Messages

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.

Stillwater Camaro:
After following this thread, I suspect there could be more to this blue paint than just an early amateur restoration.  Is there any owner history?  Are there any unique options on the car?  Is the blue paint a glossy top coat or a tinted primer?  Early production car?  Very curious, indeed.

The door to fender gap is likely in the .25 inch range on that "1970" car.  From my recollection, production fender gaps could vary significantly from car to car.   And I've had ten 67 to 69's when they were original.  They built production cars.  Not show cars.  How many restoration shops today custom work the fender and door leading edge by welding on or removing material to get to 1/8 inch gaps?   I'd bet most of the top show cars are massaged in  that manner. 

 Casting date late March 69 and final assembly Jan 20, 1970.  That is a long time, but would indicate that Gear & Axle used whatever components were on hand to complete an axle assembly.  Probably not "normative" but the plants didn't operate on that principle.

That is one killer induction setup.  Never seen one like that for a clickety six.

Does that spoiler look a bit taller than the production intent part? 

I can verify that there was an actual ZL1-based 454 test/development engine stored by Chevrolet Engineering for decades at Milford Proving Ground.  When I first viewed it, the engine was in a disassembled state and was kept in a custom wheeled, varnished wood crate.  There were retaining spaces for all components down to the individual valves, lifters, pistons, etc.  The crank was held by a cradle integral to the interior of the crate.  The crate exterior had information indicating that the engine had been shipped to Diamond Engineering out of the Detroit area at one point.  The block and heads were aluminum with corresponding Winters Foundry casting marks.  This engine was secreted away along with several other high performance small blocks and an L72 big block in an area away from prying eyes.  The fellow who oversaw the storage area showed me these engines early on in my tenure as he knew of my interest in such things with the agreement that I "forgot" what I had seen.  Eventually, an enterprising co-worker who also knew of the engine(by being buddies with the storage guru), decided it would make an interesting development study by installing it in a C1500 pickup.  He got permission from the storage guru to temporarily use it and the install occurred on a weekend during off shifts.  I had an opportunity to drive this combination on the road system including the North/South straight with my co-worker riding shotgun.  It was an animal.  I can only imagine what it would have been like in a lighter platform.  There is a possibility that this was the same engine described in the account of the Corvette mentioned previously.