CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2014, 01:43:23 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.
106619 Posts in 12428 Topics by 4790 Members
Latest Member: gmein
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 77
16  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69z rag joint on: November 12, 2014, 09:53:50 PM
 I think you are fine with the power steering joint you have. I just checked a '68 power steering box off a Camaro in the shed and it has the exact one you have including the ground wire and the area with no splines towards the center. The one Bill posted looks like a manual joint, which has the area with no splines towards the side. I also have a manual steering joint and its the same as Bill's.

Mike
17  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69z rag joint on: November 12, 2014, 08:06:22 PM
 Isn't there a difference between manual vs. power steering rag joints for '69? I thought the spline area varied between the two.
69ZX...what does yours look like now?

Mike
18  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Vacuum tube/ washer hose on: November 12, 2014, 03:19:11 PM
Should these hoses have the ribs?

It should. My 67 still has ribbed hoses from the washer fluid tank to the motor/pump and from the pump to the two nozzles.

Mike
19  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Rear end date stamp 67 Norwood on: November 09, 2014, 10:40:53 PM

I believe the rears were made in batches and sat on racks until needed.
The gear ratio likely made a difference when a specific rear was used and that impacted the car build date vs. rear date period (ex: a more common 3:07 may have a closer date to car build vs. a 3.73) plus there was probably no 'rotate stock' practice.
More can be found here: http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=179.15
My reply #23 lists specific dates for my '67

Mike
20  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 67 L35 black lid wing nut shape on: November 09, 2014, 05:50:17 PM
Hello Group,

   I did search the CRG archives and couldn't find a definitive answer to my curiosity on these shapes.
Attached is an image of the two different style wing nuts used on my 67 L35 Camaros.
As you can see the LOS shape differs from the NOR shape. This is not to be confused with the
one available today that has a more pronounced bulge in the wing tab shapes similar to the NOR nut.
  Theses have been on the cars since I owned them since 1980. The archive did mention the shape of the nut on the LOS
was a correct for that period but the one from NOR is of question. I'm not sure if this is due to an engineering change in shape, the wrong one, or just a vendor variance (I doubt the vendor would change a shape without approval from GM).

  Can anyone shed some info on this? Is the NOR one correct? I also attached a picture from Ricks that has the same shape of the NOR nut.
My air cleaners are the black lid type used till mid '67 so no chrome nuts were used.

Thank You,
Mike
21  Site Comments / Discussion / Site Comments/Discussion / Site uploader full message on: November 09, 2014, 11:38:44 AM
I tried to upload a small 30k file and got this message "The upload folder is full. Please try a smaller file and/or contact an administrator."

Mike
22  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Lug Nuts on: November 08, 2014, 11:18:34 PM
Hi Don,

 As I understand it, GM used a few contractors to make the nuts so the face marking could vary. I know you asked for a '69 but I did check my '67' which have the original nuts, and found the following:
67 04B LOS - waffle pattern on face - remains of zinc plating on all nuts
67 05B NOR - DMC stamped on the face - zinc plating on all nuts
 
I would think zinc would be used for a fastener like this.

Mike
23  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1967 Convertible switch picture on: November 03, 2014, 08:43:32 PM
Hi Ken,

  Here are 2 pictures of the switch. I made an error in my prior post about being secured with speed nuts.
In these pictures you can see the screw is secured by the switch body wings (one screw fell under the car when I removed the switch so only one is pictured).
When mounted under the dash, the switch rocker moves with no binding. The connector on the back can only go on one way being it is keyed.
  Let me know if you need any more information.

Good Luck!
Mike
24  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1967 Convertible switch picture on: November 03, 2014, 02:40:11 AM
I'll take some pics later today and post them. The switch is secured with 2 screws mounted to formed speed nuts.

Mike
25  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Galvanized finish on 67-68 tail light housings, hot dipped or electroplated? on: November 02, 2014, 03:07:39 PM


Year  Tag date   Plant  Head type
67      11B          LOS   Hex
67      11E          NOR   Phillip (L&R)
67      03C          LOS   Phillip (R) & Hex (L)
67      04B          LOS   Hex (L) & Phillip (R)
67      05B          NOR   Phillip (L&R)
67      05E          NOR   Hex   (L&R)
67       ?                ?    Phillip (L&R) - posted by 69z28-rs
68      03D          NOR   Hex   (L&R)

[/quote]
26  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Galvanized finish on 67-68 tail light housings, hot dipped or electroplated? on: November 02, 2014, 02:25:39 PM
Mine does have the same pan head screws as yours Mike.
When you say 'pan head' are you referring to hex? I ask this only because you made a distinction between Phillip and pan head in reply #15

Mike
27  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1967 Convertible switch picture on: November 01, 2014, 08:52:15 AM
Hi Ken,

  I'm seeing this now...did you get what you need yet? I can send in pics if needed.

Mike
28  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Radio Delete Block-off Plug on: October 27, 2014, 11:11:25 PM
Hi Bob,

     That number should be 4805843. Mine (67 05B conv) only has 43 visible due to previous paint jobs before I bought the car and using thinners to remove the paint removed some of the raised numbers. There are reproductions for this but lack the numbering.
This is good to see another plug confirming the number  Smiley
 I find the sealer on the '68 hinge interesting. Looks like in 68 it was brought down the side? My '67's only have sealer on the top hinge and only on the top side. The texture on yours is interesting. I wonder what was used to cause that pattern.

Thank you for sharing this picture as I am sure future searches will find it helpful.

Mike
29  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Radio Delete Block-off Plug on: October 22, 2014, 10:18:47 AM
 That plug was used for a rear mounted antenna too. Is there a part number on the plug?
Thanks for posting as an FYI because it's always welcomed to have the into at hand when doing a search.

Mike
30  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Looks like another Fake X77 TT on: October 22, 2014, 10:15:44 AM
The seller has posted that the car is a clone. Someone pointed out that the trim tag is a fake.

That was me - I asked him yesterday why the car had a fake/repro cowl tag when it wasn't a Z/28.  :-)

John,
   What was the sellers reply? Just curious.
Mike
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 77
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 0.094 seconds with 18 queries.