CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 24, 2014, 10:13:10 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.
106521 Posts in 12421 Topics by 4787 Members
Latest Member: Oilron14
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Delco Script Color on Battery on: October 18, 2014, 07:48:45 PM
I noticed another important detail in the factory photo of the Z28 engine in Post #10: the valve cover retainers are UNDER the spark plug wire retainers, and the latter were installed with the "hollow" side facing down.

I've heard arguments that the spark plug wire retainers should be installed with the hollow side facing up and the valve cover retainers should be on top...inside the hollow side of the plug retainers.  This factory photo shows what left the factory.  Also, the picture in the 68 AIM (I don't have the AIM with me as I write this comment) on radio ground straps looks to me like a retainer order similar to what is shown in this photo.  The ground strap goes between the valve cover and valve cover retainer, with the plug wire retainer on top (hollow side facing down).

Bernie
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Galvanized finish on 67-68 tail light housings, hot dipped or electroplated? on: October 16, 2014, 06:41:18 PM
69Z28-RS,

I noticed Phillip head screws holding the housings onto the bezels.  Are these correct for originality?  I thought the fasteners were hex head zinc screws?

Bernie
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Galvanized finish on 67-68 tail light housings, hot dipped or electroplated? on: October 16, 2014, 09:18:51 AM
The original 67-68 tail light housing backing plates after almost 50 years look like a dull gray plating with a spangle pattern.  I'd say they almost look like an old galvanized chain link fence that has lost its luster over the years.  Even the repros have duplicated the aged, dull, finish (but the repros don't have the SAE 67 stampings).  Chain link fences are/were hot-dipped galvanized and also have the spangle pattern in the finish due to large zinc crystallites in the molten solution. 

Electrogalvanizing, also known as "clear zinc" plating, is a thinner plating than hot-dipping and does not have the spangle in it. 

In a separate CRG blog under Restoration, "Cadmium vs. Zinc Plating," JohnZ stated that either zinc or cadmium plating was an option in the 60's.  However, he didn't clarify which form of zinc and for which parts.  I'm guessing certain parts were clear zinc and certain ones were hot-dipped?  A good picture of aged, dull looking original ones, is posted under CRG blog Restoration, "Restoring a galvanized finish Huh."

Does anyone know with certainty whether hot-dipped galvanizing or electrogalvanizing (i.e., "clear zinc"), or either, were original plating finishes on these housing backing plates?  Either finish would be shiny and look very different than the aged, dull look on all original and repro ones today.  It is important for our community to know if either or both of these finishes are acceptable to judges.

Thanks in advance!
4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Correct finish on brake booster bracket-to-firewall nuts and lock washers? on: October 13, 2014, 07:59:39 PM
There are 4 hex nuts (size 3/8"-16) with lock washers that mount the power brake booster to the firewall.  On UPC J50/A2 of the1968 FAIM, the bottom two nuts/washers are listed as "PRODUCTION NUT & L. WASHER."  The upper two are GM part numbers 9418931 (nut) and 103321 (lock washer).  Are the bottom two nuts/lock washers different than the top two?  What finish are these fasteners, phosphate (gray - black) or zinc (dark silver)?  The nut is not in the AMK Products catalog and the lock washer is available in both finishes. 

My gut says phosphate, but then why is the screw (3848408) zinc plated on the zinc dichromate bracket for the proportioning valve (UPC J52/A2 of the 1968 FAIM)?  Is it because it contacts the zinc dichromate plating?  If so, then shouldn't the 4 nuts/lock washers be zinc plated?

Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks in advance!
5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / 1st Gen Camaros certified as Legend Concours through 2012? on: July 05, 2012, 09:41:21 PM
How many 1st Gen Camaros have been certified as Legend Concours from the inception of Legends through the 2012 Camaro Nationals?  Has anybody published these numbers?

I think it would be great if each future Legend Concours certification plaque also had a serial number on it that showed it's unique sequence among past Legend Concours cars?  At least then people seeing the plaque could realize the rarity of this high-level, prestigious, judged event.   I kind of relate this idea to either the Supercar Registry (Yenko, Dana, Motion, etc.) or Jerry MacNeish's Z28 Registry.

On the other hand, even though it might not be a current problem, serializing Legend plaques could also prevent future fraudulent plaques claiming concours certification.
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original Battery Hold Down Clamp on: June 27, 2012, 09:44:24 AM
Previously, I posted a similar thread on this topic at http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=7977.0

Bernie
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: What is the assembly line correct 68 Rochester 4-bbl carburetor choke pull-off? on: June 13, 2012, 08:32:32 PM
Mike S,

They didn't tell me the fuel inlet nut was incorrect while I was present at the Nationals.  I found out a week or so later when my scoresheet was e-mailed to me.  If I knew at the Nats, I could have at least had the opportunity to show them documents to argue my point.  I'm guessing that the judges are swamped with other Legends cars to inspect and can't take time to discuss many issues, or they would never finish in time.  They have a lot of work to do in a rather short period of time.

Maybe there needs to be some sort of formal appeals process for deficiencies that are debatible between parties??

BTW, Ed's reply to this thread was also applicable to my recent post (today) on Delcotron stickers.

