CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 29, 2014, 03:47:18 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.
102445 Posts in 12090 Topics by 4668 Members
Latest Member: Carbuff
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 38
511  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Identifying 1968 z28 oil pan on: November 25, 2012, 08:45:53 PM
Final two - can take more if you need additional profiles.

Regards,
Steve
512  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Identifying 1968 z28 oil pan on: November 25, 2012, 08:40:54 PM
Try these - I actually had better ones, but my stupid iPhone uses 2.5 mb for each picture. I'll give them to you in two replies -

Believe it - this pan has never been on an engine, the factory paint is terrible (molecule thin on one side), but I have resisted the urge to restore it because I have never seen another early number like this for sale - ever. Anyone else ever seen one like this ?

Regards,
Steve
513  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Correct Dip Stick Part Number on: November 25, 2012, 07:00:30 PM
Here's a couple of pics that might help. The instructions on the NOS 3974251 oil pan that I have calls for the service 3951576 stick, but my original "flattened" '69 stick is different, marked like all the previous threads, and looks different from both the 3876869 stick and 3896912 sticks shown on the attachment. Note the date on the instruction page - 2/69, and the reference to the 3951576.

BTW, all three of these sticks are identical in length, regardless of handle. The only thing I have not checked is the position of the markings relative to the end of the stick -

If you need any detailed pics, let me know. I just posted pics of the pan itself on a separate posting concerning '68 pan number and appearance -

Regards,
Steve
514  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Identifying 1968 z28 oil pan on: November 25, 2012, 06:41:18 PM
Guys,

Try these. Pan number 3974251, NOS pictured here, note date on the instruction sheet (2/69). Later pan that superceded this one was 465220 if I remember correctly. The three sticks pictured here are the '68 grey tip 3876869 (with tag), '69 crimped original from my '69 Z, and a "brown" tip 3896912. All are the same length, handles differ slightly.

More if you need it -

Regards,
Steve
515  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 9204 brake booster on ebay on: November 19, 2012, 09:03:39 AM
My 01C X77 booster (owned since 1973, removed from car in 1980) is dated "2" , 9204, small font, "Delco Morraine" upside down under the vacuum port , absolutely original to the car. Almost too good of shape to be sent out for replate - plating is faded but pretty decent (likely due to the fact it hasn't been on the car for 32 years).

Regards,
Steve
516  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 1967 SMALL Journal Crank...revisited on: November 13, 2012, 11:27:10 PM
The production guys in Van Nuys must have been party animals - note that the VIN stamp is upside down compared to the engine build code - guy should have checked his handle (orientation) flat before he stamped it; maybe he was in a rush to get out the door at the end of the shift.
 
517  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: How to spot a fake on: November 13, 2012, 10:30:13 PM
Did anyone ever tell you guys that you're pretty good ?

I looked at this series when it was first posted - I got real curious about the statement from Mark that the tag was a repop, so I compared it my known original X77 tag - I'm no expert, but I see what Mark was talking about - there are differences, very subtle, but there - whatever individual or company repopped the tag got pretty darn close - close enough to fool a lot of people I'm sure.

Just my opinion, but I agree with the general consensus. Bogus.
518  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 Z28 neg side terminal battery cable bolt on: November 06, 2012, 12:34:24 AM
Danny,

15 seconds in the Harbor Freight bead blast cabinet. I suppose it looks a little rough, but it ought to look dandy after replating. Note the bolt size is identical to the hex size.

Shame they don't make these anymore -

Regards,
Steve
519  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 Z28 neg side terminal battery cable bolt on: November 05, 2012, 07:03:50 PM
Danny - if you need this cable let me know - I won't be using it in all likelihood since I can't be sure of the number for my application -
Regards,
Steve
520  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Best source for lower ball joint? on: November 05, 2012, 03:06:10 PM
Gentlemen,

Be careful no matter what the box or the bearing/part country-of-origin says - I have at least two major bearing plants in my area that I have called on for years - they are the first to tell you that some of their parts and operations go overseas, some of which may be sent back to the states to be assembled to qualify as "Made in the USA". I won't name names, but you can read between the lines.

