CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 29, 2014, 11:06:43 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.
103633 Posts in 12180 Topics by 4697 Members
Latest Member: greygoose01
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7
76  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Big Block Distributor Hold Down Clamp on: July 17, 2013, 02:09:15 PM
Thanks Mike.

Ed-The engine is a January '68 build. Don't know the exact date since I'm not in frontbofbit at the moment.

Thanks,

Bob
77  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Big Block Distributor Hold Down Clamp on: July 17, 2013, 01:18:02 PM
Ed,

Thank you very much! Very helpful indeed.

I have both the wire clamp and the stamped clamp in my stash of parts, hence my question on which one was correct.

My car is an 01D build so from the info you've provided it looks like it could be a toss up on which one to use. Now, if I go with the wire clamp version what finish would it have gotten? Would it have the overspray from when the engine was painted (assuming of course that the distributor and clamp was installed prior to the engine being paint)?

Thanks,

Bob
78  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Big Block Distributor Hold Down Clamp on: July 16, 2013, 09:06:19 PM
Which hold down clamp is correct for a '68 396/325? The wire type or the plate type?

Thanks,

Bob
79  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: BB Timing Chain Cover on: July 15, 2013, 03:22:25 PM
Ed,

Excellent. Thank you very much.

Some where in the previous ownership of my car the service replacement cover and bolt on timing tab was installed. Today I just scored a purchase of the 7" version with the timing tab welded on so all is well.

Thanks for providing the examples.

Bob
80  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / BB Timing Chain Cover on: July 15, 2013, 08:26:21 AM
Did the timing chain cover for a '68 396/325 have the timing tab welded on the cover or did it use a two piece design (cover plus bolt-on tab)? I believe the two piece design was for replacement covers only but not 100% sure.


Thanks,

Bob
81  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Research Topics & Reports / Re: Original 67-69 Camaro driveshafts - information requested about your car on: July 09, 2013, 11:52:21 AM
John,

Yes. Needless to say, I was extremely surprised to see the pins when I pulled the driveshaft out during my restoration. I quickly began my search to try to figure out what was going on and ran across across this thread:

http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=8333.0

Of course I can't say with 100% certainty that this is the original born-with driveshaft, but I can assure you that in my 35 years of owning this car the driveshaft has never been removed. The other thing that I found odd was that the date code (0207) on my rear axle tube is one week after the build date (01D) of the car. Again, I found this odd and from what my research has found, GM had a strike right around the time my car was built and may have resulted in some parts being delayed from their suppliers. I also found this issue on my brake booster which is date 038. Could some parts have been changed during previous ownership? Maybe, but from what I'm uncovering during my restoration there are a few more parts that seem out of sequence with the build date of the car. I'd be curious to know what others have found with cars built around this time frame.
82  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Shock Absorber Nut on: June 19, 2013, 05:36:27 PM

Thought I would provide a quick follow-up posting to this thread with the hopes it may benefit someone else who went down the same path I did.

I ordered the superseded shock nut (p/n 3866766) mentioned earlier in the thread from the local Chevy dealer. The nut in the attached image is what I received today. It's pretty darn close to the nuts from some of the images posted from others. The thickness measures .371". It's difficult to tell but it does not appear to be zinc plated.

This is what I'm going to use which brings me a whole lot closer to what was originally used versus the nuts I picked up earlier.

Bob
83  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Shock Absorber Nut on: June 15, 2013, 05:03:47 PM
Gary,

You're right! I was unaware that the Camaro Nationals had seperated from Carlisle.  That explains why the past couple of years I've noticed a dramatic decline in the number of Camaro's at Carlisle. I was going to take Friday off to go to Carlisle but now I may have rethink my plans.

Thanks for the info!

Bob
84  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Shock Absorber Nut on: June 15, 2013, 11:10:34 AM
Ed,

I was referring to the GM Nationals at Carlisle next week. Always a bunch of great cars there to look at.

http://www.ifounditatcarlisle.com/ce/events/gm-nationals/

Bob
85  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Shock Absorber Nut on: June 15, 2013, 10:54:43 AM
Many thanks to all for the replies.

Looks like zinc plating is the consensus. I think I'll run down to the local Chevy dealer on Monday and order a handful of the superseded part number and see what they look like. Hopefully it'll be a zinc plated nut without the bevel and dimensionally correct.

Thanks,

Bob
86  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Shock Absorber Nut on: June 15, 2013, 09:07:56 AM
Thanks Mike. I think we're getting closer.

With what both you and Ed have found, it would appear that a "standard" 5/16" nut was used, albeit without the bevel.

I guess the only remaining question is whether or not this nut was cad plated or zinc plated.

Thanks,

Bob
87  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Shock Absorber Nut on: June 15, 2013, 06:57:22 AM
Ed,

Very interesting!

So it looks like the nut is a "standard" thickness (5/16") nut but with no bevel.

I ran across this Grade 8 yellow zinc plated nut (yes, I know major overkill!) at Pep Boys last night. I realize that is not cad plated and in light of your recent post, has the bevel on it but it gets me a little bit closer in appearance to having the correct nut.

I suppose I could go to my local Chevy dealer and order the superseded nut, strip the plating and then have it cad plated. I was just hoping for an easier solution.  Sad

Carlisle is only a week away so I'll have a look at some cars there to see what is being used.

Maybe other members could also chime in and post what is on their car.

Many thanks for all your help!

Bob
88  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Re: Shock Absorber Nut on: June 14, 2013, 08:41:44 PM
Thanks Ed. Yes, I did see that it was superseded but was not aware that it was cad plated.

Do you know if this nut is the short "jam" style nut (which measures  approx. .221 inches thick) or is it a standard nut (which measures approx. .323 inches thick)?

Thanks,

Bob
89  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Decoding/Numbers / Shock Absorber Nut on: June 14, 2013, 12:00:58 PM
I was just about ready to install my front spiral shocks and realized that I don't have the nut that attaches the top of the shock to the subframe. On page 61 of the '68 AIM, it lists this nut as part number 1365067. I looked in the AMK catalog and unfortunately they don't list it. I already have the grommets and retainers so all I need is the nut.

Does anyone know what the dimensions and finish are of this nut? Anything special about it?
90  Camaro Research Group Discussion / Originality / Re: Brake/Fuel Line Clip on: June 07, 2013, 10:21:04 PM
Many thanks Mike and Chic! You've both been a great help. Very much appreciate it.

Time to buy some clips and some of the Palmetto concentrate and have some fun. Grin
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 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 0.263 seconds with 18 queries.