CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 28, 2014, 03:35:59 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.
102437 Posts in 12088 Topics by 4667 Members
Latest Member: hrascoll
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38
541  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 302 engine build piston recomendations on: September 12, 2012, 07:07:19 PM
I agree with tmodel - Speed Pro makes good stuff, research point-of-origin for where they come out of, and I believe they purchased/merged the TRW Automotive Group parts division when TRW got out from under it. Still, if you can find a set of used +.030 L2210's, I would buy them if it was me - still hard to beat good 'ole TRW pistons.
Good luck - hope you find a worthy set.

Regards,
Steve
542  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 302 engine build piston recomendations on: September 11, 2012, 09:17:19 PM
First design 302 pistons used the narrow ring, '67 up to very early '68, when it was changed to the wider ring groove/second design piston. I'm pretty sure as I have the .030 over early '68 design in my '68 Z engine on the stand (hand filed the rings myself) - like yours, it won't see that many miles, so I decided to use them. They look different (see Jerry's book if you haven't already) but I like 'em. Second design 302 pistons used the wider ring, obviously, plus floating pins instead of press fits. I was fortunate enough to buy a NOS '68-9 set from GM right after they were discoed - wish I could have bought a bunch of them.
Biggest difference between the hypereutectics and the forged piston is piston growth - the cast pistons don't expand near as much as the forged ones under use, and are more stable/seal better in the bore, and don't require as near as large of a bore (read as skirt clearance), therefore less blowby. On the other hand, as was mentioned, I don't trust them at the higher rpm ranges (piston manufacturers would probably not want to hear that from anyone !)
The third set of 302 pistons I have is a set of forged Manley 12.5:1's - I actually ran them on the street in the 302 for nearly 30K miles - of course, I was putting 100+ octane leaded Union 76 gas in the tank at the time - '73-'75. The look exactly like the std. GM 302 pistons, except taller dome, and were floaters themselves. Made a liar out of my machinist - he said I'd pound the mains out of it within 10K miles - bearings still look brand new - plus you could have probably run kerosene in it and it wouldn't have complained.
Just some opinions -
543  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Original 69 SS coupe and vert Jacking Instructions 3949515 sticker on: September 09, 2012, 10:05:34 PM
Brian,

   And you thought your jacking instructions were in bad shape ? Check out mine (03C Z11, YJ wheels). I have to go uncover my X77 and see what the instructions look like (15" YH, original Endura car). Original jack is still with the car as well -

Regards,
Steve
544  Orphans - documentation or VIN-stamped drivetrains - in search of the original cars / 1969 - Orphans / Re: Orphaned block 19N571318 on: September 09, 2012, 09:27:13 PM
Amazingly sharp eyes - as many hours/years as I have spent going through the Definitive book, I never thought to look at the window stickers (or shippers) to see if it matched. That's almost as good of a detective job as Jerry locating the 'Old Reliable' '68.

Yes, it is a JH, standard bore - now you also know why I was a little cagey in releasing that info. If we could only find the car (intact), maybe the current (legit, and only legit) owner would like to deal for the original block - wonder where Jerry got the window sticker copy ?

Great job - BTW, if the car is gone, this block will reside in my '69 L78 Cortez original SS someday - the original block is damaged (makes a good 500 pound Protect-O-Plate). Got both blocks with the car when I bought it -

Regards,
Steve
545  Orphans - documentation or VIN-stamped drivetrains - in search of the original cars / 1969 - Orphans / Re: Orphaned block 19N571318 on: September 06, 2012, 10:23:47 PM
I'll try to get to it this weekend - I have it buried in the garage, but the corner of the block above the filter is visible enough to see the VIN.
Curious about the info you have uncovered - could you determine if it's a coupe or convertible ? You really have my interest up a notch -

