CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 23, 2014, 07:30:14 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.
102305 Posts in 12074 Topics by 4661 Members
Latest Member: 23bull
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 37
331  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Cable Motor Support on: July 27, 2013, 10:27:24 AM
Thanks..
Just curious why you see it on some cars and not other ones. Was it due to the breaking of the driver side motor mount. They look kind of cool on the cars I've seen them on..
TMS
Eddie

It believe it was intended to do just that - restrain engine movement in the case of mount separation/failure, plus it would limit rotation (supposedly) to prevent that failure. It was a dealer service bulletin, but I wonder how many left the dealer floor with them added before the sale (after the service notice ?).

My '69 X77's was still on it when I bought it in '73 - I have no way of knowing when it was installed, though. I removed it when I installed headers in '74. I kept my original manifolds to reinstall, plus I have an NOS kit to reinstall the cable when it gets to restoration sometime in 2025 -

Regards,
Steve
332  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: Fan Shroud on: July 27, 2013, 10:14:18 AM
Try the stripper that's good for fiberglass - it shouldn't bother the ABS parts. Test it on a small area first, just to be sure. I have stripped fiberglass and urethane using the aircraft-type stripper, both worked very well and did not damage the base materials at all. If you scrape vintage plastic, it's gonna show when it's clean.

Last swap meet shroud (69 SB) that I found, really grungy, cleaned up to the point it looks NOS by using a soft brush, dish washing detergent, followed by a liberal coat of Detailer's Advantage - after the part dried off, it looks better than the NOS one I have in inventory. $5.00 shroud, by the way -

Regards,
Steve
333  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: 1969 Z/28 DZ 302 overbore to .040? Piston Source? on: July 24, 2013, 07:09:46 PM
Well, got the bad news this morning that he had to go out to 0.060 anyway. I know this is not good, but can somebody share some wisdom as to what I should do at this point? This is not a trailer queen, I drive her on weekends to local shows and cruise-ins. I want to enjoy my car without ruining it for good. I don't want to put a crate engine in it. I'd rather drive a 'real' Z/28. On the other hand, If that means ruining what's left of a numbers matching '69 Z/28, I'd rather sell her to someone who will make a trailer queen. (A good home, so-to-speak.)

Pretty bummed out.

Doomer -

If it's the original, build it and drive it. Or, build a driver 302 motor and enjoy it anyway. Hot trick when I was growing up was to build a poor man's 301 using a 283 block bored .125 over - they usually ran really hot, but if the cores weren't shifted, they would last decently under pretty severe duty (rods and bearings were the limiting factors). Later model blocks didn't seem to suffer the earlier block's tendencies for core shifts - I've known a lot of .060 engines that ran, and continue to run, very well.

Strictly my own opinion,
Steve
 
334  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: 1969 Z/28 DZ 302 overbore to .040? Piston Source? on: July 24, 2013, 06:56:47 PM


Not according to JohnZ. All the added tin and nickel was dropped because it didn't improve the blocks.

" the "010-020" raised numbers that indicate the 0.1% and 0.2% tin and nickel content in some blocks; that was an extended tryout where the added tin was to improve machinability and the added nickel was to improve bore wear. It was discontinued when the promised warranty improvements failed to appear, and the added cost was no longer justified."

[/quote]

Mine must have been one of the trials - less than .0002 (read as 2/10,000's, not .002) taper in the bore after 50K plus miles - machine shop remarked it was extremely straight, considering the wear on the pistons. BTW - a lot of 010 blocks are around with just that percentage cast on the block surface. Bores usually look pretty good compared to blocks like my 2 - 678's - heavy ring lands that took at least a .030 overbore.

Regards,
Steve
335  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: 1969 Z/28 DZ 302 overbore to .040? Piston Source? on: July 23, 2013, 05:53:01 PM
My DZ 302 is out and apart for the first time since I got it. The block is already at .030 and needs to go a little further.

    Not trying to be nosey, or reinvent the wheel, but what does the block measure out as ? When I rebuilt my '69 in '75, the original pistons were worn, but the block was great after 50K miles - the high tin/nickel content in the block casting did what GM bumped the percentages up for; kept wear to a minimum in the block, pistons become the wear parts. Also, keep in mind forged pistons "grow" quite a bit when up to operating cylinder temps - the reason why wall clearances are different between cast (which run closer tolerances on the walls), and forged pistons, "sloppier". Depending on the wear, you could always knurl the pistons to tighten up the skirt to wall clearance -
    Stupid me put Manley 12.5:1's in the '69 engine; fortunately I kept a set of stockers, plus I bought a set of NOS GM .030's when they went obsolete. GM .030's ('67-early '68 narrow rings) in the '68 Z. Glad I don't have to buy 'em nowadays -

Regards,
Steve
336  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Fader knob on: July 23, 2013, 08:15:57 AM
Likely the case. Your switch looks correct, except for the external tang. I can't see the number clearly on the switch, but it appears to be a GM part number, or at least from the same subcontractor that supplied them to GM (unless they were supplied as a pure AC Delco construction).
Heartbeat's switch is advertised as an original (used) switch, and appears similar to my black-cased one. They are still out there - keep looking and one will pop up if you need to replace yours.

