CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 30, 2014, 08:55:00 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.
104927 Posts in 12260 Topics by 4727 Members
Latest Member: Z10 Paceman
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  Restoration
| | |-+  Upper A-Arm Dust Sheilds
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Upper A-Arm Dust Sheilds  (Read 1440 times)
camaronut
Member
***
Posts: 121


View Profile
« on: April 29, 2012, 07:15:33 PM »

This drives me even more nutty than upside-down cowl induction air-cleaner seals........

Aren't the rubber dust sheilds that are stapled to the front wheel housings supposed to go into the upper a-arm holes to keep them from flapping around?Huh?

That's why the sheilds have a t-flaps to go into these holes......right?Huh??

Please tell me I'm right.......almost every first gen Camaro I've seen has the rubber sheilds just laying over the upper control arms which defeats the purpose of keeping road dirt and water from going into the engine bay?Huh  Huh
Logged
jeff68
Member
***
Posts: 349



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2012, 07:23:32 PM »


That's why the sheilds have a t-flaps to go into these holes......right?Huh??

Please tell me I'm right.......
You're right.  No idea what keeps people from putting the flaps into the holes.
Logged

68 L30 / M20 Convertible
Ash Gold
LM69Z28
Member
***
Posts: 208


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2012, 01:23:46 AM »

One reason for the flaps being laid on top and no tucked in is in our case our original 43 year old flaps are starting to tear slightly and I do not want to bend or twist them in case they tear more. I have yet to see a decent repro set but please prove me wrong if they actually do exist. I really do prefer not to remove original parts from a mostly original car unless absolutely necessary or NOS parts can be found as replacements.
just my 2 cents
LM69Z28 Wink
Logged
m22mike
Member
***
Posts: 166



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2012, 06:57:57 AM »

This drives me even more nutty than upside-down cowl induction air-cleaner seals........

Aren't the rubber dust sheilds that are stapled to the front wheel housings supposed to go into the upper a-arm holes to keep them from flapping around?Huh?

That's why the sheilds have a t-flaps to go into these holes......right?Huh??

Please tell me I'm right.......almost every first gen Camaro I've seen has the rubber sheilds just laying over the upper control arms which defeats the purpose of keeping road dirt and water from going into the engine bay?Huh  Huh


Camaronut....thank you, both of those make me nuts too. I once restored a 69 Zee and the first thing the owner did was reach down into the engine bay and pull out the rubber shields from the upper control arms, his comment, why did you put them in there....:>(
Logged

X66 L78 M22 4.10 Deluxe Threads, PNT 10/10, Red Hockey stripe
joesauer
Member
***
Posts: 140


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2012, 01:18:41 PM »

If you are looking for some repro A arm dust shields that fit good, try Montco Manufacturing (Mena, Arkansas), part # CA109.  Put them on my 68, and they fit good & tucked in properly.  Also, check out various other post on this forum on using 16 to 19 gauge wire instead of staples.   Sure made installing the shields easier for me.  Thanks for that advice guys.
Logged
srode
Member
***
Posts: 173



View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2012, 05:44:15 PM »

I have seen plenty untucked, but more not even installed - both on very nicely done cars.  Both amazing to me really.
Logged

Steve - 02D Z11 and a Plain Jane hardtop
camaronut
Member
***
Posts: 121


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2012, 07:08:56 PM »

When I was at Carlisle last Friday, I walked the car corral.

Every 1st gen Camaro I saw (and there were plenty) had them out......not one was installed correctly....and......about everyone that had cowl induction seals on upside down.

Amazing.   An $80K 69 Z28 (maybe worth $40K on a good day)....both items...WRONG!!!!!!! I shook my head and walked away....
Logged
NoYenko
Member
***
Posts: 318



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2012, 07:22:15 PM »

I worked for a Chevy dealer when these cars were fairly new and don't remember any shields tucked in like they were designed. We changed quite a few shocks back then and you had to pull them out of the way. George
Logged
DT
Member
***
Posts: 156


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2012, 04:29:54 PM »

I just installed new shields from Heartbeat City. Look pretty damn good to me. I was pleased with the quality. Didn't use the staples though.
Logged

Donny
tmodel66
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1212


View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2012, 04:54:05 PM »

My shields came from Metro and turned out nice. Used a welding rod to make staples.
Logged

Daniel  
'69 SS 350/4 speed  Fathom Green--POP
JohnZ
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 4112


View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2012, 11:26:36 AM »

When they left the plant, they were tucked in - who knows what was done to them later.
Logged

'69 Z/28
Fathom Green
CRG
mickeystoys69RSSS
Member
***
Posts: 241



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 02, 2012, 02:42:10 PM »

Mine were tucked in when I bought the car and are still that way.
Logged
camaronut
Member
***
Posts: 121


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2012, 03:40:45 PM »

JohnZ.....I'm glad you chimed in.

You were there.....you should know.

Thanks...

I wonder if any points are taken-off cars in the Legends Class cars at the Nationals for this and upside-down cowl induction seals........if they don't...they really should.......
Logged
Pages: [1] 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 0.086 seconds with 17 queries.