CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2014, 01:27:57 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.
105761 Posts in 12346 Topics by 4757 Members
Latest Member: chelltab
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  Originality
| | |-+  Correct '69 A/C Restoration
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All] Print
Author Topic: Correct '69 A/C Restoration  (Read 6669 times)
IZRSSS
Guest
« on: July 29, 2012, 06:47:38 PM »

George brought up an interesting topic pertaining to A/C fittings and I just wanted to elaborate on the same topic. I am curious to know what type of a/c restoration is acceptable at top shows. I'm Hoping there are folks out there who have either shown cars or judged cars at the Camaro Nationals who can hone in (Jerry???). Or maybe someone can shed light on what the top restores in the country do when it comes to subbing out a a/c unit for restoration (Ken Lucas/Larry Christiansen)? Who do you/these guys use?

In addition, the second pic shows what appears to be a perforated hose (the perforations are on top and bottom/opposite to one another). According to one of the "local top mechanic's " it's an original hose. Not sure what it's original to but he said it's no longer legal to use. Can anyone shed light on this hose type? Is this the type of hose GM used back in the day on these cars or was the mechanic blowing smoke UMA? If the answer is yes, it was used back in the day, can anyone guesstimate why my fittings are so skewed when compared to the AIM or to the pics on George's thread? http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=9848.0
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 07:07:14 PM by IZRSSS » Logged
Mark
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 944



View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2012, 08:37:21 PM »

Yours may be some kind of service replacement part.  I have both a 68 and an april of 69 hose assembly, the 69 is on my car, the 68 is hangin on the wall.  both look very similar to the AIM image (the 69 looks exactly like it).  The bracket that holds the muffler and suction hose on to the compressor attaches to the 69 muffler less than a 1/2" from the 90 degree bend in the flange, and the 68 is about an inch and a half beck from that 90 degree bend. Other than that the angles and bends in the pipe are identical to the AIM illustration.  Both sets of pipes have ring type crimps on the aluminum sections holding the hosing to the pipe sections.

Could be multiple suppliers of the part, don't know how many there were.
Logged

Mark C.
1969 Indy Pace Car
350/300HP RPO Z11
rat pack
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 222



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2012, 09:14:01 AM »

Marty, those lines and fittings are either the first repros that came out in the early 90's, or the previous owner/restorer had them made up. The crimps in the fittings are the style my local a/c shop has now as they cannot replicate the original style crimps or fittings. Here is a picture of an original 69 small block a/c muffler with the original hoses still attached...........RatPack............
Logged

Just keep livin......L I V I N .............
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2012, 07:03:00 PM »

Mark and Troy – good information, thanks!

Just a couple more questions; One; can either of you tell me what the purpose of the “perforated” hoses is/was? Two; did the original hoses have these perforations? Three; any idea who the go to shops are for accepted (Nationals) restored A/C units? And finally, is there a chance either of you can post or send me pics of your original system? I realize the AIM dedicated 43 pgs to the C60 but I’m only interested in what’s under the hood for now. Long shot but once I have something in hand maybe I can find someone local who can duplicate those fittings. Seems like a hydrolic shop might be able to come up with something close.
Logged
NoYenko
Member
***
Posts: 321



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2012, 08:59:40 PM »

Marty, I have never seen AC hose with perforation marks like that. I looked on my 70 Chevelle today, I bought a new GM hose around 1976, it has same crimps as my Camaro hoses. I am guessing someone replaced your hoses onto original fittings. I have been in contact with Don at Classic Auto Air in Florida about the 2 ring factory style crimps. He said they can do that but I have not seen a picture yet.
I attached photos of my hoses and noted the insulation lengths, have seen similar lengths. I also noted my missing spacer that I have only seen on 396 cars hoping someone with original hoses might add something. George
Logged
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2012, 07:21:18 AM »

George – a lot of useful information in your pics. Thanks for sharing! I didn't know until know there was a insulator on the muffler hose. It certainly looks like if one was needed, that was the place. It rubbed completely through both the insulator and hose. Looks like my upper hose insulators are correct; 2 @ 7”.

