CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 30, 2014, 03:10:35 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.
104939 Posts in 12262 Topics by 4727 Members
Latest Member: Z10 Paceman
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  Decoding/Numbers
| | |-+  67 RS/SS Muncie 4 Speed and 350 Block needed/questions
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [All] Print
Author Topic: 67 RS/SS Muncie 4 Speed and 350 Block needed/questions  (Read 11650 times)
rd67RSSS
Guest
« on: October 04, 2006, 02:36:40 PM »

I recently purchased a 67 RS/SS Convertible (ermine white, deluxe blue interior, 4-speed, blut topper)..... No its not a pace car but was made on 06C the same weeks as the canadian festival car....

I don't have the correct 350 or 4-speed and am seeking both.

The 350 would be a 1967   Code 3892657   (date coded March - Late May 67)

The 4-speed would be a M20....

I found a M20 in Atlanta thats case code is 3885010 which is 66-67...  The stamped area says:

P7C20 7?Huh

I'm assuming that means Muncie plant, March 20th, 1967?

What could the extra 7 mean... is that a mistake form the person reading the number?

Would that be the correct 4-speed for my application based on the car assembly code of 06C (June, 3rd week 67)?

Thanks!!!

And if anyone has a lead on either the correct 350 block or tranny please contact me.

Thanks.

Rick Hexemer
Lewiston, NY
716-308-2298
Logged
67ss350camaro
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 159



View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2006, 07:05:34 AM »

Rick,
  For a 06C car, I would say anywhere from mid Feb to mid June built engine would be good. The trans looks to be a lot closer to the build of the car during this time, so May to mid June would be good.

"What could the extra 7 mean... is that a mistake form the person reading the number?"

We have seen this before and it is not all that uncommon, but at this time we don't know if there is a meaning to it.

  I assume your car is a 2L 4P car?  Are you sure that it is an SS?  L30/M20 cars also were coded 2L 4P.  You might want to check a little farther before spending a lot of money on the drive train.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2006, 07:13:03 AM by 67ss350camaro » Logged

Daniel
CRG
67 RS/SS 350 auto (owned since 81.)
97 V6 5-speed Coupe (work car ordered new)
2012 1LS (V6 6-speed) Coupe (new work car)
My Camaro
rd67RSSS
Guest
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2006, 08:06:42 AM »

Daniel,

Thanks for the information!    Smiley

Yes, its a Norwood, 732-Z  2LG  3L  4P car  and also a convertible

I don't think the cars an L30/M20  327 as it shows signs that it had the following:

1.  Speedometer cable passthrough hole to the right of the steering column when your sitting in the car (this was for a Municie as opossed to a saginaw)
2.  Dual exhaust hangers on rear frame
3.  PC code 12 bolt that designated 3.31 350/4-speed
4.  Prior owner dating back to 1984 said it was an RS/SS

So I think it was an SS???

Is there something else I should check.

I have sent my VIN to GM archives yesterday and hopefully they will have some records/respond???

Thanks again.
Logged
rd67RSSS
Guest
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2006, 08:24:23 AM »

Daniel,

So you say the engine block and tranny date codes could be up to mid June (within a week of the car built date)?   

Or are you off a month and you meant mid May?

The car is an 06C, which is the 3rd week in June ....

I just want to be positive on what date codes are correct for for 06C car...

Thanks!


Would a February 10th block be OK.   Or what about a May 16th block?

I am being told that a 1967 327 with the same casting code as a 1967 350  (3892657) can be allign bored to allow the larger journal 350 crank to fit and this is all that GM did to the blocks in the factory.... The main caps are also all the same... 

Cost to allign bore is about $400...  327 blocks with that code are much easier to locate...

What are your thoughts/understanding??? 

Thanks...
Logged
67ss350camaro
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 159



View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2006, 09:10:50 AM »

Rick,
  The only thing that tells me that the car is an SS is the Speedometer cable passthrough hole on the passenger side of the steering column.  You could get dual exhaust on the 327 cars.  I don't think your axle is original to the car.  The PC axles were only used on the early SS cars (What is the rest of the axle code?).  Owner history back to the 80's does not mean too much.
  Yes, I meant mid June.  believe it or not, we have data on cars that the engine was made only days before it went into the car.  The Feb 10th may be too early, the May 16th engine would be a good one.
  Yes the 657 block was used for the 327's also.  Not sure what it would take to have it machined correctly.
Logged

Daniel
CRG
67 RS/SS 350 auto (owned since 81.)
97 V6 5-speed Coupe (work car ordered new)
2012 1LS (V6 6-speed) Coupe (new work car)
My Camaro
rd67RSSS
Guest
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2006, 10:24:01 AM »

Daniel,

That's GREAT information you have.  Thanks!!!!!

