CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 19, 2014, 12:59:50 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.
104556 Posts in 12236 Topics by 4718 Members
Latest Member: tfisher15
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37
511  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Another ebay claim on: June 12, 2013, 10:46:15 PM  Just had to note that the owner claims that this car was restored to #1 condition by a NCRS restorer. The second pic shows the underside and not only is the crossmember WRONG, but it is in backwards as well. Spare is gray and not a ralley wheel. Wouldn't want this restorer to touch my car.
512  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 837 alternator fan on: June 04, 2013, 10:09:31 PM
Ed, I see many 837 alternators with the "hook blade" , but my 837 had never been apart until I rebuilt it. It has the same fan as my 834(like you said). I always wondered if it was correct as it was not the hook type, but assumed it was because it was all original on my car when I bought it. Another post reply by JohnZ concerning 837 pulley finish started by DT shows the hook fan. Could you clarify why this is? My engine is a 396,not a Z.
513  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 manual trans. power brake question on: May 10, 2013, 04:55:56 PM
Ed, Don't know how I would get my car right without you! Thank you, again. I live out in the sticks and do not know of any good specimen cars around me that I can look at to get correct information. I wish someone like JohnZ was close. It will be awhile before I can post a pic of vacuum tube as I need new computer and don't have software loaded on this borrowed PC, but I will post when I am able. Thanks, Bentley.
514  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / 1969 manual trans. power brake question on: May 10, 2013, 12:01:02 AM
Hi all,
Another detail I need confirmed. On 1969 AIM UPC 5 A2 (Brake cylinder bracket assembly) item 11, 3781770 bumper is shown for pedal contact in non-depressed mode. If you compare to AIM UPC J50, A3 items 1.2.3. My question is should a car with a manual trans. and J50 power brakes have that bumper (item 11)? My car has M20 and pwr. disc and the pedal striker as shown in the AIM for J50. I do not have a bumper for either the brake or clutch pedal. I can understand the clutch pedal bumper missing as the car did a lot clutch bangging (drag racing), but was unsure if the brake should have this bumper or was it only used on manual brake cars? Just wanting to get details right. Thanks. Also, along this topic; Aim UPC J50, A4 shows item 3 Pipe and support for vacuum to booster for Big Block configuration. Could someone explain the difference or post pics of the two assemblys L34-5 Vs. L78 (3921927 vs.3921929)? I have one of these tubes and would like to know if it is the right one for L78 application. It seems to fit correctly, but there are no numbers on part and , again, I want it correct. I do not want to buy another if I don't need to. My part is GM original. Thank you CRG.
515  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: WHAT IS A CLONE CAR? on: May 09, 2013, 11:02:31 PM
I was on another site, and some thought if you don't have original paper work, original drive train, then it's a clone as far as they were concerned.
I, too, have read this definition and wonder if my car would be considered a clone. I certainly do not consider it as such. When I bought my car 33 years ago, no one thought of getting paperwork. I was 19 and never tried to research past owners. Worse, I did not have the funds to buy my car at the time, a mere $400, so my best friend bought it and I paid him back. My title has his name on it as previous owner, but I cannot remember the guy's name it was bought from. Laws here in Ohio prevent me from getting information about previous owners and records only go back 7 years, I was told. So, I have no documentation. The car is totally correct and original except for the engine which was blown up and the guy(who sold it to my friend) who had car pulled engine and it ended up with a relative of  his. Yea, I would like to find the original engine, of course and I will keep looking, but I went ahead and proccured a date correct engine when I decided to restore car. The radiator,bellhousing, even flywheel are original to car as well as other drivetrain and options are as born with. Understanadably, I am somewhat offended to have a car like this lumped in with pieced together cars as a clone. The car is a REAL SS/RS X22,M20 712,72 12B Nor. The engine is a T1108JH L78. Most of the vin, which is still on pad for this time period is obscurred by rust pits, so can't be read. Nothing has been restamped or doctored in attempt to mis-represent. All components are correct and GM original including smog,pulleys,alternator,etc... Is this a clone? or a restored car with NOM?
516  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 396 axle ratios on: April 29, 2013, 01:31:15 PM
Ed, You are very helpful,like JohnZ. While messing around with these cars for a long time I have come to know that internally muncies were all the same(other than gears), at least for a particular year comparrison. I guess what I was getting hung up on is that the AIM called for a different #, 797, on the L78 car and I could not figure out exactly why. My car,like I said has the original trans and rear. I do not have the original engine though. The car is in the data base and my info to Kurt reflects that. I have a correct date coded L78 that I will be putting in the car and I want the details of this car to be correct for my own satisfaction. I am NOT re-stamping the engine, but I want the car correct regarding correct parts for a L78 car.  The trans. currently has it's original 356 tag on it. Nothing on the car appears to be tampered with and I believe it never has been tampered with and that is with good evidence and the fact I have owned it since 1980. In my pile of xtra parts, I found a 797 tag. I was under the impression that this is the tag that should be correct for the L78, but was not sure why a different tag was denoted. Again, just in pursuit of making car accurate. According to what you say though, the 356 tag would be correct. I kind of thought that was the case, based on why would it be different based on H.P., but AIM seemed to confuse issue and I did not want the wrong tag if AIM said that it was supposed to be 797. Thanks,B.B.
