CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 01, 2014, 09:31:29 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.
104982 Posts in 12266 Topics by 4728 Members
Latest Member: MartySS
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
31  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Twisted doors. on: November 16, 2012, 11:09:31 AM
My '67 has the same condition (again with original doors, that have not been removed), and after reading about this condition, I've been led to believe they need to be "adjusted" by removing the interior panels, inserting a suitable piece of wood and "tweaking" them. If you learn of an alternate method, I would be interested, as I haven't been inclined to do this, as of yet.
32  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Trunk sound deadner on: November 13, 2012, 01:45:47 PM
  My early build '67 convertible with DeLuxe trim also has the "insulator" as shown in previous pictures (not like the last post of a '68).
33  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Upper Dash Windshield Bracket - 68 RS Conv on: October 04, 2012, 06:22:01 PM
Sent an email, with some pics, from my 67convert. I am currently not at home to get more exact measurements, but will be reurning by next Thursday, if someone has not chimed in.
34  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Need Powerglide Experts on: September 21, 2012, 10:26:00 AM
My memory may not be 100%, but I remember when I was rebuilding automatics that some of the input shafts had different length splines on the shafts, and if they were installed 180 degrees out (backwards), you could also experience this type of issue - just don't remember if this applies to the Powerglides. Just something to check, if this shaft can be removed while the trans is still assembled. If you want, I can measure the depth the TC mounting ears are below the case mounting flange, when it is fully seated in the rearward position, as my trans is currently "out".
35  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Need Powerglide Experts on: September 19, 2012, 09:48:33 PM
The flex plate shown on the engine is exactly like the one on my 10B '67. I would suggest you be sure the bore in the crankshaft is "round", and the correct size as compared to the nose of the torque converter, as it sounds as though the TC is not going into the end of the crankshaft, and since you have swapped convertors, the problem may be at the CS, as you mentioned you had the engine rebuilt - JMO          If you need, I can take pics and measurements, but again this is a '67 327 with a powerglide, but they should be the same at the area in question.
36  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 67 Powerglide partial VIN. on: August 30, 2012, 10:27:07 AM
My early '67 with L-30, powerglide has no vin stamp at engine or trans (LOS car), was advised by Kurt that this was a "normal" condition for early cars.
37  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 Quadrajet base gasket - who sells? It is supposed to be about 5/8" thick on: August 03, 2012, 12:32:29 PM
All the original gaskets I have seen are as Ed described (thin). You may possibly have the wrong coil bracket, as the one for the L30 for example, has more of a rearward angle on it to gain the necessary clearance at the air cleaner - Just my Thoughts.
38  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: What is the assembly line correct 68 Rochester 4-bbl carburetor choke pull-off? on: May 22, 2012, 05:39:21 PM
I also have a '68 Carter built Quadrajet (7028212 DH, B8) that has no numbers on the pull-off bracket, but, the pull-off itself is the silver and black RP pull-off, with a 52768 on the cover. Again if you need pictures I can supply them. Both carbs appear to have the original pull-offs that they were manufactured with.
39  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: What is the assembly line correct 68 Rochester 4-bbl carburetor choke pull-off? on: May 22, 2012, 05:21:51 PM
FWIW.  I have an early 67 with the Carter built Quadrajet (7027202 DB, K6), and the pull-off bracket has no part numbers stamped on it, and the original pull-off was all white, with no RP markings on it. If you need more info, I can provide pics. I also have a pic of the original fuel inlet nut, which was replaced (due to bad threads) by a Self tapping nut that looks very much like the one you have been discussing. Mine of course is 5/16 line size (first design).
40  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 z28 on: April 18, 2012, 05:49:30 PM
Sounds as if you either missed a vacuum hose connection, or possibly the intake gasket did not properly seal. I would use a spray can of something that would not damage your paint (WD-40 or equivilent) and spray around the gasket mating area, etc., while the engine is idling to see if you can locate the vacuum leak. Also, your ignition timing may be "off", but I assumed you have already checked your base timing, etc.. You can also hook up a vacuum gauge to see what kind of vacuum you pull at idle, but these numbers can vary a lot, depending on what your running for cam, etc.. Do all your spark plugs look the same ? This is just a starting point, but these are a couple of the obvious / possible issues. Not trying to offend, but I don't know your level of mechanical ability - so if you've already been there - just ignore me.
41  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 L30 alternator fan assy - what finish ? on: April 18, 2012, 10:59:05 AM
Thanks again Mike !! I appreciate the extra effort you went through, hope I to can be of some help to some other members myself, as my background is mostly hands on (technical -  retired factory service rep), and I would like to put it together as it was originally built.
42  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 L30 alternator fan assy - what finish ? on: April 17, 2012, 08:37:34 PM
FWIW
  After having reread some of the posts it sounds as some of your vehicles may have a seperate pulley plus the fan, while mine is a "one piece" unit (fan and pulley are made as one) with a center locating (for lack of a better description) bushing that's pressed and welded in place. Just want to be sure we are talking the same "piece". Thanks
43  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 L30 alternator fan assy - what finish ? on: April 17, 2012, 08:23:16 PM
If you noticed, the picture of the rear of the fan / pulley assy has a number 3 stamped on one of the cooling fins. Sorry, the housings are in the tank, but I'll check the assembly dates when I take them out. The car is a 10C (1966) production vehicle, so I would imagine it's possible to have a March through May alternator, as I have read they were produced in batches. I take it the concensus is that this part should be dark gray phosphate, but it sure appears to have paint on the face of it - maybe it had been refurbished in a previous life, as I am the 4th owner. Thanks again for your assistance / comments. I would still love to see a picture of an original / untouched part, but would imagine that's near impossible. Thanks again.
44  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 L30 alternator fan assy - what finish ? on: April 17, 2012, 07:09:10 PM
The reason I thought it was painted, was the differences in the finish, front versus rear - see attached picture of rear of the fan assembly.
45  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 L30 alternator fan assy - what finish ? on: April 17, 2012, 05:58:25 PM
I believe it to be opriginal to the vehicle, as  the fan / pulley assy has the part # stamped on it (3909815), but the housings are in the degreasing tank - should be part # 1100693 as per the AIM. Will try to post pic of fan in question.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
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 0.084 seconds with 18 queries.