CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 01, 2014, 11:34:05 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.
102556 Posts in 12096 Topics by 4669 Members
Latest Member: paulmanta
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Z/28 Power Brake Hose Bracket - Original? on: May 20, 2014, 07:20:11 PM
Wow. Glad I don't need one either!
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: gray phosphate on: May 18, 2014, 03:23:04 PM
Forgot to mention. The hood latch was done in Zinc and the bolts were done in Manganese. Shows a good contrast between the 2 finishes. Hood latch as well as the bolts were glass beaded then sprayed with WD-40 several times, then left to air dry.
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: gray phosphate on: May 18, 2014, 03:02:43 PM
Here are some parts I did with the lighter Zinc Phosphate, also treated with WD-40 or Boeshield. Parts were done about 3 or 4 months.





4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Amazing 69 Z/28 Survivor on: April 25, 2014, 10:10:21 AM
Wow! Awesome find and unreal car. Thanks for sharing Chick. One of the finest examples I have seen to date.
5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z28 Engine Bay Pic's on: January 31, 2014, 06:10:45 PM
Worth noting for the PTB discussion, that JohnZ's Assembly Process article describes the inspection marks as "ink stamps".
(My apologies if this has already been noted elsewhere in this thread, but I didn't spot it if it is).

That is correct Tim as Chick pointed out. I am going to try the same method Chick used as his stamps looked great IMO.
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z28 Engine Bay Pic's on: January 31, 2014, 01:30:06 AM
They were purchased from ricks years ago...


Thanks James I ordered some stamps from HBC and they look just like the ones you and Chick used.
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: nice ZL1 clone in france on: January 29, 2014, 12:18:22 AM
very nice work
8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: photos of my 69 build, on: January 23, 2014, 01:50:50 AM
Wow. Perhaps this is a crazy question, but you said you bought a rust free car. Was it advertised as such. If so I would think that you would have a case on your hands.
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Subframe markings? on: January 19, 2014, 10:56:12 PM
that appears to be an April 11 '69 date stamp..  Seem right for your 04C car too.   
The subframe PN  is probably located under the bumper bracket (and probably is still in decent condition based on that stamp).  If you ever expose it, please take a photo of the PN and post it.. Smiley

Apparently the subframes (and frames of other Chevrolets of that era) were marked with the PN, mfg, and date at that location..   at the rear of the bumper bracket on the Left Hand frame horn (outer side)...


What does that stamp mean, other than indicating the date. I have never seen it before on a subframe.

Thanks Gary. Interesting to see that for the first time. My car had undercoating. Had I known at the time I may have taken my time to look for it before stripping the paint.
10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Subframe markings? on: January 19, 2014, 06:35:06 PM
that appears to be an April 11 '69 date stamp..  Seem right for your 04C car too.   
The subframe PN  is probably located under the bumper bracket (and probably is still in decent condition based on that stamp).  If you ever expose it, please take a photo of the PN and post it.. Smiley

What does that stamp mean, other than indicating the date. I have never seen it before on a subframe.
11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Intake manifold bolts - 69z28 on: January 19, 2014, 06:32:30 PM
I found in the junk yard both "M" and "C" head marks. The 68 Impala had "CS" head marks. The shouldered fasteners holding the lifting hooks did not have washers per your note 69Z28freak. The other fasteners on the intake are washerless too, right?

That is correct. No washers used on any bolts on the intake. That is why the lift brackets have the shouldered, built in washers for extra lifting support.
12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Oil Pressure Gauge Block Sender Fitting on: January 18, 2014, 11:17:46 PM
Gary;
Don't want to lead you astray here, just remembered some additional info. The Post 25 fitting 16001 is a larger nut style 3/8" and not the same as original. The only place I could find the original 5/16" nut style shown on post 26 was from: Part number 0650  111200 B.E. Atlas (773) 283-2550 in a pack of 5. Didn't want you to be disappointed when you get the new one, cause it looks different, it will work fine its just not the same as the original.

Todd


Hey Todd sorry for the Hi-Jack but I just noticed that we have the same cam. I have not installed my motor yet, but I am wondering how you like the cam?

Thanks
13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Intake manifold bolts - 69z28 on: January 18, 2014, 11:15:38 PM
Also note that the un-shouldered bolts should not have washers.
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original oil line fitting on: January 18, 2014, 11:08:38 PM
You will need all of these parts if you want to have the correct factory set up.



Did you read all of this thread?

http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=11068.0;all
15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original oil line fitting on: January 18, 2014, 10:26:37 PM
As per Cooks post with the link the one on the left is correct. The one on the right is a repop.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25
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 0.098 seconds with 18 queries.