CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2014, 03:36:30 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.
97442 Posts in 11712 Topics by 4581 Members
Latest Member: Cooper48
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31
1  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: vin numbers on: April 21, 2014, 08:51:23 PM
Since the '68's are so hard to document (unlike the 7's and 9's, no cowl tag coded info to go by), look at rear end numbers (passenger side axle tube, front side), 10 or 12 bolt, number of leaf springs, auto or std. trans, size and number of gas lines, presence or absence of right side tailpipe mounting bracket in the rear wheel opening. Barring original paperwork or documentation, there is no cut and dried (or exact) way to pinpoint what this car is, or was.

Who knows, maybe it's a Yenko, or a Nickey, or a Dana, or a Baldwin Motion ? That's the fun of it, finding and researching. Maybe it will be one of the really rare ones. In any case, good luck and good hunting. Let us know what you find out, or discover. Most all of us will be glad to try and sort it out.

Regards - 
2  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Bad Luck is Better Than No Luck; Right? on: April 21, 2014, 08:30:12 PM
Makes total sense. Easy thing to confuse BB pistons and reliefs - one version even uses two different part numbers, one for each side of the block (I found this during a search for the L78 proper piston part numbers). Betcha the builder never checked the valve to piston clearance during the build - you're probably lucky it didn't mangle it worse. Sounds like a cam change would be in the works -

Hate it happened, but glad it did it now rather than strand you somewhere, or grenade it -

3  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Bad Luck is Better Than No Luck; Right? on: April 21, 2014, 04:52:06 PM
Better than sitting in a garage for 34 years - like one I know of -
4  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Rochester Quad Verify? on: April 21, 2014, 04:48:56 PM
Good one to have - 7037213 is for 327/275 hp , standard trans, A.I.R, also for 350/295 hp, standard trans, A.I.R. A more common version is probably the 7027213, same engine power combinations, S/T, W/O A.I.R.

2726 is Julian date for the 272nd day of '66, you are correct -

Regards,
Steve
5  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Bad Luck is Better Than No Luck; Right? on: April 21, 2014, 04:36:40 PM
Fair enough - let us know. Hate to hear you had a momentary setback - I'm anxious to see this one on the road (as I know you are).
6  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Bad Luck is Better Than No Luck; Right? on: April 21, 2014, 04:28:25 PM
The remark earlier about the weak spring installation might be a good crosscheck to see just how much lift you can get away with. Piston at TDC, depress the valve until it makes contact, and measure. What ratio are the rockers ? Cam could be stout enough (and I remember the idle) to play hell with the pushrods if the valves come anywhere close to the pistons.

At least it's apparently just pushrods - I've seen BB internals when you hydraulic a piston - rods look like corkscrews, or grenade through the motor.

Regards -  
7  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Pic posting problems ? on: April 21, 2014, 04:10:25 PM
Figured it out - I used my iPhone, a higher resolution camera. I almost always use my older camera, which is easy to get under the 200kb, 4 per post max. Sorry to squawk before I thought better about it -

Regards -
8  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Bad Luck is Better Than No Luck; Right? on: April 21, 2014, 04:04:15 PM
Darrell,

What compression ratio and piston are you running ? Any specs left by the builder ? I remember hearing this engine run on a couple of occasions - sounded great then, but maybe when you actually got to drive it, the higher RPM got some valves into the pistons ?

I doubt oil starvation would have taken them down this quick - more likely impact. Could be wrong piston/valve relief for the cam lift -

Regards,
Steve
9  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Pic posting problems ? on: April 20, 2014, 10:19:44 PM
I have posted many pics on this forum, but I have never run into this before - after repeated tries to post a 476 kb pic, the error message tells me the max file size is 200 kb, which I don't think has changed from 500 kb. What gives ? Antone else had the same problem ?
10  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Amazing 69 Z/28 Survivor on: April 20, 2014, 02:58:40 PM
Steve, I bet you can't wait to have it at your show! What a nice example of a car that happen to benefit from just the right circumstances.
It is funny to me how many people set out to preserve a car back in the day, and how only a small handful actually came out the other side in nice condition. I remember a few years back there was a raffle for a like 50's plymouth/chrysler that was entombed when brand new in a cinderblock mausoleum, and then at the 50 year anniversary of the town they were going to announce the winner who would have entered the raffle when the car was locked away new. Well long story short, the cinder block tomb only trapped moisture inside and the car that was suppose to have been  well preserved looked like it had been buried in a river.


