CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 20, 2014, 01:43:06 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.
107559 Posts in 12508 Topics by 4812 Members
Latest Member: oldbop88
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 ... 80
691  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Penske 21015 dwell? on: February 20, 2013, 08:16:23 AM
 I was able to get it working last night. It’s been a while since I had to take out the DVM and troubleshoot a point to point wiring circuit (did that in the 70’s when I repaired TV’s back then) and it turned out to be a cold solder joint. A little sweating of the joint and presto…it worked. I can now get the zero set to function.
Nothing like seeing 'Made in the USA' label on something this old and still working.

Thank you for the replies!
Mike
692  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Penske 21015 dwell? on: February 19, 2013, 07:27:00 PM
 Picked up a Sears-Penske 21015 dwell/tach meter today and installed a new 4.5v battery.
I have no manual unfortunately. I'm trying to figure out how to calibrate the 'set line' setting but can't get the meter to move.
I verified the meter is working.
I assume this is for the points resistance measurements.
Does anyone happen to have this model by chance?

Thanks,
Mike
693  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Floor pans on: February 18, 2013, 06:31:13 PM
 Hi Joe,

  Your work looks exactly how I did the rear boards behind the seats in the early 80's on the convertible though there were no floor reproductions yet so I used a clean parts car for the metal.
Knowing the seams would be visible on the outside I used a step-flange on the edges and mig welded the sections together and finished off using lead to fill in the gap. Viewing from the outside doesn't look it was replaced and on the inside the seam sealer works great at covering the welds.

Mike
694  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Leaf Spring code? on: February 17, 2013, 11:12:22 AM
So what color is the paint stripe on Z/28 springs.

Lynn,

  I believe the spring color coding was a 67 thing prior to using a label to identify rear springs
I raised that question last year. You can review it here:
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=9739.0

Mike
695  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Was it DIFF or DIFF. on: February 17, 2013, 11:05:49 AM
 That means LI Corvette by me has the correct one (with a period).
It figures the Corvette crowd are that granular in details   Wink

Thanks Lynn!
Mike
696  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Was it DIFF or DIFF. on: February 17, 2013, 10:06:53 AM
   I'm looking for the correct posi tag for my one 67 with a 12 bolt posi.
From looking at the CRQ archives I understand the correct wordage should be:
"USE POSITRACTION DIFF LUBRICANT ONLY"

I see two reproduction tags with one style having a period after the word DIFF and another without a period (DIFF.  vs. DIFF)
Does anyone still have their original tag to verify which is correct?

Thank you,
Mike
697  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: NCIB on: February 16, 2013, 03:27:01 PM
 Do you think the services offered to produce a VIN history report (example: InstaVin) would include cars made prior to when a 'title' began to be used?

Mike
698  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Original P T B marks on: February 16, 2013, 12:36:10 PM
X77-

 Was it paint or a heavy ink that managed to survived time.

Mike
699  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69' 302 CE numbers on: February 15, 2013, 09:07:26 PM
 Thanks Gary, John and Bryon,

   Interesting about the CE history. I'm guessing with the growing popularity of high performance motors back in the day, engine and tranny damage became more frequent leading to more warranty fixes. So a  better way to track warranty was needed though it sounds like the Georgia statutory requirements played a major role in the CE policy change.
  Back to an earlier question, was there such a thing as a 2-bolt main CE block? I have only seen 4-bolt main blocks. I'm sure 2 bold mains must have failed at some time back then.

Thanks,
Mike
700  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69' 302 CE numbers on: February 12, 2013, 07:00:34 PM
Gary,

  What was the normal practice of post installation markings of warranty engine and transmissions (original parts with unique serial numbers) prior to this CE requirement listed in Aug/Sep of 67?

Thanks,
Mike
701  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 Z/RS numbers on: February 10, 2013, 04:04:58 PM
 I'm impressed about this clever wording....
The Term “Numbers Matching” used in our descriptions refers to an engine that has an: engine block casting number and date, engine assembly date and suffix code, and engine VIN/serial number that are present in a manner that is consistent with build sequence of the described vehicle.
 
  IMO, today's buyers may not be as demanding in having an original stamped part so a restamped one will be acceptable even if they are told out right. After all, if you are driving it around, an original or restamped doesn't matter......each will give you just as much fun.
Whether we like it or not, those restamps are here to stay even if it is kept a secret as to what to watch out for.

Mike
702  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Radiator tag restoration on: February 10, 2013, 01:32:00 PM
I wonder if Evapo-Rust would have worked here too.
 
Mike
703  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Radiator tag restoration on: February 10, 2013, 11:12:58 AM
 Personally, whenever possible, I would be more impressed looking at a restore part that may now have patina instead of a reproduction in perfect shape.
Patina shows there is history behind it. Something that is gone but the part retains its past existence through physical marks.
I'm glad to see you are using the original part. It sure came out great. I'm going to use your process when I have to restore mine.

Mike
704  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69' 302 CE numbers on: February 09, 2013, 07:40:37 PM
 Interesting. Based on letter #1 mentioning the Georgia statutory requirements, I wonder now, if prior to this established practice to start for 1968, if there were engines and transmissions replace for warranty restamped possibly by the dealer with original numbers?
Especially so for years up to August 1967 for other GM cars.

Mike
705  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Nemo storm... on: February 09, 2013, 01:39:51 PM
Just spent 5 hours clearing my house and helping a sick neighbor with the snow blower and shovels.
We got two feet here in eastern Long Island but the drifts averaged three to four feet. I'm sure glad I put a new carb on the blower this year because it got a heck of a workout.
  Thanks for the thread though. That is kind of you.
Mike
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 ... 80
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 0.212 seconds with 18 queries.