I beleive your correct and the axle might not be original as its stamped....  PC1011 G  Would that be a Oct. 11, 1966 axle then?

When did they stop using the PC axles?

Can you please give me your best estimate of the exact range I should look for on the motor and trans date codes?  THANKS...

Its my understanding that the 302, 327 , and 350 blocks with the 657 code are identical castings and only machined differently in the factory based on the crank journal size required.  Small on the 302 and 327 in 1967 and medium/large on the 350 in 1967.   In 68 the 327's switched over at some point to the medium/large journal....

I can get a May 1th 327 (657) block and may just have it machined to accept a 350 crank.  This would then be a legit 350 as Chevy did the samw machining operation.....  Your thoughts?Huh

Thanks again.

OH......  Then my speedo cable running to the right/pass side is a key in identifying it as an SS350 car, correct?
Logged
rd67RSSS
Guest
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2006, 10:26:44 AM »

OH...

One more question...

If I have an RS/SS 350 car...

and its an 06C

What would be the correct rear axle tube codes so I know which one's to hunt for???

Would QL, PL, or soething else be correct?? 

I can get a January PL......

Thanks
Logged
67ss350camaro
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 159



View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2006, 11:01:45 AM »

I beleive your correct and the axle might not be original as its stamped.... PC1011 G Would that be a Oct. 11, 1966 axle then?

Yes

When did they stop using the PC axles?

No way to know for sure, but it looks like no PC axles were used after Jan 1, 1967.

Can you please give me your best estimate of the exact range I should look for on the motor and trans date codes? THANKS...

I thought I already did?  Dates float around.  All I can give you is a range.

Its my understanding that the 302, 327 , and 350 blocks with the 657 code are identical castings and only machined differently in the factory based on the crank journal size required. Small on the 302 and 327 in 1967 and medium/large on the 350 in 1967. In 68 the 327's switched over at some point to the medium/large journal....

Yes, this is my understanding also.

I can get a May 1th 327 (657) block and may just have it machined to accept a 350 crank. This would then be a legit 350 as Chevy did the samw machining operation..... Your thoughts?Huh

Sounds right, but I don't have any experience with doing such a thing.

OH...... Then my speedo cable running to the right/pass side is a key in identifying it as an SS350 car, correct?

Yes, this is the best way, but even this could have been done by someone making a L30/M20 into an SS Sad

What would be the correct rear axle tube codes so I know which one's to hunt for???

This is a tuff one.  If you assume that it would have had the standard axle, then you are looking for a May to mid June built QL axle.  If you want one of the many optional axles that could have been ordered then it gets a lot more complicated.
Logged

Daniel
CRG
67 RS/SS 350 auto (owned since 81.)
97 V6 5-speed Coupe (work car ordered new)
2012 1LS (V6 6-speed) Coupe (new work car)
My Camaro
rd67RSSS
Guest
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2006, 11:13:03 AM »

Daniel,

Thanks!!!!!

so what do I do to varify L30/M2O vs. SS???

I can get a PL  (3.55, 4-speed close ratio) axle thats date coded January Huh, 1967 on the axle tube and Dec. 1966 on the center section casting....  I beleive it came out of an 67 L78 RS/SS car...

Is that too early?   Did ANY PL's come in 06C cars?  where they made in my cars timeframe?
Logged
67ss350camaro
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 159



View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2006, 12:03:20 PM »

so what do I do to varify L30/M2O vs. SS???

I don't have much doubt that your car is an SS.  Just saying that it is possible for someone (if they know what they are doing) to fake a car so that know one will know for sure.

I can get a PL (3.55, 4-speed close ratio) axle thats date coded January Huh, 1967 on the axle tube and Dec. 1966 on the center section casting.... I beleive it came out of an 67 L78 RS/SS car...

Is that too early? Did ANY PL's come in 06C cars? where they made in my cars timeframe?

It looks like not many PL's were made (a lot more PI's were made, posi of the same ratio, 3.55).  With the data we have, it looks like this one would be good. 
Logged

Daniel
CRG
67 RS/SS 350 auto (owned since 81.)
97 V6 5-speed Coupe (work car ordered new)
2012 1LS (V6 6-speed) Coupe (new work car)
My Camaro
rd67RSSS
Guest
« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2006, 12:12:59 PM »

Daniel,

So would a PL 0103 G   with a dec. 66 center casing be valid for my 06C car?

Thats a non-posi rear correct?   and the PI is a posi version?

Thats would mean I would need to mate it with a close ratio 4-speed, correct?