I remember that one - greatly disappointed a lot of people, including me. I can't remember what magazine it was featured in (or at least showed the pics of the rusted hulk).
11  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Amazing 69 Z/28 Survivor on: April 20, 2014, 10:59:10 AM
Survivor? It didn't even survive the factory paint line. It came out H.O. (lol lust kidding it is astounding !!!)

I agree - must be a conspiracy.

Unreal find -
12  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1968 Z/28 Block - Trans - Rear Numbers... Original Stamps? on: April 20, 2014, 10:54:54 AM
Yes, who knows. I see that last digit is very light. Looks like a "9" ? How can you hit them all super deep and then have one that barely shows. What the hell!!  Huh Huh   I need a few more entries here, and some more explaining before I tell my buddy weather or not to pull the trigger on this car... Danny

Nature of a gang stamp. Individual stamp shanks tend to deform over repeated use, plus the holder itself allows some movement of the individual stamps - they are usually held in place with a key or wire, and will shift slightly that allows some irregularity in the finished stamp. I'm pretty convinced the stamping looks authentic, characters look good, alignment is within the range of normality in my estimation; the only question mark I have is the suggestion of decking. It could very well be that if the rest of the block surface has been milled, then the shop that decked it did the right thing and kept away from the pad stamping. My opinion -

Regards -
13  Orphans - documentation or VIN-stamped drivetrains - in search of the original cars / 1968 - Orphans / 18N448650 in the database ? on: April 19, 2014, 01:53:25 PM
Anyone seen 18N448650 ? In the database ? I have your original block on hand -
14  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1968 Z/28 Block - Trans - Rear Numbers... Original Stamps? on: April 19, 2014, 01:45:53 PM
I can't dispute the originality of the numbers, but the marking to the left of the VIN looks less like reflections, and more like feed lines from a deck milling pass. Most decking is done with a milling cutter, not a Blanchard grinder, so the carbide inserts or brazed cartridges leave a feed line (similar to the feed lines you see on distributors after they are turned). I get the suggestion that the decking continued over the numbers, but since it has been stoned or abraded the feed lines are either extremely light, or were worked off.

The VIN numbers are uneven, and cocked. I checked out one of my original blocks, never decked, and the VIN stamp on the pad is very even, and uniformly light end to end. It also nearly gets into the build stamp on the block. Mine are very light compared to the pics above, which doesn't really point to anything with the exception of hand stamping with a gang stamp, which is not always consistent person to person, or strike to strike. I'm pretty positive the build stamp on the pic is original - same font (the "6" in particular) as my known original.

Broach marks are end to end, as the block was stood up and broached parallel to the crank bore. Broaching usually leaves a light straight line, end to end on the deck, with no angular marks. Angles are generally the result of hand scraping or abrasives (sanding, wire brushing).  

Just my opinion -

Steve








15  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1968 Z/28 Block - Trans - Rear Numbers... Original Stamps? on: April 19, 2014, 09:26:17 AM
I'd like to see the originals. The engine pad has the appearance of being decked left of the VIN (see the outline in green), but unlike our discussion previously about restamping vs. decking originals, the VIN stamped edges are clean and sharp, suggesting the decking (or sanding/grinding) was done after the stamping, or possibly (if it was decked), the shop stayed off of the stamped area. Build date stamp and suffix looks correct, trans looks good, as does the axle.

The entire area has been sanded on the block - cleaning ? Removing feed lines ? Difficult to tell without seeing the balance of the deck surface.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31
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 0.109 seconds with 18 queries.