CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 24, 2014, 05:59:34 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.
102338 Posts in 12079 Topics by 4664 Members
Latest Member: jjonesls1
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 38
286  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Did all 69Z28 cowl induction breathers have a flat bottom ? on: September 13, 2013, 10:42:52 AM
Ask and ye shall receive -

Note "4 spot" flame arrestor - was in the box when I bought it 25 years ago, at least - 

Regards,
Steve
287  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: First Ford Mustang sold to public story on: September 12, 2013, 11:15:18 PM
All I can say is WOW! I can only assume the first one built is still in Fords hands? Neat bit of auto history. I was 11 years old then.

So was I. My parents, with me in tow, test drove one from the local Ford dealership right after the intro - my mother thought it was "too small" inside, plus it was a stick, which she couldn't handle. We ended up with a '65 Evening Orchid Impala SS, with my dad winding up with a '65 Corsa, which became the car I learned to drive in. The mom-and-stick-shift deal killed the ultimate trade that almost happened, a blue '67 Chevelle SS convertible, with 4 speed and console, buckets, that she wanted but couldn't handle the manual trans. Heartbroken, but I never regretted them sticking with Chevy -

Regards,
Steve
288  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Did all 69Z28 cowl induction breathers have a flat bottom ? on: September 12, 2013, 09:49:43 PM
I think there are examples of late 69 Camaro's without the flat bottom.

I would like to get a flat bottom breather but they are hard to come by and very expensive from what I have seen.

Parts Place has them on sale now - part # CW10062Z, about $169.00 if I remember correctly. Even features the "notch" on the air snout, which (previously) was always a great way to tell the difference in repops and original ZL2's. My NOS 6485891 has the notch, but is a late production with the ridged bottom. I'll post a pic when I can dig it out -

Regards,
Steve
289  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 Z/28 302 internals on: September 09, 2013, 08:10:25 AM

The crank is the 1178 crank it measures 2.450 on the mains and 2.0995 on the rods so that is standard...Right?

Bearings were GMM 0400 & I think GMM 0200 I think that's what they read...

Pistons are standard bore but they are all TRW pistons on the inside they all say TRW...Is this right?

I would like to just ring and bearing this engine and keep as much as I can.. Can anyone tell me if this engine would have left the factory this way?

Thanks

Angelo


Angelo,

Sounds pretty close to original in the bottom end - Pistons were L2210A TRW units from the factory, mains should measure between 2.4479 - 2.4488", rods should be 2.099 - 2.100". Bearings sound like they're marked GM Morraine, which should be stock bearings. I would micropolish the crank, recheck it and bolt it up - the journals are Tufftrided, and wear very slowly compared to a reground crank (that would have the Tufftriding removed by regrinding). My 1178 at 42K miles had no wear, now at 72K shows no wear, even with 12.5:1 piston duty for 30K miles. Watch for piston wear, though - my cylinder bores had little wear (.0002 taper), but my standard pistons were worn in the skirts. I always heard that the blocks were a higher tin/nickel content, but that has been debated here before - better materials and castings than earlier blocks, I suppose.

Regards,
Steve
290  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1111499 Distributor Question?? on: September 03, 2013, 08:24:13 AM
Gary,

   100% correct. The term "over restored" is "over used" but it does describe a lot of vehicles. I'm getting to the point where "NCCAT" means more - neat, clean, correct, all there. Add "driven".

   IMO -

Regards,
Steve
291  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1111499 Distributor Question?? on: September 02, 2013, 09:25:37 PM
Al,

  Interesting string of observations you inspired. I'll say one thing - whoever restored the distributor, or whatever they did to it, did a pretty darn good job of whatever they did - it's pretty close in all the details, enough to lead you to believe it is genuine. The worst problem I see with it, outside of any of the details we have discussed, is it's just too darn nice and shiny for most people to believe it. Maybe the actual measurements will clue us to a proper decision about it's authenticity.

  As a result of this discussion, I don't think I'm going to do anything to my string of distributors (499,467, and 480's) other than a good cleaning and reassembly. I was considering sending them to Jerry, but now I'm worried about the end result of re-skinning being "too" good in appearance.

  Let us know what the thing measures at, and hopefully we're done with controversy.

Regards,
Steve
292  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1111499 Distributor Question?? on: September 02, 2013, 05:49:54 PM
Two pics of my 499 and 467 unrestored distributors, showing the stepped diameter at the top. The lower picture is one of yours - you can see why I questioned the appearance of a "no step" by the pic - it looks completely smooth as compared to the last one you posted beacause of the cap being installed. By diameter of the body, and the presence of the step, I'd say it's that much closer to believeable. The last angle you show looks totally different than your first examples (even though they were great shots), due to the cap being removed.

