CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 15, 2014, 11:18:56 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.
97069 Posts in 11682 Topics by 4578 Members
Latest Member: ronhill
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 Z28 questions on: March 27, 2010, 06:03:18 PM
Some of your questions don't make sense. No one actually knows what the factory carpet weighs, no one is going to protest things that there is no answer to.

The heater box only weighs about 10 lbs, so it shouldnt be your major decider. The cars came with enough gear options so that you will not have to worry about that issue.
The rule book is pretty clear that superseded parts are ok, so there is no reason to worry about things like specific part numbers. You will be fine if you have a few Z28 basics, like an intake manifold, and possibly some double hump heads, but there is no way to prove performance improvements or not from other parts. Bare with me purists, but at its core, a z28 is just an engine option. Especially given the legal modifications you can do to the suspension. Put a z28 intake on top of a 4' bore 302 engine, and back it up with a 4 speed muncie, and the rest for your purposes is just another restored camaro. Don't forget some emblems.
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 Z28 questions on: March 26, 2010, 10:06:41 AM
You are making it waaaay harder than you need to. I autocrossed my 67 extensively in the mid eighties, and no one back then new enough about the car to protest part numbers on obscure models. I would just about guarantee no one will care now. I'm not suggesting you build a cheater, but the superseded / service part rule is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.  The rule book says:

Quote
Where a car is out of production and the manufacturer is either out of
business, stocks no parts or no longer has a required part, a part of any
origin but as similar as possible to the original may be substituted

I would read this to mean you don't have to a particular part number on anything, only to show it is not a performance improvement, ie any 4" bore block, most any factory head, and any factory intake. By the same reasoning, most any holley 4150 series carb with any jetting, and any rear gear would probably be legal. Can't buy that muncie shifter anymore either, so the hurst would be ok too. It's been a long time since I autocrossed, but I can't see anyone requiring a teardown to check cam specs at anything short of the national championships.

 Good luck.
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 67 & 68 BumbleBee Stripe on: March 26, 2010, 08:27:18 AM
I have been looking for 68 Bumble Bee stripe information off and on for several years. People always refer me back to the available stencils, but the stencils are WRONG, at least partially. I have found pictures of my 68 SS350, 11E build norwood built car from when it was new. The picture show the pinstripes on the front and rear of the stripe connecting under the 350 emblem, like they do in the AIM manual. This is contrary to stencils. I am still trying to figure a way to post a picture, because it takes a magnifying glass to see it in the old photos. Does anyone else have a original paint bumblebee stripe car? If so, what does it look like in the area below the emblem, and when and where was it built?
4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Way far apart engine vs car build? on: March 25, 2010, 09:43:52 AM
I'm pretty sure I don't still have the axle that came with the car, but I do have the tranny. I'll check it's date. I also have the intake, so I'll check its date too.

With a 67, I guess there is no way to be absolutely sure. It is interesting that it was replaced with a correct year and code engine.
5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Way far apart engine vs car build? on: March 25, 2010, 09:00:45 AM
I have  67 that I have owned since the mid 70's. Engine is coded V02I3ME. It was a complete and untouched, stock motor that needed a rebuild when I got it. It has been out of the car and sitting under the bench since then. I recently decided to rebuild it and put it back in. Problem is that I only now noticed that it is too early for the car, which is a 07B trim tag date. Engine casting date is A297, so it is ok with the engine build date. Being a 67, it doesn't have the vin number anywhere on the block. The heads were cracked when I pulled the motor years ago, so they got tossed. I haven't dug the intake out of storage, but if it has a casting date closer to the car build date, should I assume that the engine was replaced before I got it? Or is it possible that the engine sat around that long before it was put in a car? Everything else points to the ME code being correct, so I never realized the discrepancy.
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Research Topics & Reports / Re: 1968 SS hood ornaments on: March 23, 2010, 12:05:30 PM
11E norwood 350 - stacks
Pages: [1]
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 0.088 seconds with 19 queries.