I don't want to get myself in trouble, but the trouble is corporate greed - that and NAFTA. We'll all be working at fast food establishments if this "global labor" doesn't even up - we've lost too many plants, too many jobs to cheap (and shoddy) labor overseas or across the border. Maybe when gas gets to $6.00 a liter in China, we can have some parity - but then again, they've got so much of our money and production over there already, $6.00, $7.00 or $8.00 a liter may be cheap to them -

Just my opinion - sorry to digress.

521  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 Z28 neg side terminal battery cable bolt on: November 05, 2012, 02:35:20 PM
Danny,

  The cable I have is a 5/16 hex X 5/16 bolt, as far as I can tell. Part number as embossed on the side of the cable is 8901871PV, which does not show in my '73 parts book, nor is it still valid with GM as a current number. This cable was attached to the radiator support of my 12A(1968) '69 L78 when I brought it home. Since I can't verify the number, I can't be sure that it is an original (to the car) cable - any other learned opinions out there ?

Regards,
Steve
522  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 1969 Z28 neg side terminal battery cable bolt on: November 04, 2012, 11:20:02 PM
Danny,

Curious - does it look similar to this ? This cable was in my '69 L78 when I got it home - I've always wondered if it was an original (to the car) cable - it is a GM, no doubt -

Regards,
Steve
523  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Were roads salted in Union City TN on: November 04, 2012, 10:47:56 PM
Lawrence,

No problem. How long was it registered in TN ? Two of my cars ('68 and '69 Z'z) were sold new here in TN and have remained here ever since - both are fairly well preserved, considering that they both were used as daily drivers from new. My '69 has been garaged since 1980, when I retired it from the street, but the '68 was not retired until about 1996 from active duty. Both subframes are in really good condition, with light surface rust only. Up until a couple of years ago, the DOT in Tennessee would copy all of the on-file documents for a "native" TN vehicle for a $15.00 flat fee, and give them to you (how I came by my dealer invoices and MSO's on both vehicles), but they have ceased doing that as "they don't have the manpower to go through the microfiche files". Hopefully you have the POP or documentation for the 'Vette - at least you have the dealer info.

Regards,
Steve
524  Camaro Research Group Discussion / General Discussion / Re: Were roads salted in Union City TN on: November 03, 2012, 09:52:40 PM
Lawrence,

    I have lived all of my short (59) life in Tennessee - I can tell you for certain that very few roads were salted in TN until not too awfully long ago - even then, it was interstate highways for the most part, rural towns usually don't have salt equipment. Large cities like Nashville do have their own, but still on a smaller scale than most northern states. I lived just east of Nashville (but still in the Metro Nashville area) in the 60's until the mid 70's, and non-state-route roads were never salted at all - you just had to wait for the weather to warm up enough to melt the ice/snow (and yes, we used to get decent snows here in the 60's and 70's). My 69 Z was sold new in Nashville, I bought it in '73, and it is still in pretty decent shape for a street car (I drove it back and forth to school in Knoxville, interstate 187 miles one way from my parent's house, for several years, and it's still pretty much rust free in spite of my abuse to it).

Regards,
Steve
525  Orphans - documentation or VIN-stamped drivetrains - in search of the original cars / 1969 - Orphans / Re: Orphaned block 19N571318 on: October 31, 2012, 09:38:44 PM
(Reply to Kurt's question of what's wrong with my original block)

Happy Halloween - here's some stills from my latest horror classic -

Explanation - #4 cylinder breezeway. Note the details of: nice view of the #6 cylinder wall internally, the lifters still stuck in their respective bores, the new trapdoor from the lifter valley into the water jacket, the remaining half of the cam still jammed in the cam bore, with lifters still in place. One heck of an explosion - must haver been running something mixed in with the premium gas, like nitro. Either that, or the cylinder hydrauliced. Bet the driver was mildly surprised, especially if the intake came off of it a couple of inches.

Amazing fact - as bad as the destruction is/was, somebody was smart enough to keep the block with the car -

Sympathy donations accepted !

Regards,
Steve
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 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 0.085 seconds with 18 queries.