Regards,
Steve
546  Orphans - documentation or VIN-stamped drivetrains - in search of the original cars / 1969 - Orphans / Re: Orphaned block 19N571318 on: August 28, 2012, 06:52:32 PM
Quite possibly - if the car is still around, it would be a nice thing to reunite this one. Wouldn't mind it coming here to meet the engine and get acquainted.
547  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: 69 headlight bezels on: August 09, 2012, 09:46:03 PM
If you were looking at the part number as cast directly into the trim rings on the back side (recess) area, they do have a "BC" in front of the part number, at least the ones do that I have in the pile.
548  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: 69 Camaro headlight bezels on: August 09, 2012, 09:12:56 PM
Indeed, they should have the part number on the inside of the bezel, in the recess where the chrome ring rivets (bradded) to the plastic. Part number is preceeded by "BC-". I have a whole stack of used rings, plus NOS chrome trim and plain plastic pairs. All of them are argent silver in color, with the exception of a black pair, and I can see argent under the black. I can provide a pic if you need one, but I'll have to wait for some better lighting conditions - pretty hard to focus on the number in a poorly lit garage.
Regards,
Steve
549  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct '69 A/C Restoration on: August 07, 2012, 11:06:33 PM
There are no insulation pads left on this hose set - fittings and hose are in decent shape, but no insulation left when I bought it. Fitting is dated "1", which I would imagine means '71. Configuration is right, but I cannot find the part number listed in my '74-back printing GM parts books. I included the pics as the set is complete and an original. It also looks better than the hacked-together evap hose on my Z11. Likely a service replacement, or warranty item.
Regards,
Steve
550  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct '69 A/C Restoration on: August 06, 2012, 09:25:09 PM
Couple of pics of my spare set for the Pacer. Look right ?
551  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Need help identifying distributor shaft for 1111467 distributor on: August 05, 2012, 10:56:57 PM
Roger,

   No problem. I checked the shaft of the 499 that I have apart - 100% original just like the 467 before disassembly - it's stamped "163". I'll check the 480 when I can get to it - I'll report on it too. Anyone else out there with a number, please check in -

Regards,
Steve
552  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Need help identifying distributor shaft for 1111467 distributor on: August 05, 2012, 08:09:56 PM
Sorry it took a while to respond to this - I recently took my 467 apart (from the condition and appearance I believe I'm the first to do this). It has the 532 cam, and the shaft is marked "48" under the plate on the end of the shaft (see grainy pic). It does not correspond to the listed part number in my parts manual, which should be the same for all 3 years of 302's - 1969762. Since you've got my curiousity started, I'm going to look at my 480 and 499 shafts to see what marking is on them.

P.S. I forgot to add the springs and weights part numbers - 1969107 springs for 67-68 302's. weights were 2 possibilities - 1880902 (67-68 Camaro exc. 327,4BC 350) or 1965843 (68 Camaro w/ Sp. H/Per, 327, also 66-70 350 w/A.I.R., pass 396, 68 Chevy Camaro 350 exc. PG). If I can find any markings on the weights, I'll post them too -
553  Orphans - documentation or VIN-stamped drivetrains - in search of the original cars / 1969 - Orphans / Orphaned block 19N571318 on: August 05, 2012, 07:25:50 PM
Attention 19N571318 Camaro owner - your block is taking up space on my engine stand.
554  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: fw wheels abd trim rings on: August 04, 2012, 01:19:01 PM
You are correct - I have no way of determining what when on with the trim rings in the 2 years/miles before I was familiar with the car. Totally residential storage with the owner before me (I went to high school with him) - I bought it while I was going to college, and used to park this car on the street and go home in my girlfriend's '64 Dodge beater (less strain on the Z for sure). I did pull the derbys and the rings off of it whenever I did park it for a weekend - but no alarm, or any other protection for the car other than door locks. Looking back on it now, it's a miracle it was never stolen or molested. The YH wheels could have disappeared, which would be a major financial setback nowadays. Car, by the way, is a January build - 01C.
One thing I do remember very well - I did not have to use a blade to remove them - just pull on the edge and work around until they popped off, derbys were even easier. I never lost one since I bought the car due to potholes or theft, which out to be some kind of record. Stupid gripper rings do a number on the paint finish on the rims - I still have not restored them.
I have never seen any identification marks on the trims - other than "feel" I don't have a reliable way of telling OEM from repops.
Anyone else have a clue ?
Sorry to digress, Bill - easy to get wound up on a topic and get off course.
Regards,
Steve
555  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: fw wheels abd trim rings on: July 29, 2012, 04:14:07 PM
The "recall" came from a post in the forum I read the other day. I never heard about a recall, and I've owned my '69 X77 Z since 1973, serviced it for a year and a half at the Union 76 station I worked at before I bought it. The trim rings and derbys, which I so carefully removed when it was parked on the street (when I was at school), are original to the car at least as far back as '71, and they are not 4 clip rings. By the way, all 5 YH wheels are still with the car, too - I resisted the urge to put aftermarkets on it, same as I didn't give in to the fad at the time and cut the roof for aftermarket Hurst T tops.
The only other scenario as to why the rings are "grippers" on my car would have had to have been a recall - or they are originals. 41K miles on it when I bought it for $1600, with Goodyear Polyglas GT's (second set) on car. The wheels have only ever had three sets of tires on them, stored since 1980. Rims are unrestored.
Like I said, this was an opinion, not an argument, based on my experience. If someone has additional info on a recall, silent or not, please chime in.
Regards,
Steve
Pages: 1 ... 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 0.078 seconds with 18 queries.