CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 19, 2014, 07:11:15 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.
107539 Posts in 12507 Topics by 4812 Members
Latest Member: oldbop88
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  Restoration
| | |-+  1967 upper control arm shaft.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: 1967 upper control arm shaft.  (Read 1309 times)
randfr
Member
***
Posts: 26


View Profile
« on: December 21, 2011, 02:54:01 PM »

i'm restoring a 1967 RS.  I just got the subframe back from blasting/powder coating and am cleaning and/or acquiring parts to put the front end back together.

i've had the car since 1979 and have never had an accident in it since i've owned it.  upon tear down i've started noticing "clues" that it had some damage done to the passenger side before i bought it.  the inner fender had some wrinkles around the edge, an out of round hole on the lower control arm where the sway bar ends bolt in, and a very different upper control arm shaft--all on the passenger side.

assuming that the driver side was ok and would be my "template" i ordered a new lower passenger side control arm and an upper control arm shaft.

the control arm shaft i rec'd from one of the standard aftermarket Camaro restorers was different than the two mismatched control arm shafts i already owned.  so after looking at the other standard Camaro restorer parts catalogs, i have found that none are like the control arm shaft from my "template" side.

i've included a photo comparison of all three shafts.

the shaft on the top is from the driver's side.  it has the "dumb bell" shape and bolts that screw in to hold the control arm bushing.

the shaft in the middle is the shaft I received from the first mail order.  It does not have the dumb bell shape and also has the screw in bolts to secure the bushing.

The shaft on the bottom is from the passenger side, which I thought must have been replaced during the damage that occurred before I bought the car.  It has a slight dumb bell shape (hard to see in this photo) but has a ginormous nut that secures the bushing.

The shafts on other mail order sites look more like the bottom shaft…the one I thought was NOT original.  They all have slight dumb bell shape and nuts rather than bolts.

Does anyone have any ideas on which ones are “more” correct and what might have happened for me to end up with the mismatched arms?  I know a lot of front end parts were exchangeable on 1960s cars…maybe the bolt variety is from a Nova or something?

Thanks
Logged
Jon Mello
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 3300



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2011, 04:40:24 PM »

I have owned a fair number of '67 LOS cars and seen a ton of them over the years since I live on the West Coast. On '67 LOS cars it is not uncommon at all to see mismatched shafts from one side to the other. The dumb bell shaped one at the top is most common (and is what you see all the time on the NOR cars) but the style like what you show in the middle is the other style which I have seen as factory installed. However, the factory ones have GM cast on them with a series of numbers after that. These are what you most often get when you find NOS replacements but rest assured they were also factory installed (but only on '67 LOS cars as far as I have been able to tell). That shaft on the bottom is not a '67 Camaro piece. It looks similar to a 2nd-gen Camaro shaft with the nut being installed on the threaded shaft rather than a bolt threading into a tapped hole, which is how the 1st-gen cars were done. Is the center-to-center distance between the two holes the same on the bottom one as it is for the others? Your picture gives me the impression that the holes in the bottom shaft are just slightly further apart than the other two.
Logged

Jon Mello
CRG
randfr
Member
***
Posts: 26


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2011, 04:45:27 PM »

(edit--response below is to a comment that is no longer showing)

no, the VIN says Norwood.

clarification---when you say both arms are correct, do you mean both styles were on 1967 cars?  or do you mean that each side of the same car could/would have a different style of arm?  (bolt vs nut)

thanks.
Logged
randfr
Member
***
Posts: 26


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2011, 05:03:14 PM »

i'm getting more and more confused.

i've included photos of parts from two other online companies for 1967 "replacements".  one is the bolt in tapped shaft, the other is nut on threaded shaft.  the part i received is also a bolt in tapped shaft, but without the dumb bell shape.

i'll double check my before disassembly photos to see which side each came from.  i'm sure the holes are the same distance apart as well, just distorted due to the camera angle.  will check that as well.



