CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 02, 2014, 03:39:34 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.
105014 Posts in 12267 Topics by 4728 Members
Latest Member: MartySS
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 74
826  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: GM Mark of Excellence Decal on: July 03, 2012, 06:59:49 PM
 Attached are the left and right side GM metal (aluminum ?) badges on my LOS 4B survivor (including paint).
On the left side you can still see the dealer service stickers glue.
If you can approximate the location by looking at the pictures that should get you close being they were put on by hand.
If you need measurements then I can get them for you.

Mike
827  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Two piece brake rotor replacement. on: July 03, 2012, 01:13:46 PM
  A (reputable) machine shop won't turn them if they are past the minimum for risk of liability.

Mike
828  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Two piece brake rotor replacement. on: July 02, 2012, 10:05:00 PM
 I seriously doubt it was balanced as a complete unit. It makes more sense in mass production to balance the components separately and assemble later using the individual cores so there is no need to have a match pair. If it were that critical then I would think there would be an index mark in case you have to unbolt the sections for things like changing a broken stud and putting it back together in the correct position. Even then, a replacement stud may not be the same weight so there goes the balance if it were ever replaced and the unit was balanced as a whole.

Mike
829  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster stamp on: July 02, 2012, 09:14:08 PM
Not to add confusion but wasn't there 2 font sizes used in 69? I have a Julian date of 334 on the 9204 booster (no Delco stamp either) and the font size is approximately 1/8" in height. This booster must have come on an early build 69 model. The numbers in the images in this thread look smaller.

Mike
830  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 67 mono springs use decals? on: July 02, 2012, 09:08:46 PM
 Did 67 mono springs use P/N decals or was the 'color code stripe' mentioned in 67 AIM UPC 4 B1 used as an identifier instead?
My 67 LOS survivor has the F41 suspension as evident by the front coil spring tag P/N 3912532 YJ I removed (looking for a place to duplicate it).
On the same car is the paint code stripe that shows a definite yellow color as shown in the attached image in addition to the smoke gray spring color.
If I cross referenced my numbers right, the mono spring should be 3925817 BY (12437, L35 & F41).
To date I have found no info for the 'color code stripe' summary so maybe this one if a first for CRG?
My thinking is a paint strip was used in 67 and then a decal in 68 and up.

Thank you,
Mike
831  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster stamp on: July 02, 2012, 10:35:04 AM
<<
Did all 9204 brake boosters have delco stamp in 69?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Thanks Latecode

>>

 Are you sure about that John? I have a 9204 from a 69 with a Julian date of 334 (had iit since 1986) and it doesn't have the Delco stamp.

Mike

Yes, they did, and the Julian date was stamped on the other side of the tab.

832  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Chassis rust converter on: July 01, 2012, 05:28:59 PM
 What conditions are you starting with?

Mike
833  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: keeping gas tank and brake lines nice on: July 01, 2012, 12:11:08 PM
 Most will say to stay away from clear and for good reasons as It will yellow and flake off with age (been there and done that with clear lacquer & enamels).
I sprayed a new gas tank in 1987 with DuPont Imron polyurethane clear and when dried took the gloss down with a few passed of Scotch Bright for a natural look. To date there is absolutely no yellow or flaking.
 As for brake lines, they are protected by a variety of methods out of the box. But to keep oxidation in check I often applied a thin coat of Birchwood Casey Dri-Touch with a small paint brush twice a year to the lines and armor and they still are clean after 25 years.

 There are many opinions and methods, but this has worked for me in the long haul of 25 years.

Mike
834  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Caswell Cadmium? on: June 30, 2012, 08:56:00 PM
 Thanks George.

 Looks like the Caswell kit is 30% off as a June sale for the 1.5 gallon.
http://www.caswellplating.com/electroplating-anodizing/zinc-plating-kits.html

Mike
835  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: When were rear 'T' bolts installed? on: June 30, 2012, 12:18:11 PM
 Thank you all!!  I can't believe to the most granular levels of details we let ourselves ponder  Cheesy
Time to black oxide the bolts now....

Have a happy and safe 4th if I don't get to talk sooner.

Mike
836  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: When were rear 'T' bolts installed? on: June 29, 2012, 08:34:42 PM
Hi Marty,
  I've read that informative writeup a few times but don't see anyplace mentioning rear bolts installed. I would think it was risky to ship a heavy rear with the studs hanging out and getting dinged and yet I don't see when it was installed.
I guess a judge could chime in and give their take on how that would be graded...painted or not.

Thanks,
Mike
837  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: When were rear 'T' bolts installed? on: June 29, 2012, 07:54:24 PM
Hi Jeff,

  You're right about the semi-gloss. I left the semi out which is what I meant.
As for the springs coming later, being that was done at the Chevy plant and the rear assembled and painted elsewhere, I'm not sure if the bolts were installed before being shipped. I am assuming they were because I don't see the bolts mentioned in the AIM though the drawing shows the studs. It seems to make sense if the bolts were installed and the studs masked before painting so as not to cause skewed torque readings later from paint on the threads or they were installed after the housing was painted so the bolt finish would be black oxide ( or phosphate).

Mike
838  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Ending "Number Matching Crap" has to start at the top! on: June 29, 2012, 07:11:04 PM
68? That's a 67 SS/RS 396

Mike
839  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / When were rear 'T' bolts installed? on: June 29, 2012, 06:32:45 PM
 I'm at the stage of getting ready to spray the 67 12 bolt rear. I had detailed it in the 80's (non painted bolts and other HW) and now will resort to the correct method of finish by spraying it entirely gloss black, including the 12 bolt cover bolts, though the pinion and bleeders will be masked. Were the 'T' bolts installed yet to get painted or did they come after painting. What about the vent tube?

Thank you,
Mike
840  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Camaro Natiionals @ Frederick Fairgrounds 2012 on: June 29, 2012, 06:16:39 PM
The link works good, John.
Are those models on page 8 the 'special edition'?  Wink

Thank you for the post,
Mike
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 74
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 0.084 seconds with 18 queries.