Bernie
8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: What is the assembly line correct 68 Rochester 4-bbl carburetor choke pull-off? on: June 13, 2012, 07:44:47 PM
Thank you, Ed.  I wasn't going to commit before getting a nod from a Legends Judge first.

It would be good to know for the entire Camaro restoration hobby what holds more credibility for an "originality" argument, a person's memory (or the collective memories of multiple people) from 40+ years ago, or period-dated published documents and/or photos from the original manufacturer?  I know what holds up better in a court if law, but not what is acceptable by car show judges.  I at least presented evidence that would sway a legal opinion (if this were a court, but it's not) using the "preponderence of the evidence rule" (a >50 percent convincing argument).

I would hope car show judges would uphold the proverbial "tie goes to the runner" baseball concept when OEM documentation can be offered to support a car owner's claim.  Can the Legends Judges at least go public with an official statement one way or the other, so the entire hobby can benefit from certainty.  We don't have NCRS books like the Corvette guys do.

Bernie
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: What is the assembly line correct 68 Rochester 4-bbl carburetor choke pull-off? on: June 13, 2012, 06:09:49 PM
Oops! I guess I should have said JoeC's last comment.  My bust.
10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Here is a GM photo of a Delcotron sticker on a 1968 Camaro alternator on: June 13, 2012, 06:08:08 PM
I found an official GM photo that shows that Delcotron alternators originally had stickers on them.  Maybe the sticker fell off soon after the car left the lot, so not many people remember them as originally being there.  Even virgin survivor cars may have had them fall off over the years. 

Anyway, attached is a photo of a reproduction Delcotron sticker and a photo of Figure 2c (black and white GM photo) on Page 6Y-8 of an original (not reprinted) "1968 Chevrolet, Chevelle, Camaro, Chevy II and Corvette Chassis Overhaul Manual" (dated 1967) showing that same sticker affixed to the top of the alternator, with the Delcotron text bottom pointing toward the pulley.

With the official GM documentation presented here, will the Legends Judges accept having this Delcotron sticker on an alternator at the 2012 Camaro Nationals?

Bernie

11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: What is the assembly line correct 68 Rochester 4-bbl carburetor choke pull-off? on: June 13, 2012, 05:30:34 PM
Paul (1968RSZ28),

I found yet another official GM source (see attached) that confirms the fuel inlet nut on my 7028212 Rochester 4MV (4 barrell) carburetor as being correct...the photo of my carb was in my opening thread on May 15, 2012.  My fuel inlet nut is the same as the one in the attached GM document, the photo that Jeff68 posted in this thread on May 16, 2012, and the photo that you posted in this thread on May 22, 2012.  The attached GM documentation supports the other three GM documents that I posted in this thread on May 17, 2012.

-Exploded view of a Rochester Carburetor Model 4MV (327 & 350 cubic inch engines) Float Bowl, Figure 35R on Page 6M-20, from a "1968 Chevrolet, Chevelle, Camaro, Chevy II and Corvette Chassis Overhaul Manual. (dated 1967)"  Illustration #11.

In relation to your last comment about the fast idle cam (aka "kickdown lever"), the attached document shows it looking like the plastic version, not the metal one.

Bernie

12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: RS headlight assembly shims on: June 05, 2012, 10:55:42 PM
Scoop,

I am probably the person you were referring to that got the points taken off at last year's Nationals for the wrong RS headlamp shims.  Well, I found the correct shim (see photo below) and showed it to a Legends Judge along with illustration #5 depicted on Page Z22/A7 of the 68 AIM.  It is not the same shim as those used for alignments.  The alignment shims are silver-colored and have a square-shaped tab.  The judge did say that the RS headlamp shim should be dark phosphate, just like the body shims.  Therefore, the plating in the photo below is incorrect.  I happen to have 8 phosphated shims for my car and 22 extra (unplated, raw steel) ones that I could sell for $10.00 each, plus S&H, if you or anyone else is interested.

Bernie
13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Tie Rod ends and sleeves on: June 05, 2012, 10:31:13 AM
Yes, it's that AIM graphic that shows the outboard clamps with openings facing up (actually, it shows both inboard and outboard facing up, but the text "must be positioned as shown" only applies to the outboard clamps.
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Tie Rod ends and sleeves on: June 03, 2012, 05:44:49 PM
I think I recall either the 68 AIM or 68 chassis service manual stating it is for clearing a suspension part during turns...not sure, though, I'm not near my books. I also recall more text than what you quoted that discusses the position of other two clamps on the tie rods and the position of the sleeve opening.
15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Tie Rod ends and sleeves on: June 03, 2012, 03:49:58 PM
Hans L,

I wanted to point out something I noticed in your photo of the installed tie rods.  I don't have my 68 AIM or 68 chassis service manual in front of me (I'm on the road traveling), and I realize that you have a 67 (requirements may be the same)...but, I believe that at least one of the tie rod sleeve clamps (inner or outer, not sure) on each side is supposed to have the open end facing up with 15 degrees of the vertical.  The other clamp on each side I believe has to have the open end aligned with the slit in the tie rod.  It's therefore possible to have both clamp open ends facing up (based on alignment needs), but at least one on each side needs to be facing up.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
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 0.118 seconds with 18 queries.