Messages

Holley carb was only L78 and Z28 for 1967 Camaros.

I am aware.  I just forgot that L-78 could not be ordered with TH400 in 1967.  Your initial response reminded me of that fact...thanks again.

Thank you for the response.  Doi!  I forgot about the limitations on TH400 pairing.  I have the same reference in my copy of the GM catalog.  What made me give credence to the online sources was the view C (on page M40 A9) of the 1967 AIM.  The only optional carb would have been Holley.  Glad I asked.  

1967 AIM (UPC M40 A9) calls out PN 3909630 as correct part number and implies that it is good for either Rochester or Holley equipped cars (shows alternate bolt holes for mounting).  This is supported by a 1972 GM Camaro parts catalog that lists PN 3909630 as for 1967 ALL TH.  On line sources (I know, I know), including some vendors, show PN 3909630 as Holley only.  Searching the forum I see references to two different brackets for each application but no part numbers or photos (extant ones at least) of the Rochester specific bracket. 

So, will PN 3909630 work on both carbs as per the '67 AIM?  Or are different brackets required for each carb? 

Thanks for the detail photo and all the input.

Thank you sir! 

Quick question on colors/finish:  Is a 12 bolt yoke left natural or painted 30-60% gloss like the rest of the housing?  I seem to recall reading once upon a time that it is left natural but I cannot find that reference anywhere.

Thanks!

Restoration and preservation would be key if we can get it off the tank.  It is stuck hard and extremely brittle.  If we can salvage the little bits of paper then we might be able to send it out for restoration part.  It's how to get it off the tank in large enough pieces that is vexing us now.

What if it was replaced by the dealer under warranty shortly after the car sold? How is a rear repaired under warranty?

I had wondered the same thing above but realized it would take a pretty significant failure to warrant the replacement of the entire housing.  I think Bryon has the right of it which I can support anecdotally. 

Our '69 GTO was bought by my parents and it had a rear end failure while under warranty (left my Dad and the Neighbor kid to walk back to the house from the freeway and call a tow truck). Pontiac simply repaired whatever was bad inside and returned the car.  I was too young (and unwise in the mechanics of cars) to understand the exact nature of the problem then.  Years later (~2013) when we rebuilt the rear end we found severe scarring on the "Saf-T-Trac" carrier and on the inside of the housing.  Clearly something went very wrong but Pontiac (GM) did not replace the entire housing.

I've seen some pretty horrific rear end failures come through our shop (had a Bronco with an 8.8 spit the cross shaft out the cover while turning a corner on a down town street).  Bryon is right again that generally the housing survives (even in the case of the Bronco).  There are always exceptions, like pinion or carrier bearing failures that allow rotating components to eat into a housing, but normally it is an accident or hard usage which damages the housing.

[Final Process]

L523425 was final-assembled on or about February 17th, 1969. Not going to have a March 5th axle.

Other Feb Z/28s at Van Nuys had axles built late Jan/early Feb. March axles don't show up in Van Nuys data until mid-March.

Perfect.  This is what I was looking for.  As I said above, I'm not trying to prove something that is not true but rather trying to understand what this car is (in 2018)

Thanks William!

...I know that defects during production could send a car off to the side For correction but it seems unlikely it would sit for two weeks or so waiting for a rear end.

There was no "...off to the side." If a component had a problem it was replaced immediately.

Understood.  What I was referring to was this passage from John's article on the assembly process:

"Final Process
The car proceeded down the light repair conveyor to have any minor discrepancies taken care of; for major issues, the car was driven off the end of that line into an off-line repair stall, and was re-roll-tested if necessary to verify the correction. If the car was OK at the end of the light repair line, it went directly to the shipping line. If any paint repair was required, the car went on another short flat-top conveyor that took it through low-bake paint repair, and from there the car went to the shipping line. "

Clearly defective internals on a differential (axle bearings, gear howl, bad carrier or pinon bearings, etc) would not be detectable until the drive test on the rollers.  I though it unlikely that it would take weeks to correct such an issue, if found, but thought I'd ask.

I think you might find some KEY blocks or squares of codes in that still, Work small sections, using makeup soft brush and new razor blade play like you are excavating  rare Dino remains, photos digi camera in place using tripod and good close up settings, Mine was similar also flatten between a couple of pc's of glass and piece it together like a puzzle, nothing liquid, no vacuums, I used a Ear bulb to poof some of the dry dirt away, you know that thing the Doc uses to Hydro- your ear drum at the Docs office,,,,Best of luck

Thanks for the input

I see no issues with the engine stamping and the date lines up well with the car production (mid to late Feb), but the axle stamp date (early march)  is too late for the car (from the factory).

That's essentially why I posted.  By everything I've learned in the last 34 years of messing with 1st gens that rearend is too late to have been on the car when it left Van Nuys.  But it boggles the mind to think that someone randomly found a 3.73 posi with a date that close to the cars build date to stuff in this car.  No one tried that hard nor got that lucky with the tranny.  Even if restamped, as suggested above, the cast date is amazingly close.  FWIW, The car is well worn and shows no signs of an abandoned restoration. 

I know that defects during production could send a car off to the side For correction but it seems unlikely it would sit for two weeks or so waiting for a rear end.

Which brings me back to my original questions about what could have happened in the factory (John??) or warranty parts. 

As always, not trying to make it something it's not just trying to understand what it is.

Ok you can email me direct if you want in the axle info.

will do

Thanks for the thought.  Yeah, I thought about steam too but I have very little experience with removing paperwork - having never been lucky enough to find any on any of the cars I've owned. 

Here's what we are dealing with.  It might be a lost cause.

Yikes, you may be correct! Check the NCRS forum board or goggle for info as the Corvette people have been at this for a long time, i.e. removing tank stickers.

I didn't even think of the NCRS - and I should have.  Thanks

In my opinion, the engine seems original, but the axle does not.

So just a really amazing coincidence then?  Better go buy that lottery ticket.

Edit:  Sorry quoted and responded before you'd edited

The axle will be at our shop (we specialize in differential rebuilding) for a rebuild this week so I will have a chance to examine the housing more closely.  I owned the car for 14 years but it lived in an enclosed trailer the whole time while I collected parts (and time which, ultimately, I never found).  I'll report back when I have that data.  It did not appear to be a re-tube but that's not a guarantee.

Engine or Axle?  Or Both.