Messages

Slightly  OT but......Why is it that people asking/expecting huge dollars for things on ebay cannot take pictures in focus of the some of the most important things? 

Awesome site!
Thanks for sharing

1967
L-48
M-20
Los Angeles
Build Nov 66
U-bolts
Clocked @ 30deg

Just curious since you have the POP have you tried contacting the original owner?  He may not be able to verify any of the information you are looking for but it can't hurt.  The guy I work next to is from Waverly IA and recognized the name when I asked him.  He is thinking the son is also named Rod and around 40 yrs old which means the dad would have been prime age to buy a new '67 Camaro.  Again just curious.  This was quite an interesting thread.  Best of luck!

Dave

I have but when I googled the name and tried to find info online I didn't get anywhere.  If there is any info or contact info you or your friend feels comfortable sharing PM me and I will follow up!  Awesome.
Thanks!
EJ

Does anyone know if the pan clear the crank past the cross member if I pull the bolts on the motor mounts and jack up the engine as far as the tranny will allow?

Thanks,
EJ
 

Pull the distributor, remove the fan, drain the oil and coolant and disconnect the upper and lower radiator hoses, remove the engine mount through-bolts, loosen the trans mount bolts, jack the engine up and stuff a piece of 2x4 between the frame stands and engine-side mounts. Set the engine with the timing index line on the balancer at 5 o'clock as viewed from the front (gets the front counterweight up out of the way for more clearance), and remove the pan.

Perfect!  That's the plan then.  Thanks John.
EJ

wow!! that car has changed some since I seen it last!!! If you have any pics of it back in the day post them!!!! When you get it done we will have to run it against my GN or the old 442!!! lol!

Yeh, it's been 20 years since you saw it.  It still runs like a champ.  I have put about 20k miles on it though since then when I was driving it back in the late 90's as my main vehicle (wtf).

Bottom line, I didn't mean to cut you off & good luck with your project.

Thanks bcmiller...     

No problem thanks guys for the explanation, sorry if I came across as demanding.  I think I am going to have to pull the pan and check what the crank and rod numbers are.  I can't remember though if I can do that without pulling the motor.

Does anyone know if the pan clear the crank past the cross member if I pull the bolts on the motor mounts and jack up the engine as far as the tranny will allow?

Thanks,
EJ
 

...but with the extra time on my hands want to get this "small journal" mystery figured out.

...there seems to be some conflicting info floating around the internet.  Lets open that can of worms and see where it takes us cause I am still sticking with my story even though it has changed slightly.

EJ

I think we have tried to be as diplomatic as our patients will allow. A friendly word of advise, lets not open a can of worms..as far as I know this case IS closed. Conflicting info as you state comes from your source (reply 44). That site comes from an opportunistic individual from South America who has stolen much of his information from CRG. If the information isn't found here it doesn't exist...period!

10-4 understood, I will move on with my venture which is not over for me.  Thanks for the insight and valuable information from all that have commented.  I was looking for people that would help me seek the truth about my car.  I have a matching numbers 350 that I was willing tear apart video tape and do whatever to figure out why when 25 years ago the journals were "small".  I guess that there is nothing more that I can gain from this because you are shutting me down on my quest.  I was hoping for some open mindedness even if I find out that I am wrong about my car.  All I have done to date is prove that the engine and the car are a match(which was also openly disputed).

All the best,
EJ

...All this from a 14yr old? What a vivid imagination...Welcome to CRG!

LOL Good to be here.  I guess I have had 25 years to get my story straight.  Car was given to me by my dad when I graduated college.  In high school I had my own 75 Camaro that I had built up a 350 - 4:10 posi with locking rear - Reprogrammed TH350 with 3000 stall etc and all the engine goodies.  This car is going to be my baby.  I drove it for a few years when I lived in Phoenix back in late 90's and stuck it into storage for last 10 years while I have been working on my shop.  Now I have a 2000sf shop in the back and me and my wife are going to start restoring this thing as a project together.  Currently searching for work so nothing is going to happen until that happens but with the extra time on my hands want to get this "small journal" mystery figured out.

Thanks guys that have bared with me.  Sorry again about the confusion.  Now what is this about no small rod journals, there seems to be some conflicting info floating around the internet.  Lets open that can of worms and see where it takes us cause I am still sticking with my story even though it has changed slightly.

EJ

This is driving me crazy so I called my dad today as it was a father son rebuild type deal as I was like 14 at the time.  Anyway he set me straight a bit and informed me that it was the rod bearings that were smaller not the main bearings.  He said the main bearings were standard 350 size.   I must have not been there for this part of the rebuild when he tried to install the rod bearings the first time cause he said that when he tried to tighten up the rods he actually broke some of the bolts and ended up having to send all of the rods to the machine shop to have them resized after that to make sure there wasn't damage.

So I am looking at this link:

http://www.chevy-camaro.com/parts/chevy-camaro-part-codes-connect.htm

It says that all 1967 350's had the same size rod journal size as a 327.  It was made larger in 1968.  Apparently my engine is just the same as every other 1967-350.

Sorry for the confusion.

The engine date code.  This indicates it was cast on Nov 4th 1966

Here is the casting number:

Thanks for taking the time to clean up & post the pad. It certainly isn't a restamp but what I thought was a "T" is indeed an "I" which either way still has me puzzled. There isn't a listing for this for an L48...or any other engine for that matter. http://www.camaros.org/drivetrain.shtml#PadStamps. Your engine has certainly peaked my interest.

Again...something is still amiss concerning your stamp as it relates to your POP. The POP indicates; V=Flint, 1108=Nov 8, MS=350ci/295HP L48 w/Manual Trans. Not really sure what the I means...

From what I have read on the internet it was a very common occurrence for the stamp letter "I" to be used interchangeable with the stamp number "1" .

Here are a few links to the info but I also saw it elsewhere:
http://www.chevy-camaro.com/chevy-camaro-engine-suffix-code-help.asp

also a post by John Z on the camaro.net forum saying the same thing
http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=123269

Awesome thanks Daniel.

I am going to keep plugging away at this until I get it figured out.  As the one poster said it was 25 years ago that I had it apart so I may have misspoke on the rod journal bearings, but I just know that I had to put the smaller main journal bearings in and I am 100% sure it was this engine.  I will probably end up pulling apart the bottom end and start mic-ing stuff and looking for numbers.  I cleaned off the engine pad with some thinner.  See below.

You only mention the main journals as being the smaller size.  How about the rod Journals?  Are they they the smaller size also?

Also I checked my July issue of the 1969 GM parts manual and there is only one part number for a 1967 & 1968 350ci crankshaft.  So if they ever did make a crankshaft with a small journal they never expected to replace it....they would have to replace the whole short block instead.

As to the engine pad.....did you repaint the pad when you rebuilt the engine?   The original engine pads from the factory were never painted.

Yeh, I repainted it chevy orange when I rebuilt it and painted over the numbers, didn't think twice about it at that time.  I don't remember the rod journals being a different size than was expected for a 350.  I had bought all of the bearing kit to rebuild a 350, the only ones that didn't work were the main bearings which I had to get a different part number(283-327 version).  Everything else was fine as far as I remember.