517  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 M20 differences-ID 3950356 vs.3946797 on: April 29, 2013, 12:37:07 PM
see post on axle ratios,thanks.
518  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 396 axle ratios on: April 29, 2013, 12:34:51 PM
Thanks Ed,
While there was some useful information, I did not see any specifications for any other 396 other than the 325 H.P. engine. My 396 car has M20 and BS rear(both,original born with). Could a 375 H.P. L78 have had that ratio (3.31)? I would guess it could have had any ratio,but was that commonplace?  If so, would the transmission be a 356 or 797? I ask,because I thought L78 cars were normally 3.55 ratio(not sure where I got that info from) Based on AIM, L78 trans  would be 797. I am trying to understand why or what would be different opposed to a similarily equipped lower horse BB with 356 trans? My point is to ID the tag I would want to put on the trans case to restore to correct (for L78). My other point would be if I were IDing a trans. without a tag (out of a car,like at a swap meet) could I determine which tag it should have? I ask this so if I come across a trans. with Camaro vin,could I definitvely ID it as coming out of a high Horse car? Is it by color of speedo gear? As far as determining type of Muncie I.E. close or wide, I already know how to determine this, same with BB fuel lines regarding H.P. these are elementary knowledge, at least to me, and well documented. I mention this to save unneccessary posts regarding these topics. Thank you. B.B.
519  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / 1969 M20 differences-ID 3950356 vs.3946797 on: April 29, 2013, 11:11:21 AM
I have never been able to find a definitive answer as to the difference in M20 trans. options for RPO L48,L34,L35 & lM1(3950356) vs. Z28&L78(3946797). I reference the AIM M20 A1. Hoping someone will educate me as to How to ID one from other when tag on side cover is missing. Somewhere I thought I read it had to do with speedo gear, but that may explain the Z rear axle, and not L78.... see my post regarding "SS 396 rear axle ratios" below. I hate to post if this has been covered already, but I pour over these posts daily and do a lot of searching and cannot find the correct information. I promise, I will buy Jerry's book someday, but until then? I guess, I too would like to be regarded as an "expert" someday on at least 69 Big Block cars. Thanks again CRG, Bentley B.
520  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / 1969 396 axle ratios on: April 29, 2013, 10:55:42 AM
I thought I saw somewhere where the standard axle ratio choices were listed for 1969 Camaros, but I have not been able to find this info by doing a search. The chart: It listed three axle choices, like a std. default, a performance and economy ratio for engine / trans combinations. I am primarily interested in SS optioned cars. My particular car has it's original BS code. It is a 396, 4speed M20 car. I also have a 1969 L48 with it's original BS code. Just curious as to what was standard and what was optional for L48,L34,L35 and L78 1969's? I believe Ed Bertrand would know based on another post. Thanks.Bentley B.
521  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1969 Camaro battery on: April 23, 2013, 10:10:55 PM
So, what battery do I need for my 69 SS350  Rally Sport 04C car? Is it a Y55, R59 or a T60, R89? I have seen all these used. My goal is to find the right NOS battery for the car for show purposes. The car is a survivor that scored 88% of it's total possible pointsl at the Camaro Nationals last year. I am trying to get this car to around 95%. That will be about the best it can do because of paint issues.
Could one just check the part number stamped on their original cables to determine the correct battery needed and compare to AIM? That is how I determined my car came with T-60. That high scoring on a survivor should still have the cables, right?
522  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1969 396 valve cover ID on: April 20, 2013, 10:03:52 PM
I too have a set of covers identical to the photos. I too, would like to know their application. I also have a correct set of covers for my 69 BB car. Sorry I can't post pics yet,but correct covers are the same as pictured with two exceptions 1) they are chrome 2) they have drippers. Wire loom location is the same plus there is a bump at rear on L. cover like the ones pictured. The wire loom for the water temp wire is black rubber coated (dipped).
523  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: TO: CRG members What year Camaro(s) do each of us own? on: April 05, 2013, 09:49:28 PM
perhaps another poll would be how many have one running and get to enjoy their car. I have three garage companions that are in various stages of disrepair. I  know I should sell 2 and concentrate on one, but it is a sickness. I love all of them,each one is different(options). I could be talked out of the SS L48 project I have had since 79 though. I'll add, Happy Birthday to my 3E X11Nor that was ,according to vin, probably completed the 1st week of April and is only running one of the bunch currently.
524  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 SS/RS 396 need pics of core support area on: March 20, 2013, 11:37:58 AM
Thank you 69Z/28-RS. According to your pic. , mounting is like my other 2 69's. I am now assuming all configurations,regardless of options, have HR and VR mounted the same. My BB RS had the HR mounted to Left of VR, not below VR. Like I said in my starting post, I suspected Core was replaced and perhaps some details were incorrect when put back together. Thanks again, Bentley.
525  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 SS/RS 396 need pics of core support area on: March 19, 2013, 10:33:34 PM
I'll study my AIM again,but there is nothing shown in the RS section for mounting horn relay or reg.and since washer bottle is moved I don't know. The horn relay is mounted to the Left of reg. Instead of underneath like others non-RS. Just want to get it right when I put it back together. I think I found holes on core for hoses and bumper brkts for RS after looking at AIM and comparing again.
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37
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 0.082 seconds with 18 queries.