Note one other thing - the date stamping font size is slightly smaller on both of mine as compared to the part number stamp - the "9" is different on the 499 in shape in addition to size. Just an observation, If you're wondering about the color of the stamping, it's White Out correction fluid, added for contrast. Both distributor housings had to be soaked to remove the accumulated crud of centuries and expose the numbers. Should have taken "before" pics as well -

Regards,
Steve
293  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1111499 Distributor Question?? on: September 02, 2013, 12:22:48 PM
Is there a step at the top of all of your distributors ? If so, can you get a measurement on that diameter as well ?

Regards,
Steve
294  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1111499 Distributor Question?? on: September 02, 2013, 12:13:07 PM
I measured both my 499 original and my 467 Z originals - both measure exactly the same at 3.816" O.D. at the numbers. I need to dig my 480 out and measure it as well - 2 samples are not really enough to be a definitive check. No reason to believe the hi po units are any different from low po in construction, other than internal parts.

The step at the top of both distributors for the distributor cap measures out at 3.794" +/- .001". It's difficult to measure closer due to the short height of the step.

At least one of the closeups suggests there is no step left at the top of your 499 - that's what now leads me to think it might be a restamp. If the step is there on yours, you need to measure it as well. I haven't seen an original that did not have the step. Turning the O.D. down .010 - .012 to remove the former roll stamping would remove most of the step from the top edge of any distributor. Considering how light some of the stampings are, .012 per side would get it all and then some.

Hope this helps -

Regards,
Steve

295  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1111499 Distributor Question?? on: September 01, 2013, 10:18:22 PM
I do have a potential make-or-break answer for this - will post tomorrow. I might have to change my earlier estimate -

Regards,
Steve
296  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Steering Column Sticker on: September 01, 2013, 10:04:53 PM
George,

   Column looks great. Sticker looks perfect and in position. Shame it's not more in view when it's installed, but you have the satisfaction of knowing it's like it should be.

   Interesting choice of a holder for the column when you took the pics - exactly where I propped my column up (top of the radiator support), only my background was a '68 Z -

Regards,
Steve 
297  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Hemmings Muscle Machine of the Year on: September 01, 2013, 10:48:07 AM
Bruce,

    You got my vote. What's the color code ? Looks Burnished Brown in the Hemmings pic -

Regards,
Steve
298  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1111499 Distributor Question?? on: August 31, 2013, 09:44:19 PM
One more point - look at the collar where the clamp fits - same bright finish, very fresh look. If someone turned the body down to restamp it, they must have turned this area as well, which is highly unlikely IMO. Pin in the gear does not appear to have been disturbed or driven out as well - the pins and gears are pretty soft, usually they mark up when you drive the pin out to disassemble the distributor. I'll post a pic of my 499 (cleaned, but unrestored) if anyone would like to compare appearance/fonts.

Regards,
Steve
299  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 1111499 Distributor Question?? on: August 31, 2013, 09:26:16 PM
This one's hard to tell. I agree the finish is extremely bright, and looks very fresh - it could be a result of polishing after cleaning. Stamping is very deep, but the font is dead on if it's a restamp. The "4" and "9's" are correct to me as compared to my known original 499 and 497 distributors. Lathe markings are different, but I have seen these all over the map as far as spacing, depth and pattern - something you would expect out of production tooling that is frequently worn out and replaced/indexed to fresh cutting edges. Everything else appears to be what it should be, from the 355 dashpot to the point plate. It could be an overzealous/incorrect restoration (there are several that compete with Jerry, and complain about his refinishing methods as not being correct, too). Take a pair of calipers and measure the O.D. of the body at the stamping, and also measure the O.D. at the cap mounting step - you can compare that to other distributors. If it's considerably less than other examples, then you have a case for a cutdown/restamp. All I am stating is keep an open mind until you can prove it - don't be too quick to condemn it. 
300  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Steering Column Sticker on: August 27, 2013, 09:07:27 PM
I replaced my turn signal switch in this column many years ago (due to a broken base for the turn signal arm), but I saved the original, which is date coded both on the connector like yours, and on the switch plate itself. I haven't gotten around to the coupler yet (still on the box), but I'm sure it's coded as well - thanks for the heads up.

Hans L - thanks again for your great work. Things like this always give me a large dose of enthusiasm to get back to work on my projects. I appreciate the boost.

Anyone have a broadcast copy with the tilt column code ? Mine are all Norwood non-tilt cars, no broadcast copies evident.

Regards,
Steve
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 38
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 0.096 seconds with 18 queries.