CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 20, 2014, 11:37:11 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.
97299 Posts in 11695 Topics by 4578 Members
Latest Member: ronhill
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Original or GM Replacement Power Steering Belt - Z28 on: December 26, 2013, 12:38:05 PM
The following Power Steering belt was on my car when I purchased it (the top one in the picture below).  Per the AIM, it's the correct PN, 3848263 and appears to be Z28 specific, but I'm not sure if it's factory original or a dealer/GM replacement belt.

In the pic below, the top belt is the original; the lower belt is a Quanta reproduction belt.  As you can see, the reproduction is quite different than the original GM belt.   But that is not to say the Quanta belt is incorrect - it might be a correct factory style belt, maybe there were multiple suppliers/styles, or?

Thoughts/comments on these belts?

2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Top post vs side post batteries. on: December 17, 2013, 10:45:52 PM
Kurt - I know.  Just find it weird prior owners switched it out.   Happens of course. 
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Top post vs side post batteries. on: December 17, 2013, 05:52:38 PM
My 04B has side posts as well.  (LA build).  Car was sold first week of June.  I've been told it should have top posts...but I have always wondered.   I will inspect the cables to determine if I can decipher any part numbers.    Car still had the original heater hoses and belts when I aquired the car, so I would have been surprised the battery cables were replaced.  Obviously possible, but.

Last VIN # are L529307.
4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Fill & Drain Plugs 1969 Muncie M22 on: December 17, 2013, 05:48:45 PM
Looks good Lloyd.  Those are correct per my discussion with Jerry as well.   Here's the plugs that are on my Z's original M22.   After Jerry rebuilt it, he requested follow-up pics for his files and research.   Confirmed original for the car/trans.  Built date of the car is 04B.   Note that the trans came with two magnetic plugs - both the same.





5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: What is the breakdown of 4 speed transmision types in 1969 Z/28's? on: November 27, 2013, 05:40:31 PM
Here's my SWAG based on production numbers and assuming even distribution across solid lifter engines suggests around 8.5% of the Z's could have had an M22.

Here's the logic - In 1969 M22's could only be ordered with solid lifter engines.

So, '69 Production Count of Solid Lifter Engines:
Z28's:             20,302
L78's:               4,889
L89's:                 311
COPO 9560:          69
COPO 9561:     ~ 800

Assume 30% of the L78/89's & COPO's came with automatics or about 1820; balance of 4,248 had manuals.  NOTE:  THIS IS A SWAG....I do not have data to quantify this guess.  If its less, just fewer Z's had M22.  

Net total number of solid lifter engines that had manuals that qualified for M22:   24,503.   Again assumes 30% of the big block solid lifter cars had automatics.

Total M22 production:   2117

% of total solid lifter cars that had M22's:   (2,117 M22's)/(24,550 solid lifter engines) = 8.6%

Again, assuming M22's were evenly dispersed across solid lifter engine Camaros in 1969, would indicate a little over 8.5% of the Z's had an M22.

Lots of assumptions here and nothing absolute, but might be indicative....of course, if the bulk of the M22's went behind L78/L89's and COPO's, then the Z % with M22's could be quite a bit less.

By the way, my Z came with the M22.    Dealer car sold off of the lot per the original owner when I asked him.  No idea why the dealer opted for the M22.

Hans
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 69 upper ball joint rivets on: November 24, 2013, 07:58:15 PM
Hmmm.   I really don't remember.   Maybe call Rare Parts?  They might remember.   I just know the repro's were not used - possible due to size issues.
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 69 upper ball joint rivets on: November 24, 2013, 06:38:06 PM
Doug,

I bought the Classic Suspension ball joints and the corresponding rivets.  The ball joint is close, but not exact to the originals.  

I sent the control arm, ball joints, and rivets to Rare Parts for installation.   The guy there didin't like the repro rivets I provided and used his own.   Total cost to install the rivets was around $100.


Here's the contact info in case you're interested in the service:

http://rareparts.com/contact/

GLEN KNOWLES, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
621 Wilshire Ave. Stockton, CA 95203
800.621.2005


Results:  


8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100837 Alternator Stamping - Original? on: November 03, 2013, 03:34:25 PM
Lloyd,

Here's a clearer pic of my alternator.   Hope this helps.  Unfortunately, I don't have enough expertise to comment the one you are considering, so can't add value there.

Not sure why Photobucket rotated the picture.   I re-rotated on the site, but reverts back to this mode when I add the link.   If you click through the pick, it should display normally.



9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100837 Alternator Stamping - Original? on: November 01, 2013, 12:04:28 PM
It's not - here's the best other pic I have.  I'll take a better pic this weekend and post.  Jerry M confirmed it's real and rebuilt/restored it.

10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100837 Alternator Stamping - Original? on: November 01, 2013, 11:36:20 AM
Lloyd - just a word of caution on "837" alternators - I had to source one for my Z last year.  I really struggled to sort out real from the fakes.   It takes a real pro to know is what I found out.   Fortunately, Jerry MacNiesh was rebuilding my engine at the time and I was able to get his confirmation the one I was considering was real.   I think he rejected 90% of the ones I sent him for consideration (at least 15 - 20 samples).   I was quite shocked how many re-stamps are out there.   

Heres the one I bought, confirmed by Jerry as a real "837".   It's a little early for my build (March), but within the acceptable range.   Also, I'll take a better pic if needed.

11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69Z Brake Booster Oddity on: October 31, 2013, 10:15:22 PM
For reference, 04B Van Nuys built Z, 9204 with a "80" build date. 
12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct engine paint suggestions please! on: October 31, 2013, 09:13:36 PM
Jerry M rebuilt and restored the 302 for my Z.   He used Seymour paint.

13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1100837 9 F 17 on: October 23, 2013, 02:34:49 PM
Just read your post on Yenkos.  Be very careful when searching for an 837 alternator.   From my experience last year hunting for one, 80%+ were re-stamps.   I had an expert (Jerry M) inspect each one I was considering and i was shocked how many were declared restamps.    And real ones are not cheap.   I did find a real one on eBay, but took months of looking.

Good luck with the hunt!
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Heater core - rebuild or buy new ??? on: October 22, 2013, 01:06:20 PM
I took my original heater core to a local radiator shop in San Diego this summer.   They pressure tested it and noted a potential leak area around the inlet/outlets.  They added some solder to those areas and re-tested confirming no leaks.  Not the prettiest looking, but completely hidden within the heater box so not too concerned.  Cost was like $75.   

Interestingly, the heater core date code is like 6-7 months before the build date of the car (68J vs 04B build date for car).   I thought I might have mixed it up with my Chevelle's core, but the heater cores are different, so virtually certain it is original to the car.

 

15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: am/fm radio repair on: October 16, 2013, 11:17:13 AM
What did this guy charge you for the radio resto job???    Don

It was very reasonable - in the $200 range.  I can't remember the exact amount.   Feel free to contact him and he'll provide a quote range over the phone.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
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 0.093 seconds with 18 queries.