CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 30, 2015, 05:55:18 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.
109285 Posts in 12657 Topics by 4866 Members
Latest Member: jamejia1967
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
46  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
47  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
48  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
49  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/
50  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.
51  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.
52  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
53  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.
54  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Lower Hood Latch Springs on: October 28, 2013, 08:16:17 PM
Thanks Chick. I've been using the Palmetto phosphate solutions so I think I'll use the (gray) zinc phosphate on the assembly and the (charcoal black) manganese phosphate on the springs.

Thanks,

Bob
55  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Lower Hood Latch Springs on: October 28, 2013, 01:07:30 PM
Yes. I agree that the parts most likely had some sort of corrosion protection prior to assembly. Black phosphate also seems to make the most sense.

Many thanks for the quick replies.
56  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Lower Hood Latch Springs on: October 28, 2013, 12:12:58 PM
Thanks for your reply. I indeed have searched the forum and did find the links in your posting. However, my question is in regards to the springs shown in the photo's (lower hood latch assembly) in my original posting not the spring in the upper latch hood latch assembly.

I do have Jerry M's book and reference is only made to the hood latch assembly and hood latch assembly spring (presumably the upper). I already have restored the upper latch assembly per the finishes in the book but did find reference to the springs used in the lower latch assembly. Hence my original question.

Thanks
57  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Lower Hood Latch Springs on: October 27, 2013, 08:52:33 PM
I'm about ready to phosphate the lower hood latch assembly and was wondering if anyone knows what the correct finish is on the two springs used in this assembly.

Thanks,

Bob
58  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Oil Pan Bolt on: October 17, 2013, 11:47:33 AM
Perfect! Many thanks.
59  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Oil Pan Bolt on: October 17, 2013, 04:36:07 AM
Yes. Sorry. Should have been more clearer in question.
60  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Oil Pan Bolt on: October 16, 2013, 10:01:55 PM
Was the oil pan bolt installed prior to the engine being painted? If so, presumably the correct finish for the bolt is that it was painted. This is for a '68 BB.

Thanks,

Bob
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
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 0.086 seconds with 18 queries.