Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - z28z11

Pages: 1 ... 114 115 [116] 117 118
1726
Originality / Re: Exterior Door Handle - Chrome
« on: October 04, 2012, 04:27:29 AM »
Tell you a good one - show versus "factory" chrome -

A friend of mine bought a 4400 mile '68 SS coupe a few years ago - car was featured in one of the Camaro books (Hooper's?) for the frame markings, original paint and date codes - this car smelled new on the inside, and we even conjectured the original air was in the tires. Beautiful car, fanatical owner, decided he didn't like the original factory "flash" chrome on the bumpers, so he removed them and the guards and had a local (national reputation) chrome shop rechrome them (about $500.00 worth many years ago) in show chrome - when he got to the point of installation, when he hung the front guards on the bumper to bolt them up, the weight of the guards dimpled the chrome (copper layer on show chrome is very thick, very soft). Being extremely upset, the owner sent them back three times, and only accepted them after all the copper was buffed off, and the chrome was plated over the nickel coat without copper layers to emulate the "factory" flash coat. True story - I transported the bumpers back and forth to the shop myself.
The down side to "factory" chrome when you are plating used parts - you can't use copper (or very much copper), otherwise you'll see the difference right off, plus you'll usually have pits that you can't buff out (no copper to fill/level them). BTW, when we dropped the rear bumper on this car, the rear bumper was stamped inside the bumper with a date code, roughly 3/4" stamped letters - I had never seen that on any bumper before, maybe because of mileage or age. Just my opinion -

1727
Originality / Re: Speedo cable length...
« on: September 30, 2012, 01:29:12 AM »
Evening,

After reviewing the posts, and getting a phone call from my '68 parts expert/Camaro owner/best friend, I think the proper length is likely 61 in. My original cable is still hooked up in the car, or I would have checked the replacement cable against it. Another episode of post-before-you-check-it; please don't hold it against me - just trying to help.

Anyone need a new 56.1 inch new cable assembly ?

Regards,
Steve

1728
1969 - Orphans / Re: Orphaned block 19N571318
« on: September 24, 2012, 03:32:10 AM »
Kurt,

  I apologize for not sending these sooner. Lighting conditions in my garage are not conducive to high contrast pictures, so I used White-Out to highlight the stamping, in case you are wondering what the light colored stuff is. T1215JH, cast date K228, VIN 19N571318 (stamped from the transmission side up, kind of the opposite direction from a lot of blocks I have seen. Casting date is on the side of the block, my original is behind the manifold at the bellhousing flange (also is VIN stamped on the front pad, prior to the January location change).
I did measure the bores (for the first time) - I had stated in an earlier post that it was standard bore, but it's .060 over. No ridge, could possibly stay at .060, but at least it is an original block.

Regards,
Steve

1729
Originality / Re: Speedo cable length...
« on: September 24, 2012, 03:05:46 AM »
Here you go, guys. Note part number and length as stated on the package. My Z is a known M-21 - this is my backup cable (ordered when they started going disco -

Regards,
Steve

P.S. In case the picture is indistinct, 56.1", 1425mm, part number 6480250 outer cover and inner cable assm. -

1730
General Discussion / Re: Reproduction Endura Bumpers are horrible
« on: September 22, 2012, 02:17:08 AM »
Evening, Gentlemen -

I wish had started reading posts at CRG years ago - it really goads me into looking for solutions that I have ignored for years upon years. Anyone ever use John @ www.endurabumper.com ? He has some really nice examples of his work on the site, and gave me a rough estimate of repairing my original (jack damaged) Endura bumper for my X77 - price starts around $375.00.
I had some delusions about being able to repair my own for years, even purchasing the aforementioned GM repair kit attached, but I would rather hand this over to a more experienced shop, hopefully like John's. If someone has past experience with this man, please post it.

Regards,
Steve

1731
Restoration / Re: Repo Radiator Tag 68 Z28
« on: September 17, 2012, 01:49:04 AM »
Anyone ever contact The Parts Place ? I bought a tag for my LS5 Chevelle - a very correct appearing tag; I've seen their '69 Z, L48 and BB tags, look pretty good. I don't know if they are a distributor, or possible manufacturer ?

1732
Originality / Re: 69 Horn GM Numbers
« on: September 13, 2012, 12:17:19 AM »
You can also get these from a number of Camaro vendors as correct reproductions (like Camaro Central's STE-637 set). Brackets are correct, and welded like the originals, plus they look dead on. Probably beats trying to find a used set and having them rebuilt (like I'm having to do with my originals).