Could my car have come with a close ratio M21 rather then the std. M20?Huh

Thanks!
Logged
67ss350camaro
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 159



View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2006, 12:22:49 PM »

So would a PL 0103 G with a dec. 66 center casing be valid for my 06C car?

Thats a non-posi rear correct? and the PI is a posi version?

Yes, Yes and Yes


Thats would mean I would need to mate it with a close ratio 4-speed, correct?

Could my car have come with a close ratio M21 rather then the std. M20?Huh

The axle does not desigante what trans was used or vise versa, no trans desiganted what axle was use.
No L48 cars had M21's in them only M20's.  In 67 the only cars that got the M21's were the Z28 and the L78 cars.
Logged

Daniel
CRG
67 RS/SS 350 auto (owned since 81.)
97 V6 5-speed Coupe (work car ordered new)
2012 1LS (V6 6-speed) Coupe (new work car)
My Camaro
rd67RSSS
Guest
« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2006, 12:46:34 PM »

I have the PL listed in GMCA and CBTN and something about USCC (per Ric Fields article) as a:

12 BOLT, 3.55 Performance axle (with footnote: PL is a 4-speed close ratio)

If this is correct and close ratios (M-21's and 22's) only came in Z-28 and L78 BBC, then I guess this doesn't work in my M-20 SS 350 correct???
Logged
67ss350camaro
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 159



View Profile Email
« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2006, 12:55:40 PM »

Not sure what you are reading, maybe an old article from Rich.  Here is a link to the latest version of what I think you are quoting from: http://www.camaros.org/l30m20.shtml

The PL axle was not tied to the M21 trans and was available on the L48/M20 and the L48/M35 cars.
Logged

Daniel
CRG
67 RS/SS 350 auto (owned since 81.)
97 V6 5-speed Coupe (work car ordered new)
2012 1LS (V6 6-speed) Coupe (new work car)
My Camaro
rd67RSSS
Guest
« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2006, 01:23:06 PM »

On the 4-speed close ratio information I'm quoting from this article:

http://www.camaro-untoldsecrets.com/articles/spotlite2b.htm

Where are you getting the information about the rear end codes (PL) that fit into my L48 O6C car?

If I could see that source that would be very helpful in my search and identifyying all the possible rear ends that will work in my 06C L48 4-speed car.

Thanks so much!
Logged
67ss350camaro
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 159



View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: October 05, 2006, 01:47:43 PM »

Yes, that is an earlier version of Rich's article.  Not sure what Rich meant with the foot note.

My data is from CRG's data base.  I can answer questions with the data, but I can't give out the data base.
Logged

Daniel
CRG
67 RS/SS 350 auto (owned since 81.)
97 V6 5-speed Coupe (work car ordered new)
2012 1LS (V6 6-speed) Coupe (new work car)
My Camaro
rd67RSSS
Guest
« Reply #16 on: October 05, 2006, 02:03:15 PM »

OK... thanks....

Can you please provide me with a list of possible 12 bolt rear ends that would be factory correct/possible.

My current PC1011 G is too early....

So far I think you listed:

PI  (3.31 12 bolt posi)
PL (3.56 12 bolt..... some sort of 4-speed?Huh?) based on Rich Field's article

any more codes work?

and what would be acceptable axle tube date codes???

I'f just looking for a comprehensive list for my search so I purchase the correct unit.

Thanks so much!
Logged
67ss350camaro
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 159



View Profile Email
« Reply #17 on: October 05, 2006, 03:13:35 PM »

PI and PL are both 3.55 12 bolt axles, PI is the posi unit.
Available ratios for the L48 are:
STD - 3.31 (QL open, OK posi)
Econ - 3.07 (QS open, QW posi)
Perf - 3.55 (PL and PI)
Special - 3.73 (PM open, PJ posi)
           4.10 (QA posi)
           4.55 (QB posi)
           4.88 (QC posi)
Any May to mid June dates will work.  It will take some time to find out all the different acceptable dates for the different axles.  In the end, I am not sure what the big deal is, the axle is not original anyway.  If it were me, I would just leave the PC axle in, unless I found a cheep replacement.
Logged

Daniel
CRG
67 RS/SS 350 auto (owned since 81.)
97 V6 5-speed Coupe (work car ordered new)
2012 1LS (V6 6-speed) Coupe (new work car)
My Camaro
rd67RSSS
Guest
« Reply #18 on: October 05, 2006, 03:37:41 PM »

Daniel,

Thanks!!!!    Smiley

I'm thinking about keeping the PC and just adding a traction bar so it doesn't wheel hop as my wife is planning on running the car with my chevelle at Nostalgia drag events on occassion....

