Messages

1786

General Discussion / Re: This Car Has "Wrong" Written All Over It.

« on: December 16, 2012, 10:57:26 PM »

Brings up something I read years ago while the USCC was still around - seems I remember one or two verified Z's that had 388 blocks, sometime after the start of the 3956618 casting series, purportedly because of a brief casting shortage during production. Flint production ? Tonawanda ? Saginaw ?

My 69 Pacer has a 388, as a lot of the Pace Cars had in production between 2D and 5A-B, so the Z's might fall in those dates. Can anyone verify this ?

Regards,
Steve

1787

General Discussion / Re: This Car Has "Wrong" Written All Over It.

« on: December 16, 2012, 08:04:45 PM »

A real shame, considering it is a nice car. The stamp is pitiful - I don't think the assembly techs ever used individual stamps, hand held, to stamp the engine code. Maybe they lost the stamp holder on that day -

1788

General Discussion / Re: Camaro on Ebay

« on: December 15, 2012, 03:44:01 AM »

In my own opinion,

The "purchaser", AKA high bidder, had 263 auctions to his credit on eBay - really makes you wonder if this was a bid-up, or an owner trying to bid the car up to make more from the sale. I've seen similar situations where someone was "selling it for a friend" - turned out to be a situation where the friend was the owner bidding on his own vehicle to increase the bids/activity. A dead giveaway would be if it met a reserve, and then ran into a "non-paying bidder" and got relisted. Not saying this was happening in this case - just makes you wonder, especially when there are sooo many things incorrect about the car.

Too bad - hope no one got snookered, but it sure has the indications.

Regards

1789

General Discussion / Re: Hood hinges

« on: December 14, 2012, 12:41:51 AM »

There are 2 listings in Hemmings for hood hinge rebuilders - Rowland Hall, (818) 845-3574, CA (no web site), and SMS Auto Restoration Services, www.sms-auto.com, 800-989-6660, NH. I have not tried either yet. Rowland lists capabilities as rebuilding to original condition, reboring rivet holes and using new (correctly marked) rivets, and finishes including powder coat, zinc iridite and phosphate. If you do try either, be sure and share your experiences with the rest of us. If either can rebuild for less than a nominal NOS price, it's worth it in my estimation. I don't like repops. There are probably additional people out there; I have had good luck using Hemmings advertisers for many years.

One tip for aligning hinges - mark or outline the position of your old ones before removing them. You'll have three directions and panels to consider, plus the latch, so go slooowly when you are test closing the hood. You may get the gaps right, and then discover the hood is too low in the back, or too high compared to the cowl grille. Side to side is affected by the position of the hinges on the underside of the hood. After messing with it for a while, I quickly began to admire the assembly line techs - they only have a few brief moments to get hinges and hood installed and adjusted. Practice makes perfect -

Regards,
Steve

1790

General Discussion / Re: Hood hinges

« on: December 13, 2012, 04:24:55 AM »

Strictly IMO you can replace one hinge - you're going to have to wrangle with the hood for a while anyway, due to the multi-positional adjustment of the hinge position in relation to the fender, front panel, and cowl grill gaps. I replaced both of my '69 Pacer hinges at the same time, as both of them were loose and bent to boot, and it took a good 3 hours by myself to get the hood back into the same fit as before - I would suggest you get a good friend who doesn't mind hearing a few mild swearing episodes to help you when you do replace one (or both). Use white Lubriplate to grease them - WD washes out the lube and dries off, leaving you worse than before. The grease I used (matched the factory lube on them when I got them) has been on there better than 10 years, still looks and works as before. Leave your hood up when the car is stored - sounds weird, but watch the springs when you close the hood - they will stay stretched if you close it, eventually weakening them.

I was fortunate to be able to get new GM hinges before the price trip to the moon - I'm really thinking about getting my old hinges rebuilt for spares (I don't trust repops). Good luck with the hunt for new ones -

Regards,
Steve

1791

General Discussion / Re: status of permission from GM- regarding CRG shirts and hats

« on: December 05, 2012, 03:10:50 AM »

Gentlemen (and ladies),

I'm new to the Forum relatively, but I'm proud to be here like everyone else. And I will be just as proud to sport logo apparel whenever we can garner the approvals from Equity Management/GM (whom I have dealt with before, years ago).

Without raising too much ire, an alternative solution might be to skirt the copyright issue - don't use Camaro in the scripts. "camaros" (as GM labeled it when explaining the Camaro nameplate on inception years ago), was an obscure/archaic French term translated as "comrades" or "friends" if I remember correctly - asking the legal guys viewing this forum - does not using the formal nameplate fit the letter of the law concerning copyrights ? If so, then use the following crude adaptation of the logo also, instead of spelling out the Camaro Research Group. Or is this too simple ?