Please keep us posted on what you come up with for fittings. Also, can you post pics that show the detail of the original rubber hoses; any distinguishing marks, etc? And, have you decided which supplier makes the closest factory hoses (rubber)?  
« Last Edit: July 31, 2012, 08:48:20 AM by IZRSSS » Logged
click
Member
***
Posts: 112



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2012, 11:44:02 AM »

Just to add to the discussion, the clamp that holds down my hose and insulator to the alternator bracket has the letters " GI " on it. Not sure what that means but here is a pic...


also, not sure if all 69's had this hole and guide for the dryer in the pan below the battery but mine did...




Logged

Click is Jim , central Minn.  Moderator at Team Camaro www.camaros.net
Mark
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 944



View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2012, 07:43:33 PM »

Heres mine  Yes, I know th green label is the wrong one, but it's all I had when I replaced the orignal compressor.  the discharge hose has a 7" or so long sleeve on it where it passes under the radiator support, it doesn't take long for vibrations to chafe thru the hose if that wasn't there.


The second picture is of my discharge hose, tough to read but the stamp on the hose says 0379 -1/2 - GY- 0240, it repeats every foot or so.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2012, 08:32:52 PM by Mark » Logged

Mark C.
1969 Indy Pace Car
350/300HP RPO Z11
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #8 on: July 31, 2012, 07:45:33 PM »

Click – thanks for sharing your photographs; no on the second pic. My car doesn’t have that guide.

On your first pic, I think the “GI” might be the #19, and I might be wrong but I don’t think that’s the correct setup. I don't think the hose you are showing takes a clip. The insulation on that line is simply held in place by a plastic band. FWIW I attached a couple of pics. One with the AIM.  
Logged
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2012, 07:51:47 PM »

Mark – exactly what I needed! Nice pics of the fitting and your second pic shows the manufactures stamp on the hose. Is there any way I can get a clear pic of that stamp? Unfortunately I don’t have Ed’s talents when it comes to enhancing stuff like that.  Wink
Logged
Mark
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 944



View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2012, 07:54:51 PM »

Suction hose picture, held to the alternator support, actually the wire harness with a wire tie.  This is original on later 69 Camaros, don't know if anyone has looked into when it transitioned from the early 69 (which is a left over from 68) style configuration (Clicks style) including the line from the condensor to the drier coming up thru the inner fender panel. One would assume the return hose on mine should have the same stampings as the discharge one, but it seems to have been worn off over time.   My hardware is from an April 69 Camaro.
Logged

Mark C.
1969 Indy Pace Car
350/300HP RPO Z11
Mark
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 944



View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2012, 08:23:37 PM »

Here you go, had to break out the old Sony Mavica with a floppy disk, cell phones just don't cut it.  Also had to wipe it down with Acetone to clear it up, couldn't even see the lines between the lettering before, they show up in the previous picture, but not when you look at them.  Of course its in my semi dark garage and the engine compartment is filty.
Logged

Mark C.
1969 Indy Pace Car
350/300HP RPO Z11
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2012, 08:38:57 PM »

Perfect...Thanks again Mark!!!
Logged
crobjones2
Member
***
Posts: 299


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2012, 08:48:48 PM »

marty,
ill take a look at my original hoses- it may take me a couple of days as they are in the back of the shed
Logged

Chris
69 SS 350
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2012, 09:06:54 PM »

Hey, I'll gladly take them off your hands and move them front and center in my shed. Smiley

Lookin forward to it! Thanks Chris!
Logged
NoYenko
Member
***
Posts: 321



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2012, 07:05:06 AM »

Mark, Nice pictures. Can you measure the length of the hose insulation on that hose were it goes under the core support?
I believe your hose was made by Goodyear  "GY", with a date code of "0379" 37Th day of 69. How does that compare to your car build date?
One of my hoses was marked "P-7510" the type of ac hose, "USR" US Rubber bought buy UniRoyal, and "2-4-4-8" 244 day of 1968. That agrees with my build date. The fitting on the end was dated "2848"
Marty, I was cleaning & inspecting some other AC hoses and noticed small pin marks the length of the hose in a straight line. It may be from the manufacturing process of the hose. George
Logged
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2012, 08:27:57 AM »

George - That blows me away! I had no idea the lines and fittings were date coded. I believe Mark’s are date coded as well. If we find someone who can duplicate the fittings, maybe Don_Lightfoot can come up with the stamps. I think the ribbed rubber is still being sold so that shouldn’t a problem.

