CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 06, 2015, 07:12:16 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.
110510 Posts in 12765 Topics by 4892 Members
Latest Member: jvc7450
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 46
541  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
542  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
543  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
544  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
545  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
546  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
547  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. 
548  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
549  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
550  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 -   
551  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 4053 Carb question. on: February 27, 2013, 08:52:55 PM
Found it -
552  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
553  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 4053 Carb question. on: February 27, 2013, 09:21:00 AM
Gary,

5583 and 4519 on all of them. Including the service carb. 4346 - 375 horse carb takes the same ones - that's why I parted it out.

Regards,
Steve
554  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 4053 Carb question. on: February 26, 2013, 10:35:28 PM
Last 2 -
555  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 4053 Carb question. on: February 26, 2013, 10:33:48 PM
Additional pics -
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 46
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 0.114 seconds with 18 queries.