CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2014, 03:34:42 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.
97442 Posts in 11712 Topics by 4581 Members
Latest Member: Cooper48
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 65
46  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
47  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
48  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
49  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
50  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
51  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100693 alternator. Need correct date for my car. on: March 10, 2014, 08:22:18 PM
 My NOR BB has the basic 37a unit. Only options outside the SS are an AM radio, gauges, R/S and manual transmission.
 The LOS BB car that has the 42a K79 alternator option only has the AM radio w/rear speaker, R/S and TH400 transmission.
I've seen the K79 before with other originally equipped TH400 cars but not sure why. It wasn't mandatory for that tranny option.

Mike
52  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100693 alternator. Need correct date for my car. on: March 10, 2014, 07:48:36 PM
I think you may need the larger capacity if you have a lot of options drawing amperage including A/C.

Mike
53  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100693 alternator. Need correct date for my car. on: March 10, 2014, 10:27:42 AM
 Parts like the 1100693 were consumed quickly due to being standard on cars unless an alternate amperage was ordered so you should see a much closer built date relative to the build date of the car. My NOR car has the standard 37A unit so the build date was more recent relative to the cowl assembly date but after the engine build date. Below are the dates for my '67's. Notice how the standard 37amp alternator is about a week behind the car assembly date compared to the longer date lapse for the non-standard 42amp LOS car.

NOR - Cowl date - 5B - Alternator date 7E4 (standard 1100693 -37A) - voltge regulator date - 7E
LOS - Cowl date - 4B (UOIT lists 4/13/67 specifically)- Alternator date 7A30 (optional 1100696 - 42A) - Voltage regulator date 7C


Mike
54  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: CRG etiquette concerning parts on E Bay on: March 10, 2014, 10:11:13 AM
 HBC is usually more expensive for the same parts that can be purchased elsewhere. Example: BB valve covers are way over priced when compared to the exact same ones sold by Crane Corvettes (both eBay pricing). Do your shopping.
  Unless they (HBC or anyone else for that matter) have a truly one of a kind, hard to impossible to find part that you must have, keep looking.
Also, do not believe an item sold for XYZ usage is actually correct. Many times it isn't. As other have said here, post the URL for review.

Mike
55  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Can 67 SB Engine Frame mounts be accidently switched? on: March 10, 2014, 10:02:19 AM
  Isn't there a lip that is turned down on one side of the mount and overhangs the frame cross member? I would think that would prevent the reverse mounting. I know my BB mounts have that turned down lip.
   My 67 BB fan sits about 1/2 the blade top curve into the with the end of the shroud. I though the SB was similar though the BB and SB used different P/N spacers and there is only a 1/4" difference in depth between the two with the SB having slightly more depth reach.

Mike
56  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Help identifying heater box part on: March 08, 2014, 11:53:51 AM
 Looking at the extended end-to-end length of the rubber inside the cold air passage side it looks to make contact with one folded edge closest to the heater box, hence a seal. I think the rubber is there to act as a top and bottom air dam to keep pressurized cool air away from the hot air door top and bottom edges for various heat settings to force air around the door flap back. The internal stamping of the box is very rigid so the rubber may be acting as a secondary benefit of support but that may be debatable.

Mike
57  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: eBay picture on: March 02, 2014, 09:19:27 PM
I see the comments " bent wheel use on rear". For the drive shaft I think the reflection of the exhaust pipe on the shaft gives a perception that it is at more of an angle than factory, but upon closer inspection it looked ok i think.
  I think you are right about the reflection. I know from experience that it's damn near impossible to skew a rear on the springs providing the axle brackets are of the correct width.

Mike
58  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: eBay picture on: March 02, 2014, 08:39:34 PM
Looks like the rear is definitely skewed. Are the axle tube mounts sitting on the spring tits for centering?
 I am only use to seeing mono springs with metal tits so I assume multi's have them too.

Mike
59  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Half a 69 camaro.... on: March 02, 2014, 07:48:43 PM
 Is that a numbers matching desk?  Grin
60  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: under hood finish on: March 02, 2014, 02:44:38 PM
 I would think that whatever the gloss % is of GM's reconditioning black paint it, that would be close enough.
That is what I am using. I have yet to see anyone use a gloss meter to determine the gloss % finish at a car show.
Without one then it's simply individual interpretation. I doubt GM cared much what the gloss % was for underhood mass production parts.

Mike
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 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 0.094 seconds with 18 queries.