CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2015, 12:11:55 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.
112300 Posts in 12901 Topics by 4939 Members
Latest Member: Lwilliams
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Engine swap--are all 327s the same? on: May 14, 2014, 09:51:26 PM
1967 and back 327s had a canister oil filter and a breather tube behind the intake manifold. In 1968 they went to a spin-on filter. '67-back 327s also had different cranks with different size bearings, so there is a small-journal and a large-journal 327, the '68 and '69 being the large-journal. Pre-68 327 cranks were forged, '68 and up were cast. In 1969 and some late '68s the heads were cast differently and the '69 heads had accessory bolt holes for the longer water pump. Hope this helps.

hotrod68--at this point, everything helps!

I remember complaining about the old canister oil filter on the original engine.  Now I wish I had that old engine and canister to complain about!

Seems I'm "stuck" with the 68 look due to the PVC system, but I'm ok with that.  I've made some other modest trade-offs/upgrades with this painfully slow home grown restoration, mostly for safety and drive-ability.

Somewhere in this forum I've seen discussion about engine mounts and motor mount bracket differences for different small engine/horsepower combinations on the 1st gen.  Since my 327 motor will have much more output than the original 327, what recommendations on engine mounts/brackets would you make?
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Engine swap--are all 327s the same? on: May 08, 2014, 09:49:48 PM
67 and older engines were vented from the oil filler and a canister in the lifter valley which led to a hole near the distributer. In 68 this canister and the hole went away. Ventilation was done with a hole in each valve cover, one to let air in and the other to draw out crankcase air. So when you look at a 67 engine there are no holes in the valve covers and 68,s had one in each. these are two different systems. The deal is if you want it look like a 67 you will need a 67 or older block. If you want it to look that correct.

I looked at some photos of the engine before I put it in storage.  I was either lucky or knew what I was doing and subsequently forgot, b/c the covers are plain chrome and have holes in each cover.

I just googled some images from 68 Corvettes and found images that look familiar.  The images show a metal elbow emerging from the passenger side valve cover leading to a rubber line that makes a turn and ducking under the rear of a big chrome air cleaner.  The driver's side has a similar metal elbow and smaller diameter rubber hose but dives under the front of the air cleaner.

I think they go into the air cleaner, but I'm all googled out for the evening.  Thanks for the help!
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Engine swap--are all 327s the same? on: May 08, 2014, 02:27:31 PM
If you want to look stock, keep in mind the 68 had pcv valve in the valve cover, 67,s did not. It is not just a valve cover thing it is a totally different system.

I'll have to take a look at the valve covers I bought.  I remember it being more difficult than I expected to track down ones that at least looked the same.  It has been a while since the motor was put together and left in storage.

When you talk about the PCV valve in the cover, you mean there is a hole in the cover for a line to go to a PCV valve, or the actual PCV valve is in the valve cover?

I can't recall if I bought ones that looked the same or were actually working reproductions of the 1968 valve covers.  How would I tell the difference next time I'm looking at it?
4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Window regulators - clean up or replace? on: August 19, 2013, 03:55:21 PM
There are several online posts about how to take windows out of first gen camaros and how to put them back together--much better than the Fisher Body instructions.

So now I've got the front windows and vent windows out, but not sure exactly where to go from here.  The seals on the vent windows are shot, so I know I have to take that apart and have new seals enroute.

As for the regulator, rollers, tracks on the front window:

The rear main roller that goes up and down the vertical track is just a stub.  I've ordered a replacement from Ground Up that claims to be a Camaro roller part number (WR-068).  Has anybody used the part; how do I attach it?

I've cleaned the gunk out of the tracks.  I've cleaned the gunk out of the regulator teeth.  All in all it was pretty clean and rolled up an down fairly well before disseambly.  The rollers on the regulator are intact, but don't really roll well.  I put a bunch of white lithium grease on the tracks and the rollers yesterday hoping the rollers would loosen up.

Should I put the grease on the teeth also and wind it back and forth to lube the mechanism?

How much grease should be in the tracks when I reinstall them?  Thin film or well lubricated?

How much cleaning should I do of the regulator teeth themselves.  The regulator itself looks like it has a galvanized finish.  Avoid chemicals and wire brushes?

At what point do I consider the regulator replaceable?

5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct starter for '67 - 327 on: August 19, 2013, 12:01:07 PM
I'm putting a 4bbl 327 back into my 1967 that originally had a 2bbl 327.  I recall reading that high performance/compression small block Chevys had a "high torque" starter.  Does that sound familiar?  What starter would anyone recommend for this application?
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Stupid Question - What does Sway Bar Rubber Sleeve/Clamp do? on: October 08, 2012, 10:15:03 PM
any ideas on where to buy the rubber insulators that go into the metal clamp?  or a decent substitution?

an online place that sells the metal clamp suggests "You will need to reuse your old rubber insulators or cut rubber strips to insulate the bracket."
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Re: Engine swap--are all 327s the same? on: October 08, 2012, 08:59:24 PM
I believe Corvettes used a 5 quart oil pan which will not fit a Camaro. Exhaust manifolds are also not interchangeable. The starter is determined by flywheel - 10.3" or 11".