Regards,
Steve

1733
Restoration / Re: 302 engine build piston recomendations
« on: September 13, 2012, 12:07:19 AM »
I agree with tmodel - Speed Pro makes good stuff, research point-of-origin for where they come out of, and I believe they purchased/merged the TRW Automotive Group parts division when TRW got out from under it. Still, if you can find a set of used +.030 L2210's, I would buy them if it was me - still hard to beat good 'ole TRW pistons.
Good luck - hope you find a worthy set.

Regards,
Steve

1734
Restoration / Re: 302 engine build piston recomendations
« on: September 12, 2012, 02:17:19 AM »
First design 302 pistons used the narrow ring, '67 up to very early '68, when it was changed to the wider ring groove/second design piston. I'm pretty sure as I have the .030 over early '68 design in my '68 Z engine on the stand (hand filed the rings myself) - like yours, it won't see that many miles, so I decided to use them. They look different (see Jerry's book if you haven't already) but I like 'em. Second design 302 pistons used the wider ring, obviously, plus floating pins instead of press fits. I was fortunate enough to buy a NOS '68-9 set from GM right after they were discoed - wish I could have bought a bunch of them.
Biggest difference between the hypereutectics and the forged piston is piston growth - the cast pistons don't expand near as much as the forged ones under use, and are more stable/seal better in the bore, and don't require as near as large of a bore (read as skirt clearance), therefore less blowby. On the other hand, as was mentioned, I don't trust them at the higher rpm ranges (piston manufacturers would probably not want to hear that from anyone !)
The third set of 302 pistons I have is a set of forged Manley 12.5:1's - I actually ran them on the street in the 302 for nearly 30K miles - of course, I was putting 100+ octane leaded Union 76 gas in the tank at the time - '73-'75. The look exactly like the std. GM 302 pistons, except taller dome, and were floaters themselves. Made a liar out of my machinist - he said I'd pound the mains out of it within 10K miles - bearings still look brand new - plus you could have probably run kerosene in it and it wouldn't have complained.
Just some opinions -

1735
Brian,

   And you thought your jacking instructions were in bad shape ? Check out mine (03C Z11, YJ wheels). I have to go uncover my X77 and see what the instructions look like (15" YH, original Endura car). Original jack is still with the car as well -

Regards,
Steve

1736
1969 - Orphans / Re: Orphaned block 19N571318
« on: September 10, 2012, 02:27:13 AM »
Amazingly sharp eyes - as many hours/years as I have spent going through the Definitive book, I never thought to look at the window stickers (or shippers) to see if it matched. That's almost as good of a detective job as Jerry locating the 'Old Reliable' '68.

Yes, it is a JH, standard bore - now you also know why I was a little cagey in releasing that info. If we could only find the car (intact), maybe the current (legit, and only legit) owner would like to deal for the original block - wonder where Jerry got the window sticker copy ?

Great job - BTW, if the car is gone, this block will reside in my '69 L78 Cortez original SS someday - the original block is damaged (makes a good 500 pound Protect-O-Plate). Got both blocks with the car when I bought it -

Regards,
Steve

1737
1969 - Orphans / Re: Orphaned block 19N571318
« on: September 07, 2012, 03:23:47 AM »
I'll try to get to it this weekend - I have it buried in the garage, but the corner of the block above the filter is visible enough to see the VIN.
Curious about the info you have uncovered - could you determine if it's a coupe or convertible ? You really have my interest up a notch -

Regards,
Steve

1738
1969 - Orphans / Re: Orphaned block 19N571318
« on: August 28, 2012, 11:52:32 PM »
Quite possibly - if the car is still around, it would be a nice thing to reunite this one. Wouldn't mind it coming here to meet the engine and get acquainted.

1739
Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 headlight bezels
« on: August 10, 2012, 02:46:03 AM »
If you were looking at the part number as cast directly into the trim rings on the back side (recess) area, they do have a "BC" in front of the part number, at least the ones do that I have in the pile.

1740
Originality / Re: 69 Camaro headlight bezels
« on: August 10, 2012, 02:12:56 AM »
Indeed, they should have the part number on the inside of the bezel, in the recess where the chrome ring rivets (bradded) to the plastic. Part number is preceeded by "BC-". I have a whole stack of used rings, plus NOS chrome trim and plain plastic pairs. All of them are argent silver in color, with the exception of a black pair, and I can see argent under the black. I can provide a pic if you need one, but I'll have to wait for some better lighting conditions - pretty hard to focus on the number in a poorly lit garage.
Regards,
Steve

Pages: 1 ... 114 115 [116] 117 118
anything