CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 24, 2014, 04:31:27 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.
105738 Posts in 12342 Topics by 4754 Members
Latest Member: Jake
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 42
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Looking for recommendations for poly locks for use with 302 on: Today at 11:58:51 AM

[/quote]
But pictured below is the last time I got stranded, my son in law and I were headed to the Good Guys Nostalgia meet in Bowling green KY in 2008 I think it was..  when one of his backed off.. leaving us stranded along I-65.   Fortunately we had chairs in the truck, which made it a bit easier while we waited for the truck/trailer to come get us... and take us back home to get a different vehicle...  Smiley

Looks like somewhere near Ardmore or Lynnville. Glad you made it out in one piece -  Grin
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Part numbers for 67 front and rear glass reveal clips on: October 22, 2014, 11:17:51 PM
You didn't specify vinyl top or not, so I'll give you both:

Windshield, group 10.096: 67-69 Spt. Cpe. 8736586 as required
                                     67 vinyl top 7639528 A.R.
                                     Need lower (sheet metal) clips ? I have those listed also; let me know if you do.

Back glass, group 11.209:  67-68 Spt. Cpe. 8736586 A.R.
                                     67-68 Spt. Cpe (Anode clip) 7741144 A.R.
                                     67 vinyl top 7639528 A.R.

'9's take different clips in some applications, the '67 VT cars were listed separately. Screw in and emergency clips were also listed.

Hope this helps -

Regards,
Steve
3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Bumper Jack -- Original color on: October 21, 2014, 11:11:11 PM
Don't laugh, but this one worked for me. I used it on the backsides of the SS1 Rally wheels on my '70 LS5 - it's a close match to "putty gray", which is the recommended color for shocks and jack bodies from several sources. Cap color is pretty close to finished color - cheap enough to risk a can to try, IMO -

Regards,
Steve
4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Very nice Red on Red 69Z on Ebay on: October 19, 2014, 10:57:46 PM
Wow, this one sure seems to be a first class, documented, restored car. What is something like this one worth?  He sure seems confident that it is a very rare 1 of 38 produced in this color combo but I notice Jerry doesn't mention that. If I am reading the POP correctly it looks like it had a M21 originally. Beautiful car!  Maybe a CRG members car?
VIN124379N658389

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Camaro-red-1969-camaro-rs-z-28-m-22-concours-macneish-bow-tie-gold-pop-show-car-/331347345618?forcerrptr=true&hash=item4d25d740d2&item=331347345618&pt=US_Cars_Trucks

Pretty car. Jerry's report copy mentioned that the M22 was not original to the car; it was coded for a Dec. '68 built Camaro.

Couple of small items I noticed were out-of-whack with the glowing presentation, but minor compared to the overall detailing of the car. Wish mine looked so good -

5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 772 fans and unstamped fans on: October 14, 2014, 10:24:14 PM
I guess my unstamped fan for the BB is likely O.K. - now I've got to go dig it out and determine if it's a Hayes or a Switzer, and the pitch.
It definitely could be. This one is original to my 69 SS396 (no stamps on the blades):

Definitely a Switzer fan clutch - looks identical to the '68 Z clutch, except I'm unsure about the bolt circle. Surprised it's not an Eaton - early '69 build date ?

Regards,
Steve
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Rare Stripe and Bumper Package? on: October 11, 2014, 11:36:55 AM
P.T. Barnum - there's a sucker born every minute.

Even as a parts car (questionable whether any parts on this car are worth salvaging !), with no title, is the sum total of parts left on this thing justify $2100 ? Maybe I'm missing something -

Regards -
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Rare Stripe and Bumper Package? on: October 11, 2014, 12:01:42 AM
You'll note - impressive care of this historically important vehicle, in the addition of rare NOS door reveal line protectors - extending partway up on the fender. A brave attempt to keep parking lot door dings to a minimum.

Seems to have worked - doors look straight enough to paint as is -
8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Rare Stripe and Bumper Package? on: October 09, 2014, 09:25:30 PM
So is the Flow-Through rocker panel treatment.

Makes you wonder how many more of these derelicts are still in back yards across the continent - and beyond.

9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 772 fans and unstamped fans on: October 09, 2014, 09:19:29 PM
The following is an even better answer from the Archives:

In 1969, the clutched fan changed to a seven-blade design (still 18 inches in diameter) with aluminum fan blades. Cars with AC or K02 received the same fans as the 1969 Z28 and L78/COPO cars. There were two manufacturers of this fan and a mid-year fan pitch change (2 to 2.25"), yielding four variants of this fan.


