We don't have any explicit allowances to re-jet, we can only make adjustments prescribed in the factory service manual.  The manual lists jet sizes for all other motors, but not for the 302.  If I am protested, I need to show that the carb setup is stock, tuned within the factory tuning range.  Is there a separate manual that lists the standard jet sizes, and tuning procedures, for the 302?  I suspect the '68 and '69 manuals do, but it would need to be applicable to '67.

Thanks in advance for everyone's help.  This site is a great resource! 

--Jason Rhoades
Pages: 1 [2]
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 0.096 seconds with 18 queries.