CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 29, 2014, 09:11:14 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.
103627 Posts in 12179 Topics by 4697 Members
Latest Member: greygoose01
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 40
316  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 Z28 Vin 124379N640319 on: September 18, 2013, 08:49:57 PM
It's been on ebay a few times.
I've never seen pic, but they said #'s match.
Next time on ebay, the car had a POP. No mention of it the first time - depending on the seller they may not have known what it was.....or it's new.



At least it shows a certificate by Jerry - must be authentic and a matcher.
317  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Did all 69Z28 cowl induction breathers have a flat bottom ? on: September 15, 2013, 10:37:52 PM
They look very similar. Pretty obvious that they modeled the repros from the second design - the details are there, the metal thickness is close, but the paint on most is just a little too glossy. I haven't been able to get close enough to one of the repro flat bottom cleaners to judge them, but the pics look spot on. At least someone finally put the notches on the air snorkels to really get the details more correct.

I will use my NOS 6485891 cleaner when I restore my X77 - I've had it too long to think about sending it down the pike or replacing it with a repro - 

Regards,
Steve
318  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Did all 69Z28 cowl induction breathers have a flat bottom ? on: September 15, 2013, 11:42:51 AM
It is a stamped detail that fits the bottom of the element. It's not welded or folded, just stepped. The recess in the top/bottom of the element fits right in it to seal it. Can is smooth on the reverse side - it would have been a piece of work to finish it that way if it was welded (took me more than several hours to smooth, prime and finish details on the L48 cleaner I just finished for eBay - I doubt the Delco division would have ever put that much intensive labor into one).

Regards,
Steve
319  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Did all 69Z28 cowl induction breathers have a flat bottom ? on: September 15, 2013, 10:24:58 AM
Gary,

   No seams that I can determine - the stamping was apparently done in one draw, and then progressively formed in secondary operations including the snout (and hose clamps on auto air cleaners) welding. There are not any other welded areas on these that I have ever been able to find. Draw die evidence includes the "ribs" you see around the coil clearance recess area - vertical lines as a result of deformation (wrinkling) in that operation - most cleaners usually have a pattern all the way around the can where the metal is deformed during the drawing. I have to base all of this on the second designs; the only flat bottom ZL2 cleaner I have examined was during a quick inspection of an X33, March car, P-O-P, that was being shipped to Montana during an owner's move. Looked like your cleaner, exactly. Wish I had been able to take pics -

Regards,
Steve
320  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Did all 69Z28 cowl induction breathers have a flat bottom ? on: September 14, 2013, 01:37:32 PM
Pics -
321  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Did all 69Z28 cowl induction breathers have a flat bottom ? on: September 14, 2013, 01:35:41 PM
Steve,

Can you take a photo of the full bottom from the bottom?  As a comparison to the flat bottom?
PS.  What did you mean by '4 spot' flame arrester?   first time I've heard that term....

Gary,

   Here's your pics. One thing I also noticed when I took a good close look at the cleaner, my NOS 6485891 is a lot worse in finish and appearance than the one I just finished and put on line to sell, one of my L48 "resto creations". I was worried about paint finish and a couple of small blems: it looks much better than my NOS example - I don't feel so bad about letting this one go. Take a glance at it when you have a minute -

Regards,
Steve

http://www.ebay.com/itm/171124384456?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649
322  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Did all 69Z28 cowl induction breathers have a flat bottom ? on: September 13, 2013, 09:23:33 PM
Outlined in the attached pic, but I'll get a better contrast tomorrow in daylight. You can at least see the depressions in the red circles; what function they served is debateable (maybe to help mount the screen onto the pipe ?).

Regards,
Steve
323  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Did all 69Z28 cowl induction breathers have a flat bottom ? on: September 13, 2013, 09:16:24 PM
Steve,

Can you take a photo of the full bottom from the bottom?  As a comparison to the flat bottom?
PS.  What did you mean by '4 spot' flame arrester?   first time I've heard that term....

Gary,

   Be glad to get it back out tomorrow for another shot. "4 spot" refers to 4 dimples evident in the top of the flame arrestor screen - NOS and originals have them, repops don't, as many as I've ever seen. I'll get a better pic of that , too -

Regards,
Steve
324  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
325  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
326  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
327  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
328  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
329  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
330  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
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 40
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 0.441 seconds with 18 queries.