CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2014, 08:47:49 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.
105585 Posts in 12331 Topics by 4753 Members
Latest Member: stpatrick
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
31  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Rear Brake Standard Diameter on: February 11, 2014, 07:23:56 AM
For what it's worth, I found the article below which states that the maximum allowable inner diameter of the drum was not cast into the drum until 1971. Don't know whether or not this is true.

Bob
32  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Rear Brake Standard Diameter on: February 11, 2014, 06:56:36 AM
Thanks Gary. I am indeed referring to the drum not the wheel cylinder. I too, thought that the maximum rebore diameter would also be on the drum but unless I'm totally missing it, it's not on the drum. The only thing I've found is a part number and a (casting date?) code. See pics below.

Thanks,

Bob
33  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Rear Brake Standard Diameter on: February 10, 2014, 09:23:05 PM
Does anyone know what the standard (inside) diameter of a '68 rear brake drum is? The Service manual states that it can be rebored 0.020" over the standard bore but I could not find what dimension the standard bore is.

Thanks,

Bob
34  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: '68 SS Emblem with Standard Grill on: February 02, 2014, 08:25:30 AM
Thanks Darrell. Your emblem looks identical to my original (first pic below). I've always assumed that this emblem was incorrect and a reproduction since there is no casting number on it. It was mounted using the small bracket shown in the picture.

The NOS emblem I have (2nd pic), which I thought was for a 68 is p/n 3981921 with casting number 3982043. In reply 7 of this thread it was reported that this emblem is used on a 69-71 Camaro. The studs on this emblem are about 1/2 inch longer than my original and came with the larger mounting bracket. HBC sells a 68 replacement emblem, which according to their website replaces the 69-71 emblem with these numbers. So then what is the difference between the 68 and 69-71 emblems?

From a functional point of view the NOS emblem (69-71) is acceptable and will look and fit just fine but the backing plate is still a mystery.

Is your emblem mounted using the small bracket or large bracket? Also, do you know if it is the original emblem to the car?

Thanks,

Bob
35  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Correct finish for T-400 switch Bracket on: January 13, 2014, 08:08:52 PM
Is this the part you are referring to?

Bob
36  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Subframe markings? on: January 08, 2014, 01:34:42 PM
I didn't find the yellow ink stampings but I did find the orange stripe on my '68 Norwood 01C car which I recreated during the subframe restoration.

Bob
37  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Maintenance / Re: Rockchester Quadrajet vendor suggestions on: December 20, 2013, 06:24:03 AM
I also have a '68 396/325 with AT. I purchased my carb from Custom Rebuilt Carbs (http://www.customrebuiltcarbs.com) a few years ago. Not cheap but it is correct correct in every way right down to the date code. Ask for Phil. A very nice and knowledgable guy.

Good luck!

Bob
38  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: '68 L35 4-Leaf Rear Springs on: December 10, 2013, 11:00:33 AM
Ed,

Thanks for the quick reply and link. It was a good read.

It's also good to know that there are other BB SS cars with the 4-leaf setup. I thought mine might have been the oddball but I guess it all depends on what was originally installed on the car. 

Bob
39  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / '68 L35 4-Leaf Rear Springs on: December 09, 2013, 09:44:11 PM
I need to replace the rear leaf springs on my '68 SS L35, M40, non AC car since two of the springs are broken on both the passenger and drivers side. The springs are original to the car and of the 4-leaf design. After cleaning the springs I uncovered the markings in the picture below. Can anyone decipher what spring code the markings may designate?

I understand that it was possible for a '68 L35 to have either a 4 or 5 leaf design according to the CRG:

"Generally, Z28's used 4-leaf springs and the other multi-leaf spring applications used 5-leaf springs. However, the use of 4-leaf springs was not limited to just 68-69 Z28's. Spring selection was a function of weight and options - and this was fine-tuned in 1969. SS, LM1, L65, and COPO cars with 4-leaf springs are possible according to factory documentation and they have been observed on original SS, LM1, and L65 cars."

HBC sells a 4-leaf spring and from what I've read, are nearly dead ringers for the originals, although they do state that the 4 leaf springs were typically used on the Z/28 or G31 suspension:(http://www.heartbeatcitycamaro.com/store/product/16815/Camaro-Leaf-springs-4-leaf-correct-1968-1969/)

I realize that there were many different leaf springs used in '68 but I want to make sure that the car sits at the right height and handles correctly. So before I plunk down $450, was it unusual for a '68 SS L35 to have the 4-leaf and not the 5-leaf design? Has anyone purchased these springs for use in a '68 SS L35 and can share their thoughts on fit, function and appearance?

Thanks,

Bob
40  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: 69 upper ball joint rivets on: December 01, 2013, 11:09:20 PM
Chick,

Still no activity on e-bay. I've sent him an e-mail approximately two weeks ago. No reply. I'm not sure if he is still offering this service.

Bob
41  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: '68 SS Emblem with Standard Grill on: November 09, 2013, 12:56:08 PM
Thank you very much! I was hoping someone had some parts books to verify the numbers.

I guess that clears up what I have. Now I'm wondering what the difference is between the '69-'71 version and the '68 version? HBC advertises that the '68 version replaces the '69-71 version. Doesn't make any sense to me.

http://www.heartbeatcitycamaro.com/store/product/18564/Camaro-SS-Grille-emblem-w-std-grille-1968/
42  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: First attempt at Zinc Plating on: November 08, 2013, 10:27:05 PM
Mike - I don't think it'll be big enough for the Z-Bar. The pot measures 9 inches deep by 13 inches wide. This is the problem I'm having with the hood spring assembly. I haven't found a pot large enough to handle them unless you pay an arm and a leg for a large stainless steel one. For the price you'd pay for a pot that size it would be cheaper to send the part out phosphating. I thought about getting an immersion heater and using a heavy plastic type container but the cost of an immersion heater that will go up to 200 degree F also gets very pricey.
43  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: First attempt at Zinc Plating on: November 08, 2013, 10:02:06 PM
Mike - Just a quick follow up from my previous post. Attached are a couple of pictures of the springs that I used the manganese phosphate on. As you can see, the manganese solution produces a slighter darker finish.
44  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: First attempt at Zinc Plating on: November 07, 2013, 11:26:41 PM
Thanks Mike. It took me a while to find a big enough container but believe it or not I finally found a 21 quart stock pot at Walmart for $22 that was just big enough to handle the whole latch assembly. It has a ceramic type finish which is important since you don't want to use a container that will wind up being coated with the phosphating solution (e.g. galvanized steel or aluminum). With a container this size just be prepared for a long heat up time (about 30 minutes) to bring it up to the proper phosphating temperature (approx. 200 degrees F).

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Granite-Ware-21-qt-Stock-Pot-with-Lid/17165786

I used the Palmetto zinc phosphate solution on the assembly which gives it the proper gray appearance. For the two springs located on each side of the assembly I used the Palmetto manganese phosphate solution which results in a more darker finish, almost black in appearance. I'll try to snap a few pictures tomorrow to show you the end result.

Now if I can only find a big enough container to phosphate the hood spring assembly I'll be a happy guy.  Grin
45  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Restoration / Re: First attempt at Zinc Plating on: November 07, 2013, 09:01:06 PM
I just completed my lower hood latch assembly using the Palmetto phosphate. I'm very pleased with the results.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
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 0.087 seconds with 18 queries.