Regards,
Steve
337  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Fader knob on: July 21, 2013, 11:12:54 PM
Knobs -

Regards,
Steve
338  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Fader knob on: July 21, 2013, 11:11:16 PM
Hopefully the attached pics help. I have two versions of the 7309211 pictured here - one is metal bodied, the other is black plastic. Both showed up in 7309211 boxes - both are identical in location/functions, the only difference I see is the body material.

The knobs pictured in the second thread are marked (2 ea.) 3954239, as Ed mentioned; 1 is marked 3976296. All three work with both faders. My '68 was equipped with a rear speaker, marked on the dealer invoice, so I hope the knob theory is the same for '68's as one of these is destined to go back on the '68 Z.

Regards,
Steve
339  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 350/325? on: July 09, 2013, 07:53:12 AM
Steve, I missed out on a lot of neat cars at great prices over the years because of that threat..  but she is still with me after 43 yrs..   (but I sure do miss those cars I almost bought) *L*

I'm right behind you at 42 years - the threat was just that, no real intentions (as far as I know !). I've missed a lot of deals over the years, but mainly due to severe shortage of mad money when I needed it. Three kids in college today doesn't help in my old age, either -

Regards,
Steve
340  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 350/325? on: July 09, 2013, 07:44:05 AM
Oh yeah, something else...I've seen a few big blocks blow too. I think they are way more messy than a small block.

I supported that when I posted a couple of pictures of my L78's original block under "Orphans" a while back - at least it wasn't one that I had built, nor did I blow it (came with the car from a previous owner's indiscretions). Bad messy -

Must have been a sign of the times - I ran Manley 12.5:1's (still have them) in my '69 Z in '75, Erson Hi Flow 2H hydraulic stick, stock 186 heads, factory 4.10, headers and an 850 DP Holley in mine, sure was a beast. Local machine shop told me I'd pound the mains out of it in 10K miles - bearings still look new after double that. Miss the good 'ole days -

Regards,
Steve
341  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 1969 Z/28 (X-33) Trim Tag on: July 08, 2013, 09:52:22 PM
Looks also like the very last production day of January - last VIN out according to other threads was 589720 for January, so this car is 303 away from January 31st, Feb. 1 or 2 for the last of the production week. 912/day, so pretty late January 01C. My Z is an 01C, body code starts with 229 (this one is 231), MSO is Jan. 28th. Dates/numbers support themselves, as was stated.

Regards,
Steve
342  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 350/325? on: July 08, 2013, 04:26:03 PM
Yeah, an engine that 'winds up quickly' gets my adrenaline going... *G*...  and I dont' care for boat anchors.. er..  big blocks ..  either.  *G*


Gary,

Born a small block guy myself, but "there is no substitute for cubic inches". I always thought 8 grand in my Z was the ultimate thrill (after rolling through the water at my local Shoney's) until I tried the same thing with the vehicle in the pics, which made a believer out of me - even a warmed-up LS5 motor was capable of scaring the daylights out of my wife, and swapping ends after mild pressure on the accelerator pedal. Maybe you just haven't driven the right combination to convince you -

(The rest of the story: I sold this car year before last to afford my '68 Z - wife said if I brought another one home, one would have to go, or she would - )

Regards,
Steve
343  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: L48/M35 ZL2 air cleaner finish opinion on: July 07, 2013, 09:18:41 PM
Underside -
344  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / L48/M35 ZL2 air cleaner finish opinion on: July 07, 2013, 09:16:56 PM
Gentlemen,

   Please check out the following pics and give me an opinion on the finish - too dull, or close ? I selected the paint based on an NOS ZL2 manual cleaner that I have - I have seen finishes on other cars run the gamut from patent leather shoe gloss to flat. This particular paint is Dupli Color gloss black, and it turned out a close match to my NOS cleaner.

   I welcome all opinions - just don't get too brutal. This was my first air cleaner restocreation -

Regards,
Steve
345  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Check out this Trim Tag on: June 26, 2013, 12:13:16 AM

Are you sure they haven't been replaced.

We are not discussing Z28's, but X77 never had gills / style triim and X33 includes those.

Hard to be 100% positive, since I haven't owned it since new, but all seams, welds, and landmarks seem to be 100% factory. Interior inspection of the quarters shows no signs of welded or bondoed holes in the louver areas. The other side - this car was a vinyl top car, so I now have the question as to whether it is an X66, or maybe an X22 Style Trim car. No paperwork with the car, just a 550 lb. P-O-P, black rear cove, SS trim, and N66 wheels. I have read the tables and info about quarter trim on non-X22 SS cars, and also have heard of some of the early COPO cars being X66 cars - I haven't seen all COPO's with quarter trim, either.
My only reason for discussing an X77 vs. X33's was in relation to the Style Trim availability, which I tied to X66/X22 vehicles. Sorry to digress during an open discussion. 

Regards
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 37
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 0.097 seconds with 18 queries.