Messages

I just do not understand that mentality.  The car is a time capsule that cannot be replaced once it has been "restored". 

Thanks to all who replied with information and advice. I went with conventional DOT3 brake fluid.  Was sweating bullets until I got all the flares seated and avoided any drips on the paint. The worst connection was at the frame mounted valve to rear line fitting.  Took some work to get that one to stop weeping. 

GMAD - Thanks for the link for reference.  I missed that one.

Been doing a fair amount of research online re: DOT5 vs DOT3,4,5.1 brake fluid in classic vehicle brake systems.  I previously used DOT 5 in a 1960 Vette with stock brakes and hoses.  It was in there for 15 years without incident.  Now I am reading new accounts of brake hoses swelling from DOT5 use and causing problems. My intent was to avoid any issues during bleeding or maintenance that would attack my new body and undercarriage paint. Because nothing like that would ever happen...right?
Does anyone have actual experience with DOT 5 in your car?

Great story and beautiful color combination on your car.  Looking forward to your future posts.

I searched several times and didn't see any photo of the "GM Plaque" on the website. Anyone else find it?

That is a NICE car.  I would just clean it up and drive it as it is. 

Stunning combination.  Black with black/white hounds tooth interior. 

Read this: http://www.camaros.org/drivetrain.shtml#axle

Have you checked:
- the casting date of the 12 bolt center section
- the production date of the axle assembly as stamped on the forward face of the passenger side axle tube?
This evidence would help to establish if the axle was in the correct date window for the 04C cowl tag date of the car.

Gear ratio would seem to make sense.  in the past when GM set up their "pass-by noise" testing for the government, ratio/engine rpm had a profound effect on dB level as the vehicle passed the recording location.  For example, take mid 90's Z28 LT1 Camaros with standard 2.73 axles(3.23 was optional).  The 2.73 cars had a rubber block off in the automatic shifter that would not allow you to manually select and hold 1st gear.  The car would fail pass-by noise dB levels if held in 1st through the recording/measurement location.   By allowing the automatic shift to 2nd gear, the rpm and engine noise would drop prior to the measurement location.  The block off was quickly remedied by the owner removing the shifter cover and using an exacto knife to carve it off.  The trans shift calibration may have also been revised to help as well.  Can't recall all the details as its been many moons. 

Thanks for the reply.  Over the weekend, the seller and I determined that the wrong bushings were installed in the hinge.  The bushings were out of a Chevelle kit and not a Camaro kit.  There is a difference in the bushing OD where the Camaro requires a larger OD on the bushing vs the Chevelle/A body.  I would have thought the bushings were a standardized part for economies of scale.  But they were definitely not.  Put in the new Camaro specific bushings and fit and function is correct.

Need some feedback on bushing fit on door hinges.  I bought a rebuilt 1969 GM driver side lower hinge(stamped 2703 L) with new bushings.  Trouble is that the bushings fit loose in the pin bore on each hinge half.  With the other hinges already on the car, the bushings are stationary and the door pivots on the pin which rotates in the bushings.  Shouldn't the bushings be a press fit, especially the top bushing with the serrations on it?  Can anyone verify if this loose fit is normal?  Thanks in advance for your input.

That's a 292 six with an over bore.  I recall some early drag cars with 300 inch side-draft carb stove bolts in them. 

Approximate 3 month delta from 12 bolt manufacture date to 06D vehicle build.  Another example of a real car not fitting in with the normative time intervals.