If I find a May/early June unit (3.31, or 3.55) at a good price I'll pick it up....

Logged
RJ_RS_SS_350
Member
***
Posts: 98


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 05, 2006, 07:15:56 PM »

So how accurate is CBTN? Mr Colvin lists 52 different axle codes for 1967 Camaro PA-PZ and QA-QZ.  Or maybe many of these codes are 10-bolt only codes? And 6 months before the build date of the car, while not unheard of, does seem unlikely, doesn't it?
Logged
67ss350camaro
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 159



View Profile Email
« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2006, 07:31:39 AM »

I'm thinking about keeping the PC and just adding a traction bar so it doesn't wheel hop as my wife is planning on running the car with my chevelle at Nostalgia drag events on occassion....

I would not bother adding the radius rod.  While it helps, it does not eliminate the wheel hop.
Logged

Daniel
CRG
67 RS/SS 350 auto (owned since 81.)
97 V6 5-speed Coupe (work car ordered new)
2012 1LS (V6 6-speed) Coupe (new work car)
My Camaro
67ss350camaro
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 159



View Profile Email
« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2006, 07:38:07 AM »

So how accurate is CBTN? Mr Colvin lists 52 different axle codes for 1967 Camaro PA-PZ and QA-QZ. Or maybe many of these codes are 10-bolt only codes? And 6 months before the build date of the car, while not unheard of, does seem unlikely, doesn't it?
Yes, a lot of those were 10 bolts and also a good number of Metallic brake 12 bolts.  There are actually a few more axle codes for 67 besides the P and Q axles.  BP is one of the more popular ones (3.08 non-posi 10 bolt).
6 months is not very common, but with the PL axle Rick was asking about, I think it was possible from the data we have in the data base.  With other axle's?  Definitely not.
Logged

Daniel
CRG
67 RS/SS 350 auto (owned since 81.)
97 V6 5-speed Coupe (work car ordered new)
2012 1LS (V6 6-speed) Coupe (new work car)
My Camaro
rd67RSSS
Guest
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2006, 08:01:43 AM »

Daniel,

My friend with the PL axle is also telling me that its a 4-speed "close ratio" axle.

Is that article that I posted of Rich Fields that provides detail on all the axles wrong then?

It also says my current PC axles is a 350/4-speed axle, is that wrong as you said that axles weren't tied to 4-speeds?

If a PL axles is a legitimate match for my L48 4-speed car, then who's correct on the close ratio thing as no M-21's went into L48's correct?

I'm just trying to get a definitive/agreed upon by everyone answer...

Should we disregard Rich Fields article that I posted?

Thanks!
Logged
67ss350camaro
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 159



View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2006, 07:21:58 PM »

My friend with the PL axle is also telling me that its a 4-speed "close ratio" axle.

Axles were not tied to the trans.

Is that article that I posted of Rich Fields that provides detail on all the axles wrong then?

Rich may chime in, but I think he was just repeating something that he read.


It also says my current PC axles is a 350/4-speed axle, is that wrong as you said that axles weren't tied to 4-speeds?

The PC axle was the standard axle for all of the L48 Camaros (stick and auto) at the start of production until the first of the year.

If a PL axles is a legitimate match for my L48 4-speed car, then who's correct on the close ratio thing as no M-21's went into L48's correct?

All I am saying is that it is possible that the PL axle could have been in a L48 4-speed car.  It could have also been in a L48/M35 and a L35/auto and a L78/4-speed car.  It was just one of the optional axles available.
Logged

Daniel
CRG
67 RS/SS 350 auto (owned since 81.)
97 V6 5-speed Coupe (work car ordered new)
2012 1LS (V6 6-speed) Coupe (new work car)
My Camaro
Rich
CRG Coordinator
*****
Posts: 88


68 L30/M20 RS


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2006, 10:07:32 PM »

In my old version of my L30/M20 article I attempted to collate and correlate the available axle information of the time.  The footnotes in it come generally from the Chevrolet P&A 30, but we have never been able to verify the background of those note by anything else.  There does appear to be some truth to them, but based on more recent CRG database checks the P&A30 notes don't appear to be 100% accurate.  Which is, in part, why I pulled the axle stuff out of the CRG article.

I call the old article old because it is old.  I note in the CRG article that the CRG article supercedes the old one, and I do this because I want you to read the new one, not the old one.

I pulled the axle info out of the newer version maintained here at CRG because we've done so much new axle work since then that it wasn't worth trying to keep it separately current in this article.  That doesn't help the everyday reader, I'm afraid, as we haven't published all the axle stuff yet, but it may come out this year.