•The 3937779 fan had a 2" pitch and was made by Schwitzer. It was used early in the 69 production year (until approximately November of 68) and has the part number and month / year stamped on the fan blades.
•The 3947772 fan replaced the 779 fan and had a 2.25" pitch. It was produced by Schwitzer and was used during the remainder of the production year (and through the early 70's) and has the part number and month / year stamped on the fan blades.
•There were two versions of an 'unstamped' fan made by Hayes-Albion. 3947838 was the earlier 2" pitch version and 3956684 was the later 2.25" pitch version. The fans are normally stamped H and FRONT, but no part numbers or dates are stamped on the fans. They are similar to the 772 and 779 fans but with minor design differences (specifically: the design of the center section and details of fan blade rivet attachment).
From what has been observed on original cars, the 3947772 fan and the unstamped fan were used interchangeably and with approximately equal usage. As noted above, the 3937779 fan was only used on early 69 cars.

I guess my unstamped fan for the BB is likely O.K. - now I've got to go dig it out and determine if it's a Hayes or a Switzer, and the pitch.
10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 772 fans and unstamped fans on: October 09, 2014, 09:03:52 PM
My 01C X77 original is unstamped, while my 03D Z11 original is a 772. I thought I read a long time back that the BB cars usually came with a 772, but I'll have to go read up on that from Jerry's Definitive book before casting that statement in stone (I have an unstamped fan for my 12A L78).

Regards,
Steve

11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: what heads part numbers for 67 350 on: October 07, 2014, 09:46:33 PM
Colvin states in CBTN that the 3890462 head was used from January 1966 through May 1967 . The 3917291 head was released in March or April 1967 with some minor use overlap (the dates aren't clearly defined). The 291 heads from March or April will have the sending unit boss present, but drilling and tapping for the sending unit did not start until May or June 1967. All 1968 applications using the 291 heads (350 and 302 w/ 2.02/1.60"s) had the sending unit location finished for the sending unit.

Close as I can research - I have two sets of 291's, both are late '67 and both are drilled/tapped.

Regards,
Steve
12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: New guy, New project ' 67 on: October 07, 2014, 09:28:13 PM
Anyone know what the pin welding tool is actually called? Having trouble finding it.
[/quote]

Look in Eastwood's catalog. You can get a cheaper stud welder through Northern or Harbor Freight, but Eastwood has the pins and the collet. The moulding studs need to welded, don't use screws.

Regards -
13  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100837 alternator on: September 27, 2014, 09:54:48 PM
Below are photos of the ebay alternator (extracted from the ebay photo), and my original alternator stamps...  same PN and same date.   It looks OK to me ?



Gary,

Identical font - no doubt on this one -

Regards,
Steve
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: AM Radio on: September 27, 2014, 12:51:22 PM
DO use the bracket - otherwise it puts a lot of weight on the plastic dash bezel - might break it or the shaft recesses. Find a used one, or get a repro - a lot of them around.

You can use the 70-71 AM's, as long as the backlight screen/lettering is green and not blue. I think the power connector is a little different starting in '70, maybe later in '71/'72, but it's been awhile since I looked at 'em. Dimensionally they should be identical -

Regards,
Steve
15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1100837 alternator on: September 27, 2014, 12:38:56 PM
Posting a pic is pretty easy - set your camera or phone to a macro setting for good resolution on a close up shot, take the pic, transfer it to 'My Pictures' on your computer. When you copy it from the camera or phone, make sure you copy as a jpeg (or jpg) file. Download any software that you would like to resize with from the internet (I use Light Image Resizer. it's free), resize to 800X600 resolution, and then save it under whatever file name you wish. When you reply on the site, just browse at the add pics area, find your file, and open - it will add it to the post. You can then add additional pics (up to four total per reply, files cannot be larger than 200 kb per attachment, 4 total per post. You're done -

Hopefully this helps; somebody correct me if I've got the string wrong. When I switched from a Blackberry to an iPhone, I had to go through the learning curve again due to the enormous file size generated by the high resolution iPhone camera. This works for me -

By all means post a pic. There are an awful lot of restamps out there - if you're unsure about authenticity, I'm sure you'll get a large number of responses if that's what you're needing -

Regards,
Steve
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 42
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 0.105 seconds with 18 queries.