CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 07:09:49 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.
103781 Posts in 12188 Topics by 4700 Members
Latest Member: lpetruc
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 ... 72
751  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Hemmings TV on: September 04, 2012, 07:21:31 PM

Let's see:

1-Wrong air cleaner housing
2- I don't see a PVC valve on the left side
3- Shouldn't the tac be a 6K RPM red line for the 396/375HP
4- Steering wheel vs. 760-Z standard interior
5- Wrong pitch on the rear atnenna
6- radiator overflow hose routing
7- A 396/375 with an auto tranny?
8- hood pins
9- engine lift brackets
10- left vave cover rear doesn't look correct
11- wrong radiator cap
12- ash tray front doesn't look correct?
13- front and rear spoliers- well..not factory

BUT....at least there is no fan sticker.

Mike
752  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: GM 3905525 Metering Valve Disassembly and Rebuild on: September 01, 2012, 09:46:38 PM
 I placed my order plus the differential valve kit.
I was surprised how good the unit looks from the outside and the amount of brown crud on the inside.
Based on that I'm going to rebuild the brake pressure differential valve because I'm sure that has crud too.
The rest of my brake components are either new or rebuilt.

Thank you for the very well prepared instructions too!

Mike
753  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: GM 3905525 Metering Valve Disassembly and Rebuild on: September 01, 2012, 05:06:19 PM
 Perfect timing...
I am looking at mine and could not figure out how to extract the internals until I had seen your article.
As for a classified section, CRG has none specifically but if you post the info here I believe it will spread quickly as many here have the same setup and likely ageing conditions.
I'm certainly interested in what you have.

Thanks!
Mike
754  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 67 rear fuel line bracket finish? on: August 31, 2012, 07:54:49 PM
 I'm answering my own questions  Grin

  I removed the survivor clip from the car and examined it under a strong magnifying glass after cleaning it with soap and water and it has a slight gray hue to it (definitely a dried out phosphate look) and I gave it the finger nail test.
Painted surfaces, even slightly oxidized, still feel smooth to the nail but the phosphate surface has more granular feeling to it. Kind of like the feel of dragging your nails across a black board.
I'm going with phosphate finish because I have no doubt that is it.

Mike
755  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Miss in engine on: August 31, 2012, 03:06:05 PM
 My vote would be rust particles in the lifter that are trapped.
If that much water damage was done to the motor then it's only a matter of time before something else happens.
I would suspect the bearing surfaces (rod and mains) were damaged and will cause troubles soon.
I wonder what the cylinder walls looked like before you had started it again.

Mike
756  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / 67 rear fuel line bracket finish? on: August 29, 2012, 07:56:00 PM
 I searched the CRG archives (and also did a web search) and can't find the answer.
Is the rear fuel line bracket that bolts to the frame and has a square opening for the end of the line to go through painted or phosphate? I looked at my other survivor but it is lightly oxidized and I can't tell for sure if it's paint or phosphate.
The 1967 AIM P/N is 3912538 as shown on UPC 8/B3 item #9.

Thanks in advance,
Mike
757  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Introduce myself an my car on: August 28, 2012, 07:09:10 PM
QUESTION to the experts.

Starting position:
Car build period was:
01 = January, 1967, the month car was built.
D = Fourth week of the month.
That means dates between: Monday 01-23-67 to Sunday 01-29-67 correct?

What date was exactly stamped on my original 67 transmission for my car?


  That date is when the build period started. Figure a few days afterwards it was completed providing it didn't get pulled to the side for anything out of the norm. I haven't looked at the Julian date calculator to see if your day dates are accurate. As an example of a 'period' my 67 has a 4B date on the trim tag and the UOIT shows a date of April 13th. Almost at the end of that period.
   But, don't get hung up on the tranny date stamp. The date stamped could have been several weeks before the car build date and sat in inventory before being used. The fact that it will not be the original tranny will not make any "P" date any more valuable unless you happen to find the real case with the VIN stamped in it. Most cars today do not have their original trannys so it will not impact the value of the car much at all if you plan on selling it later.
  Don't worry about the tranny and just enjoy the car while you have your health and some $$$$ in your pocket. Life is short!