I haven't looked to see if Alan has updated CBTN recently, but his previous axle info was fairly weak (as was the info in my older article), and unless he has found the original axle plant records, I look for the eventual CRG info to be more accurate with regard to axle codes for Camaro.

Rich
Logged

68 L30/M20 RS
ccargo
Member
***
Posts: 236


View Profile Email
« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2006, 08:27:05 AM »

Could we add BJ to the mix  Grin
Logged
rd67RSSS
Guest
« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2006, 09:01:00 AM »

Rich,

Thanks so much for the clarification!

Another question....  I have heard conflicting information...

Is a PL open or could it have been a posi also?

Also, what are valid dates on a QK (3.31 posi)...  would that be valid in my 06C car?

Thanks.

Rick
Logged
RealDeal
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


View Profile Email
« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2006, 02:21:28 PM »

I believe if the car was from the Van nyes plant it could be a 327, but for a norwood car 4P is a ss350, my car I believe is a 2L 4P and it only was painted one extra time after the factory paint, had the white ss stripe on the header panel after I started to strip it down.
Logged
rd67RSSS
Guest
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2006, 08:15:10 AM »

Realdeal,

I have some evidence that some 2L 4P cars from Norwood (specifically as 06C car like mine) was indeed a RS 327 car (L30/M20), so not all Norwood 4P were 350's...

See these pictures.....  They are of a 67 RS 327 car, 4 speed saginaw, square traction bar, dual exhaust coupe.  Not a SS or RS/SS 350 car.

http://rides.webshots.com/album/254439242GomVOm

or

http://community.webshots.com/user/hvclassics


Just wanted to clarify you on the Van Nuys vs. Norwood 4P cars  (both plants made some 4P (non 350) 327 cars...
Logged
Rich
CRG Coordinator
*****
Posts: 88


68 L30/M20 RS


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2006, 09:35:57 PM »

Please read the L30/M20 article...
Logged

68 L30/M20 RS
rd67RSSS
Guest
« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2006, 10:03:37 PM »

Rich,

I did... excellent article... I didn't know you owned one until I saw it on your signature...

Here's the article if anyone doesn't want to search.

http://www.camaros.org/l30m20.shtml


I'm not 100% sure my car is a RS/SS Convertible or a L30/M20 convertible although it appears to have the correct speedometer cable pasthrough for a Muncie M-20...

Rich, do you have any idea how may L30/M20 convertibles might have been produced that had most if not all of the pacecar type features?

Thanks.
Logged
Rich
CRG Coordinator
*****
Posts: 88


68 L30/M20 RS


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #31 on: October 13, 2006, 04:03:02 PM »

There is no way to know.
Logged

68 L30/M20 RS
Farm Boy
Member
***
Posts: 31



View Profile Email
« Reply #32 on: October 22, 2006, 01:47:11 PM »

I am being told that a 1967 327 with the same casting code as a 1967 350 (3892657) can be allign bored to allow the larger journal 350 crank to fit and this is all that GM did to the blocks in the factory.... The main caps are also all the same...

Cost to allign bore is about $400... 327 blocks with that code are much easier to locate...

What are your thoughts/understanding???

Thanks...

The main bearing locating tangs are a different size and in a different location on small journal and large journal blocks.

I recently did a side by side comparison of two 1967 Camaro “657” blocks. One was a 350 large journal and the other a 327 small journal. The most interesting thing I found was that both of the 657 blocks had been machined to accept both small and large journal main bearing tangs. As far as I know this is unique to 657 blocks. The large journal tangs already in place makes it possible to line bore a 657 small journal block out to large journal size.

Another difference is the machining of the face behind the front thrust surface of the rear main bearing. The face is machined slightly larger on the 350 block to accommodate the larger diameter thrust surface of the large journal rear main bearing. You may have some interference with the outer edge of the large journal bearing thrust surface with the small journal block. This could be easily fixed by machining a small amount (.020”) from the edge (not the face) of the rear main bearing thrust surfaces.

Also the bore on the rear main saddle and cap is beveled so the sharp corners won’t dig into the rear main bearing. Boring it out will remove the bevels so new bevels will need to be cut.

The last difference is the groove for the crank oil slinger is machined larger on the 350 block. The groove in the 327 block little too small for the 350 crankshaft slinger. The easiest solution would be to turn down the slinger on the 350 crank.

Here are some pictures for further clarification: http://geocities.com/sdampier@sbcglobal.net/Team_Camaro/3892657/
« Last Edit: October 22, 2006, 02:39:59 PM by Farm Boy » Logged

Steve
Pages: 1 2 3 [All] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

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 0.128 seconds with 17 queries.