CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 20, 2014, 08:45:58 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.
97241 Posts in 11693 Topics by 4578 Members
Latest Member: ronhill
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 65
31  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: tank restoration on: March 25, 2014, 04:42:22 PM
 Mine is definitely paint on the tank, no undercoating except the wheel wells. The covering is a typical factory application in that it has a lot of large runs at the bottom of the tanks lowest shape so application technique was quick and not exact. It most certainly is not a well masked off and carefully applied spray job that one would usually do if painting themselves. I'll take some picture and post later.

 Any other LOS Camaro owners out there -or- appraisers who have black sprayed tanks?

Mike
32  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Trouble shooting cig lighter on: March 23, 2014, 05:51:23 PM
Quote
Man, Lawrence, that's good to know because when I read topic, I thought you were having trouble shooting your cig lighter, which I was going to suggest taking better aim, a pistol rest, and suggest the correct ammo.....
Oh, don't do that! The liberals will want to pass yet more gun control laws to add the the thousands already on the books.  Cheesy

Mike
33  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: tank restoration on: March 23, 2014, 01:26:38 PM
 Nope....it is definitely black paint. Been that way since I owned the car since 1980 and the car has no undercoat.
Check this past discussion out:
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=5577.120

Look at my reply starting #129 and Kurt's #131 then follow #132-133

Mike

PS. I am trying to find the site location stating LOS tanks were sprayed black but I did stumble across this link:
http://camaropacecars.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6211035326/m/3141013846?r=6921033846#6921033846
34  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: tank restoration on: March 23, 2014, 10:15:08 AM
  What year and plant is your car from? One thing to watch for in regards to gas tanks is that LOS used to spray them black, at least in '67 for a period.
The tank straps are black too for both NOR and LOS. My 67 springs (mono) are gray and so are the shocks.
Here is a link to finishes. It's accurate but there are some deviations that do exist based on feedback from original owners, appraisers and people who were actually there at the time. But, it's a good start to go by.
http://www.67z28.com/finishes.htm

Mike
35  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z/28 Barn Find?? on: March 21, 2014, 06:46:29 PM
 Here is more on the Vette
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2014/02/21/big-block-1967-corvette-with-3000-miles-could-fetch-800000-at-auction/

Mike
36  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / 67 L78 for sale on: March 18, 2014, 08:03:20 PM
Came across this car. The trim tag looks OK to me. Good project car but to bad it doesn't have the original motor.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Camaro-SS-1967-camaro-ss-396-375-hp-l-78-real-4-k-rare-color-/301125736120?forcerrptr=true&hash=item461c7e16b8&item=301125736120&pt=US_Cars_Trucks

Mike
37  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1967 12-bolt on: March 18, 2014, 04:45:32 PM
Thanks Kelley. I figured a 3.31 with a 302 would be a dog to drive, so less likely. Although this is purely a matter of speculation, does anyone know what the "standard" diff ratios were with the L35 and L48?
I'm doing this from memory, my L35 w/TH400 has the 'standard' 3:07 open and the L35 w/Muncie has the 'performance' 3:31 posi.
Mike
38  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / OT- Rare Shelby Mustang GT500 unearthed after 40 years on: March 14, 2014, 06:48:20 PM
 Interesting...another rare care but this time 'unearthed'. It's not a Camaro but it falls into the catagory of our last discussion about barn finds.
http://autos.yahoo.com/photos/rare-shelby-mustang-gt500-unearthed-after-40-years-1394813689-slideshow/

I can replicate that white dust  layer by shooting dry white primer into the air and letting it settle on the car.  Wink

Mike


39  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100693 alternator. Need correct date for my car. on: March 13, 2014, 09:31:25 PM
 Do you have the original motor in your car? If so what is the engine prefix? Mine is an MZ which designates a K19 equipped motor.
The prefix would indicate if yours came with K19 or not.

Mike
40  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100693 alternator. Need correct date for my car. on: March 13, 2014, 05:32:16 PM
 Here are closeups of the belt routing.
 The bottom is a 3 groove cast iron pulley. On the water pump there is a 2-groove pulley, which 2 belts ride on, to drive the alternator and a single groove pulley concatenated to the 2 groove unit with the belt that drives the smog air pump and P/S pump. The spacer on the fan has a P/N of 3857042. Even with a dual alternator pulley there is plenty of space between that and the upper hose. As for the manual not showing a 2 groove pulley, remember that there are several inaccuracies in that manual.
Look at eBay for these pumps. I do see them from time to time. And to think, people used to remove and throw these away and now it's a hot commodity.

Mike
41  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100693 alternator. Need correct date for my car. on: March 11, 2014, 11:00:52 PM
 I'm looking for a reference to Camaro 396/TH400 but I did find this on a Chevelle site; http://chevellestuff.net/qd/alt_numbers.htm
Check the section titled "1967 - 283/327/396" optional 42 amp (std w/TH400 (stamped "CS") (RPO K79)    1100696    42

 In addition, I see quite a few 696 alternators on eBay and many are stating for Camaro, Chevelle or Vette BB's. There sure seems to be a correlation.

Back to investigating for Camaro...........

Mike
42  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100693 alternator. Need correct date for my car. on: March 11, 2014, 08:09:03 PM
 Here are two views of the pulley and belts for the K19 smog option. The very bottom pulley (not pictured) has 3 grooves and made of cast iron.
Notice the 42amp alternator with the 2 groove pulley. Let me know if you need any closer shots.

Mike
43  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100693 alternator. Need correct date for my car. on: March 11, 2014, 09:06:31 AM
 I'll take a picture of my belt setup and post tonight so you can see the dual belt drives. It's not a show car but it is original.
I have the 7037210 carb.

Mike
44  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100693 alternator. Need correct date for my car. on: March 11, 2014, 08:39:37 AM
 Glad I was able to be of some help  Smiley Actually, I'm glad this discussion came up because it triggered a curiosity about why my 67 LOS (I owned going on 34 years now) had the 42amp in the first place. It is original to the car and I never gave it much thought until now. In the past I figured it was because the dual belt pulley, used with the smog option, is installed (was a Ca. car originally) and that was the reason for the 42amp unit. I've learned since then that the pulley installed varied based on engine ordered so the dual belt pulley was not unique to the 42amp alternator. I didn't relate the 42amp with the TH400 usage until this discussion and past observations.

Mike
45  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100693 alternator. Need correct date for my car. on: March 11, 2014, 07:21:21 AM
Thanks.   Maybe others can shed more input??  If this is a LOS 396 RS/SS, with auto transmission, and the only other options taking power is the AM FM radio, console gauges etc, would there be a 37 amp in there or the larger 42 amp?  Someone put in a 55 amp 100803 in there now.  Don't know where that came from but that's what they did years back.  Would courtesy lights in this package require an upgraded alternator?  I'm sure that a 37 amp would be plenty for what is there but I just want to get the right one that would have been in there originally.
I did more research last night on the 42amp being used with the TH400 option. I found a similar discussion on a Chevelle site and stated that the 42amp unit came with the TH400 transmission and it was confirmed on some CD a person had that contained option info.
  I believe it had to do with the 42a having a higher minimum charge output at idle with the TH400 compared to the 37 amp that came with a manual transmission (unless options dictated otherwise). Looking at the tuneup specs for the 67 w/396, the TH400 idled 100 RPM's lower (700 M/T vs. 600 A/T) than the manual transmission so that is likely why the 42amp, with the higher idle current output, was used.

Mike
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 65
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 0.103 seconds with 18 queries.