Everything esle should be fine.

william (and others on this thread)

thanks for the tips.  the corvette oil pan was indeed too big and i kept the original headers to assist with the mounts for the A/C and alternator.

i'm at the point of buying a starter.  you mentioned that starter depended on the flywheel/flexplate size.  guess i now have to ask, how do i know what size flexplate to buy?

the engine i took out of the car (not original) was hooked up to the powerglide transmission (original) and the flexplate (not sure if original or not) looks to be a smidge under 13 inches.  the new engine (327/350hp) was hooked up to a 4 speed, so i do not have that flywheel.

thanks in advance.
8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Ground wire on 67 PS Rag Joint on: July 17, 2012, 11:53:11 AM
i gave it my best shot to the steering column (take the 3 bolts out from under the steering column and gently pulled on the steering column) to build the room but it didn't want to give.  lacking any other ideas (and the engine is still out) i just opted to drop the steering box instead of yanking something out of the steering column.

any tips on budging the steering column in order to adjust?  did i miss something under the dash?  does the rag joint even need to be adjusted?
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Ground wire on 67 PS Rag Joint on: July 16, 2012, 10:48:44 PM
just recalled...i took a photo of the old rag joint before disassembling the car last year.  here is the "before" photo.  after getting over the layers of gunk, it appears that the old rag joint didn't flex and more of the stop pins stuck through the flange before i took it apart.  now i'm wondering how to adjust or if it is even necessary.
10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Ground wire on 67 PS Rag Joint on: July 16, 2012, 10:43:53 PM
so i installed the rag joint.  nevermind that i had to undo the steering linkages to drop the steering box to make enough room to insert the rag joint....

here is an image of the result. i've compared it to other photos here and there (and the AIM) but could not find any info on how much "flex" is allowed in the rubber disk.  some photos show absolutely no flex toward the firewall or towards the steering gear, some do.  as in the attached photo, the ends of my installed rag joint flexes slightly towards the firewall.  i also do not have the rubber caps on the stop pins.  my stop pins do not stick as far thru the slots as some photos.  any known standards for this?

11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Ground wire on 67 PS Rag Joint on: July 12, 2012, 10:43:15 PM
Here is a photo with the original rag joint (on the right) from my 1967 RS with power steering and a replacement rag joint I recently ordered.  I have read this thread and others like it and think I understand that the ground strap originally was to insure that the horn worked properly.  But I can't figure out (conclusively) from anywhere whether or not the replacement (that has the wire mesh embedded in felt like a porcupine when i picked it up from the box!) will work or not.

any final thoughts on the original question regarding utility of the ground strap?  can the old ground strap be lifted out and placed on the new joint?  the old joint is formed so that the ends of the ground strap lay flush.

12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Restoring Factory AC on: July 08, 2012, 09:32:52 AM
thanks Petes.  A friend recommended something very similar and it seems to have worked ok.  Now if i can just get the POA and evaporator fitting to cooperate!
13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Restoring Factory AC on: July 05, 2012, 08:28:18 PM
thanks for the tip on the insulation tape.  I was able to track down something at Rick's Camaro that looks like the same stuff.

any ideas on where to find the sealant goes on the firewall and inbetween the two pieces of the evaporator casing?  Rick's also lists Evaporator Case Seals, but shows them discontinued.  I haven't been able to come up with the correct search terms to "uncover" a similar item at other online places.

The "goop" wrapped around the evaporator, I replaced mine with Four Seasons's insulation tape #59010. It may be the same as NAPA #TEM 209491.

14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / headers and original A/C on: July 03, 2012, 10:43:15 AM
i'm at the point where i can ponder what exhaust system to put on my car.  i've been trying to stick with original look and function with this rebuild as much as possible, but willing to make minor changes that can have a big impact.

so while i'm trying to restore the original A/C on the car, i do not quite understand the interplay between aftermarket headers and other accessories.  i think i'd like the extra oomph headers will add to my "stock" L79 327, but how complicated will it make it for the A/C and power steering?  Will headers be worth the trouble?

15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Tie Rod ends and sleeves on: July 03, 2012, 10:27:13 AM
i'm away from the car, but now you guys have got me wondering.  i went ahead and got all new parts and i think my sleeve clamps are in the same positions as Hans L's last photo.  i remember studying the 1967 AIM illustration closely and making mine look the same as the illustration.  guess i took the plus of minus 15 degrees to be referencing horizontal.

i need to stop obsessing and get the car done!
Pages: [1] 2
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 0.099 seconds with 18 queries.