Just my two cents. After keeping up with this for a couple of weeks, blood pressures and adrenalines are getting out of hand - please remember that this is a hobby, not a life threatening vocation -

Many regards (and don't hold this thought against me !),
Steve

1792

General Discussion / Re: Reproduction Endura Bumpers are horrible

« on: December 03, 2012, 02:11:16 PM »

I'd say your damage probably looks similar to this - I call this jack damage, others might call it a not-well-thought-out-design-flaw. This was the damage on the bumper when I bought the car in '73 - I never found a solution for it (and really didn't worry about it) until later years - my spare sold, so now I'm in the same hunt for a fix that several people are. If you do use the Endura guy, post your results if you don't mind -

Regards,
Steve

1793

General Discussion / Re: Reproduction Endura Bumpers are horrible

« on: December 03, 2012, 01:59:46 PM »

Chris/crobjones2 - 

I ran across this guy and posted his contact info earlier in the thread - I have my original to send to him at some point (when I can afford it !) - I could probably repair it, but this gentleman seems to have a good handle on how to fix them correctly:

"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

1794

General Discussion / Re: Reproduction Endura Bumpers are horrible

« on: December 03, 2012, 04:05:27 AM »

Lynn,

I had no idea the repop brackets were so far off. No wonder people complain about the repop bumper - no way you could make it work with so big a difference in mounting datums/locations. Thanks for showing these to everyone.

I'm slightly embarassed that the originals didn't get cleaned up before shipping. The part number on top of the one bracket surface is a nice detail that people should notice - they really don't say RH or LH like the repops -

Regards,
Steve

1795

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct Dip Stick Part Number

« on: November 26, 2012, 10:16:59 PM »

Rick,

   Sorry we got off the path a little - all this boils down to:

1) My original '69 Z stick is the flattened handle GM6041-M-Quality MS Oil marked, no other part number.

2) My '74 parts manual calls for the 3951576 stick, as does the pan instructions for the 3974251 NOS pan. This pan appears to be the intermediate number (or consolidated number) issued in '69 or later to encompass all three years. That number changed again in later years to (If I remember correctly) 465220, which was black EPDM or painted, but visually correct with the provisions for the factory 302 windage tray. I would take a picture of the one on my '68 Z, but it is assembled on the stand -

3) I'll shut up now 'lest I rile everybody. Just trying to help -

Regards,
Steve

1796

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct Dip Stick Part Number

« on: November 26, 2012, 02:55:30 AM »

Got that, plus I see the other numbers in my '74 parts manual.

Lists the 3974251 as '67-69 Camaro 302, plus 70-72 Sp. H/Per. (350) by that time, so I'd guess there was already an update at that point. '74 didn't list the 3927134 pan by that date -

Regards,
Steve

1797

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct Dip Stick Part Number

« on: November 26, 2012, 02:30:23 AM »

Funny - packing slip said to use the 3951576 stick, but the stick in the box was the 3876869 grey tipped stick, complete with original tag. ???

BTW - pic of original '69 outer tube , plus part number for the NOS part (I believe this was common to most small blocks).

Regards,
Steve

1798

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct Dip Stick Part Number

« on: November 26, 2012, 02:20:34 AM »

Rick,

I measured from the bottom of the handle ferrule to the end of the stick - they are all within a few .001's of 18-3/8". Brings up a good point - when you match the bottom ends up, the "Fill" marks are not in line (see pics). I saw in an earlier post that the stick one was using seemed to overfill the pan - this is probably the cause if he was using the wrong stick.

Flatted handle has the 2 picture spread here - "Use MS Oils - GM6041-M". Was on the car when I bought it in '73 -

Regards,
Steve

1799

Originality / Re: Identifying 1968 z28 oil pan

« on: November 26, 2012, 01:45:53 AM »

Final two - can take more if you need additional profiles.

Regards,
Steve

1800

Originality / Re: Identifying 1968 z28 oil pan

« on: November 26, 2012, 01:40:54 AM »

Try these - I actually had better ones, but my stupid iPhone uses 2.5 mb for each picture. I'll give them to you in two replies -

Believe it - this pan has never been on an engine, the factory paint is terrible (molecule thin on one side), but I have resisted the urge to restore it because I have never seen another early number like this for sale - ever. Anyone else ever seen one like this ?

Regards,
Steve