CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 24, 2014, 10:27:26 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.
102324 Posts in 12076 Topics by 4663 Members
Latest Member: dens 69 rs/ss
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 38
361  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Wood Wheel Horn Button Cap on: June 09, 2013, 04:07:29 PM

Check out the following pics - side by comparison with an original cap, and one that I thought for years was an NOS cap, but could be the early Trim Parts cap - it has part # 3901314, a secondary number of 3874640 and a "CMD" logo (Trim ?); the original has two numbers, 3945461, and a 27047, with a crest logo with "CM" cast into it, with the outline of what appears to be a state (WI or IL ?). Hard to make out even under magnification, but as you can see it has some age and a little paint problem in the center. Both backgrounds surrounding the Bowtie are "pebbled" as Ed mentioned, colors are identical as far as I can see.

Good luck in your search - these things are getting harder to find.

362  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Lacquer Vs. Enamel for the Camaro on: June 03, 2013, 09:24:32 PM
The Norwood paint shop was modernized and converted from acrylic lacquer to basecoat/clearcoat for the new 1982 3rd-generation car.

Which by the time I purchased my '85 Z new, had become the nearest next-to-nothing paint film thickness known to man. I traded the car off with 19K miles on it in '87, maintained extemely well, and the paint was already coming off the hood. Film thickness had to be in microns, and very few of them at that. Loved the old underpowered black Z, though - still have the build sheet around here somewhere.

Sorry to digress, but I also liked my '69's lacquer a lot more, especially in LeMans Blue.

363  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Rosetti Rivits on: June 03, 2013, 09:15:25 PM
I'd only pay more if they spelled the description correctly - rosettes, not rosetti. Picky enough ?

I have a complete NOS '69 dash in stock (for a hundred years or so) - I paid less for the dash ($150.00) than what these rivets sold for. Then again, I don't have a spare pair of rivets, so IMO I ought to be quiet.

364  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 302 Crank Pulley not working on 350 LT1 on: May 30, 2013, 10:22:00 PM
I'll try to get to mine and measure the depth. Glad you found the problem -

365  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: wiper refills on: May 29, 2013, 09:09:36 PM
Old thread I know.

John.  You posted in another thread that both Trico and Anco supplied parts.
Is it possible that my original arms  (the part that actually pushes on the wiper transmission) were Trico, and the original blade holders were Anco?

My Anco blade holders have the little red buttons to depress for removal of the insert, so they predate the more universal style.

I bought my '69 in '73 - it had Anco 815 15" Red Dots (anti wind lifts) on it, same as it had in '71 when I first saw the car. When I bought my Pace Car in '94, it had the same Red Dots on it. Both had Trico arms, Anco 815's. I have only seen them on the high option cars - SS's, Z's - I wondered for years if they were dealer installed or actually optional from GM. I consulted a very well known Chevrolet specialist several years ago - he told me they were an original supplier like Trico, but for one reason or another, the blades only came on the high performance vehicles. BTW, I ran across the Anco refills several years ago, NOS, and they fit the 15" standard Trico blades perfectly.

Somebody have another take on this ? I have always like the Red Dots in appearance over the standard Trico blades, will keep them on the cars regardless -

366  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Possible Orphan DZ Block. on: May 29, 2013, 08:54:47 PM

This guy has the same blocks on eBay, along with various 480. 499 and 467 distributors from time to time. Very few of his 6618 blocks turn up with VIN numbers pictured. Some of his offerings look pretty good, some a little suspicious.

He was the guy in the back building at the Feb. swap meet a couple of years ago with the $1500.00 467 and 266 '68 Z distributors. Humboldt, if I'm not mistaken.

367  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Real trim Tag? on: May 29, 2013, 08:45:50 PM
But on the other hand its got a 427 and five speed so does the tag really mean anything it is no longer a real Z/28 without the original power-train IMHO.

True, unless he has other documentation.

Tag removal/rivet replacement without any other documentation or drivetrain for the car doesn't spell good for any vehicle.

Tag looks correct, rivets perfectly bogus IMO.

368  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 302 Crank Pulley not working on 350 LT1 on: May 29, 2013, 08:15:52 PM
Great pics -

I'm like you at this point - looks like the balancer is seated all the way back; I surmise that if this setup was the same on the 302 all the way around, it's got to be the crank, or the block seating surfaces for the water pump and pads for the power steering pump. What approximate production dates for the current 350 block and crank ? Later production ?

You will probably have to shim the water pump pulley, and the power steering pump at this point if the balancer has no more room to seat, or try another water pump and/or pulley combination IMO. Bummer.

369  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 302 Crank Pulley not working on 350 LT1 on: May 29, 2013, 12:19:53 AM
Compare my Pic #1 to the original shot of yours - I don't see that front ledge/projection that appears on mine - that's a good .250" difference right there, unless I'm looking at it wrong (maybe it's there, and just not visible - it sure doesn't look like it. You'll have to verify if it's present).

Regards -
370  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 302 Crank Pulley not working on 350 LT1 on: May 29, 2013, 12:13:32 AM
Here's a little reference you can check - hard to see in the pics, but the width of the balancer is slightly more than 1.50", plus the area around the hub (front face) projects another .250" to give it a total width of 1.750 from the back edge to the pulley mounting face. The inner hub should stop on the crank camshaft gear when fully seated - it's real tough to get it too deep, unless for some reason the crank gear is thinner than spec. If your current balancer measures up, you can eliminate that from the puzzle and start with the crank gear, and work out from there.

I have my original balancer hidden somewhere in the Black Hole of Calcutta (my garage), but I'm sure it is identical to the NOS House/Bedroom Closet Stock pictured here. If you need any additional measurements, let me know.

371  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 302 Crank Pulley not working on 350 LT1 on: May 28, 2013, 08:23:24 AM
It probably will help line things up, but there is still the spector of mixing deep groove and shallow, LP groove pulleys - you might have to change belt lengths slightly to compensate for the change in pitch (alternator adjustment range ?). You didn't picture it, but are you using a 3.2 DG alternator pulley as well ?

If you don't have your original 302 balancer, or a good used one, I could see where it's easier to change the pulley rather than pick up a (correct) balancer - I spotted a couple on eBay recently headed into the stratosphere in price - talk about speculation -

372  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Removing Harmonic Balancer on: May 27, 2013, 10:19:44 PM
I think I'll buy them both because they are inexpensive.

Glad you got it loose. Last one I removed (from a 350), took a lot of pressure to get it off, plus some dork had stripped one of the pulley mounting holes, and instead of Heli-Coiling it, actually bent a bolt to run into the hole to make up for the lost threads - what a Mongolian cluster some people will do to unsuspecting others.

Do yourself a favor, and buy the best installer (and remover) you can afford if you're going to buy them - I've been using mine for better than 30 years - Made-in-China stuff won't last IMO.

373  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Front license plate bracket question. on: May 25, 2013, 10:11:50 PM
The ACC on the front tag bracket was on later production.

I agree - how late is late ? My 01C X77's original bracket is AAc - so is the one I bought in the 80's -

374  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 68 rear spoiler stud lenth needed on: May 25, 2013, 02:31:34 PM
Mine is still mounted - hard to tell from that, but I'll ask a friend who should have a NOS piece to compare it to.

By the way, is that British Racing Green on the bottom of the spoiler ? Looks familiar -

375  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 68 factory air cars on: May 23, 2013, 11:38:37 PM
Somehow, I knew you couldn't resist answering that one -

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 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 0.098 seconds with 18 queries.