Messages

46

Originality / Re: Under-Dash Heater Box

« on: June 12, 2018, 02:11:29 AM »

Here are a couple of pictures of my restored heater box using SEM Texture Coating #39853. As Chick pointed out, I just cleaned up the box and gave it a light coat of paint. I'm very pleased with the results.

47

Originality / Re: Under-Dash Heater Box

« on: June 11, 2018, 12:20:59 AM »

Since the texture on mine was not disturbed by any sanding or damage it just needed a fresh coat of paint to give it the new look.

Yes. Agreed Chick. That’s exactly what I did on mine as well. Just a light mist coat of the SEM paint really brought it back to life.

I’ll let when you know when I’m headed down your way. Waiting for that phone call from East Coast Muscle any day now. 😁

Bob

48

Originality / Re: Under-Dash Heater Box

« on: June 10, 2018, 07:17:48 PM »

So, What is the spray bomb equivalent, avail to replicate this or are we back to the Dash Paint scenario?

I used SEM Texture Coating #39853. Duplicates the original finish perfectly. I’m not home for the next couple of days but will snap some pictures and post them when I get back.

Bob

49

Originality / Re: TH400 filler tube

« on: June 10, 2018, 01:10:53 AM »

Here are a couple of pictures from my '68 TH400. The tube is round with a slight "D" shape to it. Note that the dipstick also has a corresponding "D" shape. The diameter is 0.689.

I think you're dipstick has been messed with.

Hope this helps!

Bob

50

General Discussion / Re: Reproduction consoles for 68 Camaro

« on: May 02, 2018, 02:27:02 AM »

I bought my repro for my ‘68 from HBC. Good fit, all the holes and threads were perfect. The only complaint I have is that technically the bottom shell for a ‘68 is different than the bottom shell for a ‘69. In ‘69 the front of the bottom shell has a cutout for the console wiring to pass thru. In ‘68 the wires ran under the shell. All of the repro consoles have standardized on the ‘69 design

Bob

51

Originality / Re: 68 camaro with console floor shifter

« on: May 02, 2018, 12:09:01 AM »

Interesting observation - and both versions of the AIM reference the same assembly number (3920267) for the shifter bracket/lever, so they should be identical. Also the '69 AIM page notes the increase from 3 holes to 4 in the revision record box.

Tim, Yes. I saw that also. My shifter has never been out of the car till now and the rivnuts are clearly factory installed so I can only assume that at some point during production it went from three bolts to four and the AIM never got updated.

52

Originality / Re: 68 camaro with console floor shifter

« on: May 01, 2018, 11:44:53 AM »

And another of the trans tunnel showing the factory installed Rivnuts.

Bob

53

Originality / Re: 68 camaro with console floor shifter

« on: May 01, 2018, 11:43:53 AM »

The shifter in my '68 is mounted with 4 bolts. The '68 AIM is wrong. Here is a pic of my shifter with the 4 bolts highlighted by the red circles.


Hope this helps!

Bob

54

Originality / Re: 68 Camaro TH400 with console shifter cable

« on: April 14, 2018, 10:01:18 PM »

Here are a couple of pictures of my '68 BB TH400 "born with" shifter cable. Note that the grommet seals against the floor with three tabs.

Bob

55

Restoration / Re: Posi tag on rear before or after painting

« on: December 31, 2017, 06:04:19 PM »

Thanks Ed.

So let me see if I understand this correctly....

1. All ‘67-‘69 tags should have the period after “DIFF” regardless of the diameter of the threaded portion of the plug.

2. The diameter being referred to by many of the repro suppliers is the diameter of the hole in the tag not the diameter of the threaded portion of the plug. For example HBC (http://www.heartbeatcitycamaro.com/store/category/11/212/Rear-Axle-Parts/)

3. The tag being sold by Paragon (https://www.paragoncorvette.com/p-359540-rear-differential-carrier-tag-posi-traction.aspx) has the period after “DIFF” but with the larger diameter tag hole which, for example, contradicts what the Camaro repro suppliers are advertising for the ‘68 and ‘69 tag. Did the Corvette use a different plug that would use the larger diameter tag hole? Will this tag work with the later 1/2” Camaro plug?

Sorry for the questions but I didn’t think a lousy period would cause me so much confusion.😁

Bob

56

Restoration / Re: Posi tag on rear before or after painting

« on: December 31, 2017, 02:26:47 PM »

Hmmmmm....ALL of the Camaro vendors sell a ‘68 and up tag with a 3/4” hole that have “Diff” without the period. Paragon sells one with the period but the hole looks to be 1”.

https://www.paragoncorvette.com/p-359540-rear-differential-carrier-tag-posi-traction.aspx

Did the ‘68 and up tag use a 3/4” or 1” hole? Is this a case where the Camaro repro parts are yet again wrong?

Bob

57

Restoration / Re: Posi tag on rear before or after painting

« on: December 31, 2017, 01:33:34 PM »

  I asked this a few years back and it was DIFF.

Mike,

Was it “DIFF.” for just ‘67 or was it that way for ‘68 and ‘69 as well?

Thanks,

Bob

58

Originality / Re: Original door mirror fame

« on: December 20, 2017, 11:49:06 PM »

Ed,

FYI, I posted some original and NOS Service Replace mirror pictures in Chick’s build thread on the TC site.

http://www.camaros.net/forums/133-build-projects/182584-time-another-68-z-28-restored-91.html

Bob

59

Originality / Re: Silver paint on 68 SS hood ornaments/louvers

« on: December 16, 2017, 02:47:54 AM »

Allen,

Here is a thread on the Team Camaro site which discusses hood louvers. I’ve posted a few pictures in the thread which may help answer some of your questions regarding the silver paint....

http://www.camaros.net/forums/34-restoration-corner/414474-nos-hood-louvers-3.html

Bob

60

Originality / Re: 396 Big Block Water Pump Back Plate, 68

« on: October 24, 2017, 11:22:39 PM »

Here is a picture of a "284" pump that I had. It was dated A256 (January 25 1966). Note that it has the flared outer lip and hex head bolts. Sorry but can't help you with the size and length of the bolt since I sold the pump a few years ago.

Hope this helps,

Bob