CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 20, 2015, 10:02:33 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.
112137 Posts in 12882 Topics by 4931 Members
Latest Member: Euclid
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2]
16  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Restoring Factory AC on: July 03, 2012, 08:20:41 AM
photo of stencil
17  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Restoring Factory AC on: July 03, 2012, 08:19:19 AM
(photo of goop)
18  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Restoring Factory AC on: July 03, 2012, 08:12:09 AM
I'm replacing the evaporator core on a 1967 Camaro.  There is some "goop" wrapped around the top tube of the evaporator core just where it goes into the case.  It appears to seal a probe against the tube.  What is the "goop" and where can I get some more?

The attached photo shows the sealant just as I was opening it up.  Fortunately it was triple digits in the garage so the goop was pretty soft and easy to pry open.

Also, does anyone know if the sealant that goes around the perimeter of the evaporator case (against the firewall) is sold anywhere?  It had the consistency of silly putty (was still pliable) and seemed to have a nylon thread running thru the center.

I also found some strange stenciling on the firewall covered up by the evaporator case.  I'll try to post some photos of that also.

19  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Mild Modifications / Engine swap--are all 327s the same? on: June 24, 2012, 07:31:43 AM
I'm (still) restoring my 1967 RS Camaro.  I've had the car since 1979, maybe the second or third owner (something else to research).  As a college punk I thought that "old" 327 original engine could do with an upgrade so I swapped the engine out and chucked the original block.  Those short-sighted college punks...

Recently I bought a buddy's newly machined L79 327 from his 1968 Corvette (he wasn't able to complete his own project).  I figured it was as close as I'd get to having a 327 back in the car.

I'm building the motor back to stock but not sure about how "swappable" the miscellaneous Corvette parts will be.  I don't have the headers or the oil pan yet, so was wondering if those items will be usable in the Camaro.  Alternators/starters all the same?  It will not be a concourse car, but I'd like to stick to "original" or "original looking" parts as much as possible.

Any other tips or pointers for this swap?  I'm at the ground floor on the engine build so entertaining all thoughts.  Rebuild the Rochester?  HEI or install pertronix upgrade in the distributor (if I find it)?

20  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Tie Rod ends and sleeves on: May 28, 2012, 01:35:27 PM
I'm rebuilding the suspension for my 1967 RS.  I've tried to keep as many original parts (control arms, steering box, center link) but have had to buy replacements for some damaged items.

About the only thing that is left to redo or replace are the tie rod ends and sleeves.  Are the tie rods/sleeves re-buildable?  Is it worth the trouble?

I'd like it to look as original as possible, but not at the expense of safety as I hope to be driving the car on fair weather days.

21  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Where to buy new steering and suspension components ??? on: May 28, 2012, 09:28:33 AM
I'm interested to hear the opinions here on this as well.  I'm (still) on the front suspension rebuild as well.

I purchased alot of parts from Classic Industries as they seem to have a more "forgiving" return policy.

I purchased my Pitman arm and hard to find parts (front shocks mounting hardware and upper control arm bushing retainers) from Steve's b/c they looked more like the ones off of my car.

I purchased my control arm shaft from Ebay b/c none of the remanufactured ones looked like the ones on my car.

Since the car isn't operational yet, can't speak to the "quality".

Question--What does anyone recommend about the tie rods and tie rod sleeves?  Is it possible to rebuild/refinish those?  Recommended replacements?

good luck,

22  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1967 upper control arm shaft. on: December 23, 2011, 09:56:12 AM
the owner of the dumb bell shaped shaft emailed me the dimensions of the part he has.  from "hole to hole" the dimensions are the same as my part, but end to end my part is 11 and 1/4 inches, while the part for sale is 11 and 3/4 inches.

for comparison purposes, i went and measured the other two shafts i have.  the "non-dumb bell" replacement part is a little under 11.5 inches.  the "monte carlo" shaft is 13.5 inches, quite a bit bigger--but it seems to have been doing ok since 1979.

any thoughts on buying the cosmetically more correct but slightly longer shaft from the seller?

