CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 21, 2014, 01:10:25 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.
104624 Posts in 12242 Topics by 4719 Members
Latest Member: Baconcks
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 21
211  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Engine painting poll on: August 12, 2012, 12:57:58 PM
Archive photos
212  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Engine painting poll on: August 12, 2012, 12:56:38 PM
I was at a car show with my 70 chevelle and someone commented on my by pass should not be painted. That didn't really bother me but it brought up a sore point I have had with judging in the past. Twice I lost points because I was told the by pass hose should not be painted. One of the judges said I had too much paint on my exhaust manifolds, but also told me my original 772 fan blade was made in 1972 so I just ignored his opinions. I worked on these cars when they were fairly new and worked on many original corvettes and distinctly remember the by pass hoses on CAST IRON manifold cars were fully painted. The paint did not adhere to the rubber hose so after 40 years only the clamps and part of the hose has paint remaining on it. Aluminum intakes had a mask that also covered part of the by pass hose but that's a different animal. Last night I got view an Original owner 1966 427 Vette that is one of the most untouched cars I have seen in many years. Her car shows paint on both ends of the hose.This is a NCRS awarded car. The B&W photo is from Chevrolet archives and clearly shows the hose painted. Another archive from VN shows the how BB exhaust manifolds were painted. I will also post how I painted my engine and would like to get comments, positive or not, if you feel that I did it correctly. This engine has not run in 18 years so more paint will probably flake off after I start it.
Thanks for your time. George.
213  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Z Stripe on: August 12, 2012, 11:48:24 AM
one more
214  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 1969 Z Stripe on: August 12, 2012, 11:47:21 AM
I got some pictures of a friends 35K Orig. paint 69Z & thought I would post them for the Z guys.
215  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 68 Z/28 spare and jack equipment on: August 12, 2012, 08:14:11 AM
Don, here is the picture from a 35K 69Z NOR built 02A I promised in March. It is a very nice original car. Hope that helps. George
216  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct '69 A/C Restoration on: August 07, 2012, 06:42:12 AM
Guys, Nice pictures. The larger"1/2" hose hose fittings look to be stamped with the "Weatherhead" logo.
z28z11, can you measure the insulation length on the shorter hose coming off the muffler? George.
217  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 AC Hoses original on: August 04, 2012, 03:34:26 PM
Marty, I just noticed your hose on the condenser line looks original by the crimp on the fitting and the markings on the hose. Is that date code 2288?
218  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 1969 SS 396 Spring Tags on: August 02, 2012, 05:40:02 PM
On a 69 396 SS with AC,TH400,& FD seat; according to the CRG spring chart I should have HG 3955725 front springs and BF 3955741 rear springs.
My question is that typical of what others have seen or using for spring tags. George
219  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct '69 A/C Restoration on: August 01, 2012, 01:17:26 PM
Marty, I can't say I remember seeing any AC hoses that were ribbed back then. The location & the legnth of the insulation in the above picture looks like what I have seen.George
220  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct '69 A/C Restoration on: August 01, 2012, 07:05:06 AM
Mark, Nice pictures. Can you measure the length of the hose insulation on that hose were it goes under the core support?
I believe your hose was made by Goodyear  "GY", with a date code of "0379" 37Th day of 69. How does that compare to your car build date?
One of my hoses was marked "P-7510" the type of ac hose, "USR" US Rubber bought buy UniRoyal, and "2-4-4-8" 244 day of 1968. That agrees with my build date. The fitting on the end was dated "2848"
Marty, I was cleaning & inspecting some other AC hoses and noticed small pin marks the length of the hose in a straight line. It may be from the manufacturing process of the hose. George
221  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Fold down seat stamps on: July 30, 2012, 09:17:33 PM
I was cleaning up my fold down seat back platform and noticed a stamp on the center backside "C 30 and C 32 A". Also on each side where the hinge bolts on stamped "C 30 R or C 30 L". Has anyone seen this and do you know what it represents. George
222  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct '69 A/C Restoration on: July 30, 2012, 08:59:40 PM
Marty, I have never seen AC hose with perforation marks like that. I looked on my 70 Chevelle today, I bought a new GM hose around 1976, it has same crimps as my Camaro hoses. I am guessing someone replaced your hoses onto original fittings. I have been in contact with Don at Classic Auto Air in Florida about the 2 ring factory style crimps. He said they can do that but I have not seen a picture yet.
I attached photos of my hoses and noted the insulation lengths, have seen similar lengths. I also noted my missing spacer that I have only seen on 396 cars hoping someone with original hoses might add something. George
223  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 AC Hoses original on: July 27, 2012, 01:24:01 PM
Marty, Nice pictures. I think Tom is looking for a picture of the heater hoses where they connect at the firewall.
The bushing I am looking for I have seen on probably 6 original 396 with AC cars, but only pictures not a car I could talk to the owner about.
I go by the AIM in most cases, but in this case I am not sure.
224  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 AC Hoses original on: July 26, 2012, 09:14:15 PM
From AIM, missing wire support and date on hose
225  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / 1969 AC Hoses original on: July 26, 2012, 09:00:59 PM
I have a 69 396 camaro built in Nov.68 that I'm restoring the AC parts. The car has mostly original parts & hoses. I am trying to duplicate the original style crimps on the hoses like in the pictures below. Has anyone had luck replacing the rubber hoses utilizing the original fittings?
I never knew they were date coded until I cleaned them. I have looked at the reproduction hoses and from the poor pictures on line they don't look quite the same.      I would like to duplicate the factory ferrules & crimps. Below are examples.
The muffler hose support has a spacer between the compressor & support that I am missing, highlighted in photo, that I am looking to find out if that is rubber or steel and if that is a bolt through it. The AIM does not show it but I have seen it on several cars.
The insulation on my bigger hose over the front of the engine is in two pieces and would like to know if it was originally one piece and how long.
I am also looking for a plug wire support that seems unique to the 396 but I have never seen one on a car. Does anyone have that support on their engine or a spare?
The date codes on the hose are about 40 days before the date on the fittings. My muffler hose was replaced at some time it was made May of 69.
Sorry for long post & questions. George
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 21
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 0.104 seconds with 18 queries.