FWIW I added one of the many AIM pgs that show the insulators. I have reason to believe the lengths were more of a judgment call on the part of the line worker. The bottom arrow shows that insulator running almost the full length of the line, and the top arrow shows only one insulator. I have seen pics of survivor cars with two.
Logged
click
Member
***
Posts: 112



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #17 on: August 01, 2012, 08:29:41 AM »

Im guessing that early built 69's had carry over 68 parts like Mark said.. my car is 10D build in LA, an LM1. Just fyi if anyone can connect the dots on when they went to the plastic strap. I will have to look at that steel ring again and see if it is an upside down 19 but I dont think it is... love a mystery. Smiley
Logged

Click is Jim , central Minn.  Moderator at Team Camaro www.camaros.net
click
Member
***
Posts: 112



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2012, 08:42:15 AM »

Another pic of my layout after I bought all new hoses and the alum. block and canister that connects to the side of the compressor.. I bought them all from 'oldairproducts' in Texas. I had issues with the fit of the canister where it bolts to the compressor, it was built with a 'throw' way to long to reach the bolt hole in the compressor. I had to use a long sleeve and adapt...grrr... then the take of from the canister turned toward the fender instead of 'down' so that put another bend in the hose to get it to where it belongs.
 I didnt use the grommet in the pass. side fender either, the hose was to large for it, so I just routed it where it fit.


 
Logged

Click is Jim , central Minn.  Moderator at Team Camaro www.camaros.net
click
Member
***
Posts: 112



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2012, 08:50:46 AM »

Found my pic from when the new hose setup arrived... you can see the canister build is way off from the original one. The crimps are not at all like original either.

Logged

Click is Jim , central Minn.  Moderator at Team Camaro www.camaros.net
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2012, 09:09:35 AM »

Click – now that you and Mark mention it I do recall a design change that was discussed several month’s back. I believe the change happened sometime between your cars build date and mine (12A). I also recall saying something along the line; sure glad they made that change before they got to mine. No telling how much rubber was chewed up before their lights finally turned on. Smiley

Thanks for the pics!
Logged
click
Member
***
Posts: 112



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2012, 09:13:00 AM »

I found an old pic of a 69 with 307 V8 showing the a/c hoses and the insulators and ties but I have no clue what the build date was but since its a 307 it had to be later in the build year when it came out.

Logged

Click is Jim , central Minn.  Moderator at Team Camaro www.camaros.net
NoYenko
Member
***
Posts: 321



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2012, 01:17:26 PM »

Marty, I can't say I remember seeing any AC hoses that were ribbed back then. The location & the legnth of the insulation in the above picture looks like what I have seen.George
Logged
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2012, 01:58:09 PM »

George - Thanks for your diplomatic response. Anyone else would have hammered me pretty hard and rightfully so; that would be one ugly a/c line  Embarrassed. I was trying to describe yours on reply 15. I've seen them on supplier catalogs. Would that be braided?
Logged
rat pack
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 222



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2012, 07:23:29 PM »

Marty, the picture of the car I posted is a 10D build NOR car and it used the plastic ties and had two pieces of insulation on the long hose. Also this hose was already installed by the supplier of the hoses, not the assy line workers at Chevrolet so the lengths shoudn't vary much. Wish I still had the car here to get you some more info as it hadn't been touched when I got it other than a cheap used car lot underhood "detail" (i use that term loosely).............RatPack.....................
Logged

Just keep livin......L I V I N .............
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2012, 09:42:33 AM »

Also this hose was already installed by the supplier of the hoses,

ATS...you learn somethin ever day but thanks for pointing that out.

Steve S. also sent me some pics and like yours, had two insulators on the "long hose". But again...I've seen them w/both (one/two).

Thanks Troy.