Mike
758  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Introduce myself an my car on: August 24, 2012, 03:40:58 PM
 Welcome Andre'

  Does the partial engine VIN match the hidden VIN? Look below the windshield area under the cowl vent panel closely for the stamped hidden VIN.
What is the block casting date? Can you post pictues of the engine pad?

Mike
759  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Modified trim tag on: August 21, 2012, 01:34:42 PM
 There must be a new breed of buyers who may find re-stamped (and possibly re-tagged) acceptable. Thatís cool if that makes them happy and I personally have no gripes with that if it was disclosed up front in earnest. Reading this link below makes it sound more like reality.

http://www.barrett-jackson.com/application/onlinesubmission/lotdetails.aspx?ln=1013&aid=443

Mike

760  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 crossmember to subframe mounting hardware on: August 16, 2012, 08:36:09 PM
 Just to be clear, when you guys say 3/8-16 I assume you mean the shaft is 3/8" thick? I checked mine and verified I did need a 9/16th socket to remove my original bolt as show above.
I posted mine as 9/16-16. I'm not up on the correct syntax for bolt identifications.

Mike
761  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 67 crossmember to subframe mounting hardware on: August 12, 2012, 04:48:27 PM
Hi Bob,
   I removed one from my 67 LOS 4B survivor TH400 cross member which should use the same hardware (it was burried in thick grime)
It's a 9/16x16x1 RSC bolt. I attached a photo.
Bolt - phosphate
Washers and nut clearly zinc plated

Mike
762  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Engine painting poll on: August 12, 2012, 02:29:18 PM
 It's hard to argue a point that is very subjective with someone who may not be entirely educated in the process back then. Looking back at that time it was dependant on the person applying the paint to how far they wanted to go with coverage. Besides the bypass hose that was on the block when painted, the exhaust manifolds and bell housings (manual cars) and distributor clamp coverage were entirely up to the painter.
  I have my entire bypass hose painted and never got docked points when I showed my car many years ago. I had a discussion with a person just last week about the Camaro build process and I told him the early Camaros' front end sheet metal was painted by Chevy and the main body by Fisher. He still doesn't believe me that was how it was done  Sad

Seeing the archice picture I may print that out just in case I encounter that situation like yours.

Mike
763  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Scars - what would you do? on: August 09, 2012, 06:58:10 PM
 You guys were right....it was a thorn in my side. Gesh...I even laid in bed at night pondering what to do  Roll Eyes
I sanded down the arms and the one benefit was the primer and paint inside the scars acted like a filler so while sanding the scars eventually blended into the surface.
I re-primed it and it looks excellent! Tomorrow I'll apply the semigloss and move on.

Thanks for all the replies, I do appreciate them

Mike
764  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Scars - what would you do? on: August 08, 2012, 07:19:59 PM
 I should have posted a picture.....
I borrowed my camera from my daughter and took one up close.  Cheesy
As you can see the pits are in a small area and not deep. The taped ball joints are original so I glass beaded them and coated with RPM.

What I am trying to do is:
Based on a post where it was stated that various chassis parts were made by different suppliers, and each supplier could have had a different gloss, I attempted to emulate that.
So, the main chassis is approximately 30% gloss and I used a semigloss for the control arms for a slightly glossier look.
Maybe using a 30% gloss would minimize the eye catching effect of the scars.

My wife brought up an interesting point....if the scars were in a body panel, would you paint over it or smooth it first.
Hmmm...never thought of it that way. It's amazing how one can get neck deep into restore details.

Mike
765  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Voltage Regulator Date vs Car Build Date on: August 08, 2012, 12:10:14 PM
My 67's have the original VR's still and the dates are very close to the tag's build date.....

LOS 4B - VR=7C
NOR 5B - VR=7E

Mike
Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 ... 72
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 0.496 seconds with 18 queries.