CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 17, 2014, 04:38:24 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.
107433 Posts in 12500 Topics by 4810 Members
Latest Member: rustoleumm
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 44
511  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 67-Distributor Fake or Real.... learn & stop this crap on: March 14, 2013, 11:57:08 PM
I don't think that is what he means. If WILMA is selling a restamp he will state that, but if it is real he will state that as well.

Gary - I tend to agree with you. I have noticed wilma99's auctions for years - when he restamps one, he usually states it to be a restamp. There are two of these 170's on eBay right now, and they appear the same in font and markings. You can never be sure (I'm no expert, either; I can usually spot the obvious restamps), but Jerry can probably give the skinny on this if he sees it -

Just my opinion -
Steve
512  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 3 Speed Auto Steering Column to 4 Speed on the floor Question on: March 14, 2013, 11:34:45 PM
In my opinion, I would pull the original column out and keep it intact, put a donor column in, or upgrade (which is really the best case) to a tilt column. You can pick up a non-tilt one for a floor shift fairly inexpensively, just takes patience and looking. I know a tilt column is pricey, but in my case, this old body just doesn't seem to slide so easily behind the wheel of the old Huggers any more.

Depends also on how original you want the look to be - your linkage is going to change, depending on if you use a factory style Hurst reverse lock out. Bellcrank may work, but you'll have to look up the parts to decide the differences. Shouldn't be terribly difficult -

Regards,
Steve

P.S. Check out eBay auction #321088117709 - Canadian, but looks pretty decent, good price so far, no bids. Good luck -
( I should qualify the Canadian statement before I catch heck - I only meant North of the Border for shipping considerations !)
513  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: 302 valve setting with roller rockers on: March 09, 2013, 08:27:28 PM
Hard thing to reason - either you can't learn everything, or can't remember everything. Must be the latter, 'cause I forgot which is more important.

I went back and looked up the ratio and the rocker part numbers - I agree completely. My parts book says the 302 "0" rockers and the 350 rockers were one in the same, I always thought they were different. I had been thinking about using rollers anyway instead of the stamped 1.6 rockers I bought for the '68; I think this has made my mind up.

Regards,
Steve
514  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: 302 valve setting with roller rockers on: March 08, 2013, 10:36:36 PM
Randy/John,

I thought the original rocker arm ratio for the '69 302 was 1.6:1 ? Low Perf at 1.5:1 ? Am I having another senior moment ? I realize that has nothing to do with the lash specs, but I used to think the ratio was changed somewhere along the early years to the 1.6 -
please correct me if I'm wrong.

Regards,
Steve
515  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Another Tonawanda Z on: March 08, 2013, 10:12:47 AM
Noticed this one was removed from auction - wonder if it sold, or just removed for further tweaking ? Pretty car, but details like the shroud warning tag are an instant flag that someone didn't complete their homework assignment -

Regards,
Steve
516  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Camaro on Ebay on: March 06, 2013, 08:56:42 AM
Car has been listed 3 times now.
Surely a fair bit of shill bidding going on;
First auction ended December 14, 2012 - 48 bids, "sold" for $31,001
Relisted, Second auction ended January 9, 2013 - 50 bids, "sold" for $32,500
Relisted, currently had 45 bids, reached $24,100
Each time, listing states "no reserve", so why doesn't it sell? Hmm....


I believe you hit the nail squarely on the head. To me, a sure sign of a ghost bidder is (for example) whoever the bidder on this auction is marked 3***i with 10 auctions to his/her credit, pushing the bid up $500.00 periodically. I watched an auction not long ago that happened just that way - guy was using a proxy seller, anybody can do the same thing. After a while, it may backfire on the seller occasionally, or it hangs until some unsuspecting bidder happens on it and falls for it. I imagine scenario that happens a lot. I hope they lose their collective shirts.

IMO,
Steve
517  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: 69 Z/28 Question on: March 03, 2013, 11:48:41 PM
Early/mid February. Engine build/car build was running pretty close in the early '69 production days, seems to average 1-2 weeks prior to car build in January - February. Post the VIN and it will help bracket the date -

Regards,
Steve
518  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Another Tonawanda Z on: March 03, 2013, 11:43:15 PM
My concern is the damage these misrepresentations due to our hobby - I guess there is nothing that can keep people from believing what they see as being correct, at least in their minds. Really a shame, but like anything else, it's "buyer beware" - whoever is top bidder on this car is going to have to work hard to get this thing turned into an original car. Probably gets a shock if and when he tries to sell it -

Steve
519  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Another Tonawanda Z on: March 02, 2013, 11:05:45 PM
A challenge - by my count 28 separate incorrect details with this car, minor to major. groups to individual details. The laundry list is large - how many can exist on the same vehicle ? I love the statement 'got the car from a old buddy who told him it was a real Z'. At least the seller asks you to make your own determination or interpretation of originality - and it's already bid to $19K. I'm in the wrong business - I should be selling F1's for a living - but I couldn't get past the obvious.

As always, my own opinions -

Regards,
Steve
520  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Muncie question M20 and M21 on: March 01, 2013, 05:45:46 PM
Best reason to use the close ratio is to keep the rpm's up in the power band in between shifts, especially using a 4:10 and up rear, but they work well with the 3.73's ( that's what my '68 has as a combination, my '69 is a 4.10, l78 is a 4.10). To answer your other question, you can sneak up on an input and a cluster gear sometimes fairly priced, or you can buy a new set (Italian built, I believe) for a nice higher price. Add the cost of a rebuild kit ($150.00 or so), and you have a good freshened M21. 
521  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Muncie question M20 and M21 on: March 01, 2013, 10:09:10 AM
Gary,

Why not replace the input and cluster gear ? That's the only difference in the M20/21 - a lot cheaper than trying to track down another M21 (and one without a VIN like your case is -). Does it work (date-wise) for your car ?

Regards,
Steve
522  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 4053 Carb question. on: February 27, 2013, 11:44:16 PM
I don't doubt it.

Good thing both of my Z's have good ones. I'm using the repop plate on the 4346 build - it started as a center section only anyway, and visually it looks pretty good. I need to check out the part number cast on the throttle plate to see if it matches the Holley parts listing I have. You do have to look pretty darn close to see the differences -

Regards,
Steve
523  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 4053 Carb question. on: February 27, 2013, 08:58:24 PM
"3496" should equate to the 349th day of '86, M6 on the box is probably December '86. Stored in the house since purchase, taking up space in my office until I finally decided to make the swap -   
524  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 4053 Carb question. on: February 27, 2013, 08:52:55 PM
Found it -
525  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 4053 Carb question. on: February 27, 2013, 08:46:15 PM
Gary,

I bought mine from Music City Rod Shop in Nashville sometime in the early to mid 80's - whenever I first saw them advertised by Holley as reproduction carbs. Strangest thing about it - carb was stamped 3923289 on the air horn, but did not have the DZ stamp. 4 digit date code (I'll see if I still have the pics when I sold it a few months back), but everything else, from the screws to the bowls, throttle linkage, choke plate and casting marks, is as you see it in the pics - dead on. The only differences were as I noted last night - throttle plate is slightly different, dashpot is straight. Everything else looks good (color is a little golden over the original greenish gold anodizing), plus the metering blocks are correct and marked for the 4346 L78 carb, which differs only in the vented fuel bowl that I can see. I'll check to see if I can find the date pics of the service carb.

Regards,
Steve
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 44
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.086 seconds with 18 queries.