Logged
crobjones2
Member
***
Posts: 299


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2012, 01:07:50 PM »

Marty
My hose looks almost exactly like the one Mark posted on the previous page. I have a date code of, or what looks to be, 0249. I found only one stamp on a fitting with "050     9" or from what I can deduce.
Logged

Chris
69 SS 350
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2012, 07:25:47 PM »

Thanks for checking Chris!

Well something good finally happened. I posted a pic that didn’t even belong on George's A/C thread. Come to find out, he spotted my condenser hose in that same pic and it looks like an original. I’ll post some better pics of that hose once I get back into town.

While I'm at it, I noticed several hoses from Mark's & George's pics that I want to explore. I think there are some others on my car that are original as well (just about as many aren't  Sad). It would be nice to weed out the repops so I know where I stand...


Logged
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #28 on: August 06, 2012, 07:50:26 PM »

George - Here are the dates from my car’s hoses and fittings. One of the fittings is two days past the car’s 12A build date but I assume that’s okay. I also noticed that we have the same exact fittings for this portion of the A/C unit. Both have the same crimp and the “Anchor” logo from the Anchor Bolt Company. I can’t make out the stamp/logo from your larger fittings; are they made by the same company?
Logged
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #29 on: August 06, 2012, 07:51:20 PM »

...and one more;
Logged
z28z11
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 622


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: August 06, 2012, 09:25:09 PM »

Couple of pics of my spare set for the Pacer. Look right ?
Logged

1968 Z28 BRG/W
1969 Z28 X77 LeMans/W
1969 X66 L78 Cortez/BVT
1969 Z11 L48
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #31 on: August 06, 2012, 10:16:06 PM »

I'm going to say yes. Yours looks a lot like Mark's on reply #11 & I believe his is dated the first week of Feb. of 69. What are the numbers to the left of the 5/8 or to the right of 1031, and what is the build date of your car?
Logged
NoYenko
Member
***
Posts: 321



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: August 07, 2012, 06:42:12 AM »

Guys, Nice pictures. The larger"1/2" hose hose fittings look to be stamped with the "Weatherhead" logo.
z28z11, can you measure the insulation length on the shorter hose coming off the muffler? George.
Logged
Mark
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 944



View Profile Email
« Reply #33 on: August 07, 2012, 04:48:39 PM »

I'm thinking those are foot markers on the hose, similar to whats put on wire to indicate how much has been used, or how much is left, put on there when the hose was manufactured.  In his case 4744 feet, mine would be 240 feet.  if so you would expect to see another number on the hose, mine would be under the insulating cover at the condenser if it was marked every foot, and i have not seen it there (have not looked either).
Logged

Mark C.
1969 Indy Pace Car
350/300HP RPO Z11
z28z11
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 622


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: August 07, 2012, 11:06:33 PM »

There are no insulation pads left on this hose set - fittings and hose are in decent shape, but no insulation left when I bought it. Fitting is dated "1", which I would imagine means '71. Configuration is right, but I cannot find the part number listed in my '74-back printing GM parts books. I included the pics as the set is complete and an original. It also looks better than the hacked-together evap hose on my Z11. Likely a service replacement, or warranty item.
Regards,
Steve
Logged

1968 Z28 BRG/W
1969 Z28 X77 LeMans/W
1969 X66 L78 Cortez/BVT
1969 Z11 L48
crobjones2
Member
***
Posts: 299


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: August 08, 2012, 06:53:17 PM »

Mark,
is it coincidence that I also have the number 240 on my 1/2" hose?
Logged

Chris
69 SS 350
NoYenko
Member
***
Posts: 321



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: August 16, 2012, 09:42:39 PM »

I cleaned up some more AC hoses and took pictures. The "P-7510" designates the type of hose as I found it on Chrysler's & AMC hoses also. Four digits after that are Julian date and year hose was made. I took measurements of the hose & protective insulation also. George.
Logged
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #37 on: August 17, 2012, 07:23:45 AM »

Good information George, thanks!