I have owned a fair number of '67 LOS cars and seen a ton of them over the years since I live on the West Coast. On '67 LOS cars it is not uncommon at all to see mismatched shafts from one side to the other. The dumb bell shaped one at the top is most common (and is what you see all the time on the NOR cars) but the style like what you show in the middle is the other style which I have seen as factory installed. However, the factory ones have GM cast on them with a series of numbers after that. These are what you most often get when you find NOS replacements but rest assured they were also factory installed (but only on '67 LOS cars as far as I have been able to tell). That shaft on the bottom is not a '67 Camaro piece. It looks similar to a 2nd-gen Camaro shaft with the nut being installed on the threaded shaft rather than a bolt threading into a tapped hole, which is how the 1st-gen cars were done. Is the center-to-center distance between the two holes the same on the bottom one as it is for the others? Your picture gives me the impression that the holes in the bottom shaft are just slightly further apart than the other two.
Logged
Jon Mello
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 3300



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2011, 06:30:44 PM »

If you are restoring a '67 NOR car, you need to use the dumb bell style (some people call them the dog bone style) cross shaft. The top one in your original photo. Both the top and middle style in your original picture have been seen on original '67 LOS cars. I have seen many original '67 LOS cars which had for example the dumb bell style on the driver's side and the middle style on the passenger side. I have never seen that lower style one in your original photo on an unmolested '67 Camaro. It is an unoriginal, incorrect piece. For functionality, it apparently works. If you are going for originality, toss that thing in the trash and find a nice used original dumb bell style cross shaft.
Logged

Jon Mello
CRG
Jon Mello
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 3300



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2011, 06:33:23 PM »

Original shafts on a 12C-built LOS car.
Logged

Jon Mello
CRG
Jon Mello
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 3300



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2011, 06:35:49 PM »

NOS Camaro a-arm cross shafts offered as service replacement pieces. OK to use as original style on a '67 LOS car but not the style used on a '67 NOR car.
Logged

Jon Mello
CRG
Mike S
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1192



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2011, 09:40:07 PM »

Not meaning to add to the confusion, I check my 2 cars and found the following:
Using John Mello's 2 pictures above of an exposed chassis, my 67 4B LOS car has the dumbell shown in the top image on both sides and this is an unrestored survivor.
The bottom image in Johns example is what I have on both sides of my 67 5B NOR car which was restored in 1987.
The NOR bars have 381904GM36A on one side and 103 B on the other. Not sure if the 103 is a julian date and B a shift but they were on the chassis when I bought the car in 1979.

Happy Holidays,
Mike
Logged

67 LOS SS/RS L35 Hardtop - Original w/UOIT
67 NOR SS/RS L35 Convertible - Restored
Jon Mello
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 3300



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2011, 01:12:48 AM »

Thanks for the input, Mike. Being a West Coast guy, I have not seen the same amount of NOR cars as I have of the LOS cars. If there are truly '67 NOR cars that did use the second style such as the one shown in my NOS part photo, then I will have to stand corrected on that. Maybe it is one more thing to add to the CRG topics of research. The threaded shafts with the nuts on the end are not an original style part for a 1st-gen Camaro however.

P.S. To clarify, a '67 LOS car does not have to have two different styles of a-arm cross shafts. They can both be the same style side-to-side or they can be mismatched. It just depended what was there in the bin at the time the car was being built.
Logged

Jon Mello
CRG
Jerry@CHP
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1445



View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2011, 10:44:57 AM »

I see a lot of these co-mingled shafts on my road trips.  However, all of the original cars that are untouched originals are consistant with these upper arm shafts.  One style.  Many have the updated what I call the Monte Carlo style shafts with large nuts on the ends.  These were all NAPA over the counter shafts for extra camber in doing a front end alignment.

Merry Christmas,

Jerry
Logged
1968 Z28
Member
***
Posts: 446


View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2011, 12:36:38 PM »

Jerry.....Merry Christmas to you and your's.  So glad to see you make an appearance.

Logged

Jerry G.

Z28-1968-07C-Norwood
Ermine White, Red Std. Interior
2nd. Owner, 38,000 miles
randfr
Member
***
Posts: 26


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2011, 06:11:23 PM »

thanks everyone for the replies and advice.  glad to have added something to the "research".  i may have already found a correct dumb bell shaped shaft.  will update with any details when that happens.

FWIW, the dumb bell / dog bone shape shaft that i have (with the bolt) does not have any numbers on it at all.  nor does the "monte carlo" shaft--the one with the large nut.

merry christmas to all.
robert
Logged
randfr
Member
***
Posts: 26


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2011, 09:56:12 AM »

the owner of the dumb bell shaped shaft emailed me the dimensions of the part he has.  from "hole to hole" the dimensions are the same as my part, but end to end my part is 11 and 1/4 inches, while the part for sale is 11 and 3/4 inches.

for comparison purposes, i went and measured the other two shafts i have.  the "non-dumb bell" replacement part is a little under 11.5 inches.  the "monte carlo" shaft is 13.5 inches, quite a bit bigger--but it seems to have been doing ok since 1979.

any thoughts on buying the cosmetically more correct but slightly longer shaft from the seller?

thanks
robert
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

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 0.083 seconds with 18 queries.