23  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1967 upper control arm shaft. on: December 22, 2011, 06:11:23 PM
thanks everyone for the replies and advice.  glad to have added something to the "research".  i may have already found a correct dumb bell shaped shaft.  will update with any details when that happens.

FWIW, the dumb bell / dog bone shape shaft that i have (with the bolt) does not have any numbers on it at all.  nor does the "monte carlo" shaft--the one with the large nut.

merry christmas to all.
24  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1967 upper control arm shaft. on: December 21, 2011, 05:03:14 PM
i'm getting more and more confused.

i've included photos of parts from two other online companies for 1967 "replacements".  one is the bolt in tapped shaft, the other is nut on threaded shaft.  the part i received is also a bolt in tapped shaft, but without the dumb bell shape.

i'll double check my before disassembly photos to see which side each came from.  i'm sure the holes are the same distance apart as well, just distorted due to the camera angle.  will check that as well.

I have owned a fair number of '67 LOS cars and seen a ton of them over the years since I live on the West Coast. On '67 LOS cars it is not uncommon at all to see mismatched shafts from one side to the other. The dumb bell shaped one at the top is most common (and is what you see all the time on the NOR cars) but the style like what you show in the middle is the other style which I have seen as factory installed. However, the factory ones have GM cast on them with a series of numbers after that. These are what you most often get when you find NOS replacements but rest assured they were also factory installed (but only on '67 LOS cars as far as I have been able to tell). That shaft on the bottom is not a '67 Camaro piece. It looks similar to a 2nd-gen Camaro shaft with the nut being installed on the threaded shaft rather than a bolt threading into a tapped hole, which is how the 1st-gen cars were done. Is the center-to-center distance between the two holes the same on the bottom one as it is for the others? Your picture gives me the impression that the holes in the bottom shaft are just slightly further apart than the other two.
25  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1967 upper control arm shaft. on: December 21, 2011, 04:45:27 PM
(edit--response below is to a comment that is no longer showing)

no, the VIN says Norwood.

clarification---when you say both arms are correct, do you mean both styles were on 1967 cars?  or do you mean that each side of the same car could/would have a different style of arm?  (bolt vs nut)

26  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / 1967 upper control arm shaft. on: December 21, 2011, 02:54:01 PM
i'm restoring a 1967 RS.  I just got the subframe back from blasting/powder coating and am cleaning and/or acquiring parts to put the front end back together.

i've had the car since 1979 and have never had an accident in it since i've owned it.  upon tear down i've started noticing "clues" that it had some damage done to the passenger side before i bought it.  the inner fender had some wrinkles around the edge, an out of round hole on the lower control arm where the sway bar ends bolt in, and a very different upper control arm shaft--all on the passenger side.

assuming that the driver side was ok and would be my "template" i ordered a new lower passenger side control arm and an upper control arm shaft.

the control arm shaft i rec'd from one of the standard aftermarket Camaro restorers was different than the two mismatched control arm shafts i already owned.  so after looking at the other standard Camaro restorer parts catalogs, i have found that none are like the control arm shaft from my "template" side.

i've included a photo comparison of all three shafts.

the shaft on the top is from the driver's side.  it has the "dumb bell" shape and bolts that screw in to hold the control arm bushing.

the shaft in the middle is the shaft I received from the first mail order.  It does not have the dumb bell shape and also has the screw in bolts to secure the bushing.

The shaft on the bottom is from the passenger side, which I thought must have been replaced during the damage that occurred before I bought the car.  It has a slight dumb bell shape (hard to see in this photo) but has a ginormous nut that secures the bushing.

The shafts on other mail order sites look more like the bottom shaft…the one I thought was NOT original.  They all have slight dumb bell shape and nuts rather than bolts.

Does anyone have any ideas on which ones are “more” correct and what might have happened for me to end up with the mismatched arms?  I know a lot of front end parts were exchangeable on 1960s cars…maybe the bolt variety is from a Nova or something?

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 0.471 seconds with 18 queries.