Your attention to detail to this point has been outstanding. Are you going to replace any of these lines? If the answer is yes, have you decided on a company/manufacturer for replacements?
Logged
NoYenko
Member
***
Posts: 321



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: August 19, 2012, 12:42:16 PM »

Marty, I am going to replace all my rubber hoses using my original aluminum tubes. In the process of having the aluminum crimp ferrules made and have sourced the correct crimper. I am probably going overboard on this but I would like it to look original. I will keep you posted on my results. George.
Logged
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #39 on: August 19, 2012, 05:11:53 PM »

Not too over board for me partner! I’m looking forward to the outcome.
Logged
firstgenaddict
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1252



View Profile WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 13, 2012, 08:35:45 PM »

Here is a link to 91 photos I took 4-5 years ago when Rick of Rick's First Gens owned this 14k mile 04C 1969 RS/SS 350, with AC

http://good-times.webshots.com/album/568536105kIGZWt

For some reason I can't get the HTML code to post the pics here...
Logged

James
Collectin' Camaro's since "Only Rednecks drove them"
 
Check out the Black 69 RS/Z28 45k mile Survivor and the Lemans Blue 69 Z 10D frame off...
https://picasaweb.google.com/112392262205377424364/1969_Z28_Restoration
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #41 on: October 14, 2012, 08:23:56 AM »

James - Excellent pics/reference of this '69 L48 survivor. S. Shauger has it now (aka paceme).

Thanks for sharing!
Logged
NoYenko
Member
***
Posts: 321



View Profile
« Reply #42 on: October 15, 2012, 07:47:37 PM »

James, Thanks for posting link to the pictures. I love looking at original cars and you have an eye for catching unique shots. George
Logged
NoYenko
Member
***
Posts: 321



View Profile
« Reply #43 on: December 30, 2012, 02:33:12 PM »

Well I can finally give you an update on my 4 month AC hose restoration project. It started out by going to a couple of well-known AC restoration companies. They do excellent work but had to use steel ferrules not aluminum as original. The crimp was close but not exact. I cut off my ferrules and machined up new ones from aluminum stock to weld back onto the factory tubes.
I looked all over trying to find crimp dies like the original “Weatherhead” crimp. One local company came up vary close but the crimp was too thin in height. Then I bought the closest dies I could find, welded up the jaws and reground them to the correct height and diameter. I figured I was in this project this deep so I bought a used Parker MiniCrimper so I could test out the dies and crimps myself. After welding the new ferrules onto the original tubes I was ready to crimp. The crimp looked good but the ferrule had small cracks in it. Many tests later I realized when the factory welded the ferrules on they heated the ferrules to a higher temp an annealed (softened) the fitting. I annealed them and finally got a nice crimp. I replated the yellow cad fittings and went to town on two sets of hoses.
One #10 hose on the muffler would not fit in my crimper or other local crimpers. I removed the hydraulic cylinder from the MiniCrimp to use the base in our big press. I had to make up a taller pusher tube to accommodate the muffler height. Kind of a Rube-Goldberg setup but worked great. I found out most new barrier hose is a smaller diameter and requires smaller fittings, but Goodyear makes a correct barrier hose to fit the older fittings. The assembly manual only shows one sleeve on the #12 hose but both of mine and other original hoses had two 7” sleeves. Just glad to have finished this today.George
Logged
NoYenko
Member
***
Posts: 321



View Profile
« Reply #44 on: December 30, 2012, 02:37:44 PM »

Picture of jaws, factory crimp, cracked crimp, after anealling
Logged
NoYenko
Member
***
Posts: 321



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: December 30, 2012, 02:48:07 PM »

Mini-Krimp, Tall pusher for muffler clearance,& Mini-Krimp in press
Logged
NoYenko
Member
***
Posts: 321



View Profile
« Reply #46 on: December 30, 2012, 02:51:42 PM »

Yellow cad fitting for Poast valve, Condensor fitting, Completed assembly
Logged
NoYenko
Member
***
Posts: 321



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: December 30, 2012, 02:54:59 PM »

Last one I promise. Hose sleeves on main hose.  Next thing to do is the ink hose markings. George
Logged
crobjones2
Member
***
Posts: 299


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: December 31, 2012, 04:21:39 PM »

looking good!!
Logged

Chris
69 SS 350
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [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 0.098 seconds with 17 queries.