Messages

1066

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Windshield Wiper Motor

« on: April 18, 2017, 04:14:28 AM »

Possibly, or it may not have been a deliberate decision - maybe just got a standard (non-RS or CE1) wiper motor, interchange with 5045572 instead of 5045605 and found nothing to hook the headlamp washers up to.

1067

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Windshield Wiper Motor

« on: April 17, 2017, 11:08:49 AM »

Where would it say Rochester or New York? No evidence of it being repainted, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't.

The stamping is on the same side of the motor casing as the remains of the silver sticker in one of your pictures above. I can make out some of it, but not all. Not hard and fast, but observations so far in the limited number of data points in the wiper motor date code thread indicate that the casing changed from having 'Rochester NY' to 'Dayton, Ohio' around the same time the assembly part number stamping stopped appearing on the end.

1068

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Windshield Wiper Motor

« on: April 16, 2017, 10:28:20 PM »

Jimmy, an early 69 MY car like yours would have had a wiper motor assembly with the stamped part number on the end. The remains of the silver sticker on yours suggest that it's an OE unit from later production, that was used to replace the original. Another alternative is that it's a more recent remanufactured part using some OE components (such as the casing) and the remanufacturing process included an attempt at removing the sticker.
Does it appear to have been repainted black, and does the casing say Rochester NY or Dayton Ohio?

1069

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Windshield Wiper Motor

« on: April 16, 2017, 02:10:01 AM »

Looks like the sticker fell off, or was peeled off. As stated previously, later assemblies only had the part number on the silver sticker, so it'd be fine to see nothing stamped on the end except 'TYPE E 12V' well before your car's build date of October 1969.

1070

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Windshield Wiper Motor

« on: April 14, 2017, 08:25:19 AM »

Stamped number on the end of the casing appears to have transitioned over to a silver sticker on the side some time in the first quarter of the 1969 calendar year, along with the change in the side stamp from Rochester NY to Dayton Ohio production. Both stickers and end stampings have been observed on the same unit from early 1969 calendar year, until stickers only were used.
If you could add your data to the wiper motor date thread, that'd be great!

1071

General Discussion / Re: NEW DISCUSSION GROUP (FORUM)? - Classes and Judging Guidelines

« on: April 08, 2017, 06:43:51 AM »

Been watching with some interest, although I care about originality but don't ever plan to attend a points judging event with a car.
If there is no agreed Camaro judging manual, and the individual judges vary between events, how can there be a standardised guide to judging, unless one intends to prepare the car to the varying standards of each specific event? And from where do the judges derive what they consider to be accurate details, if there is no concensus opinion?

1072

1969 - Orphans / Re: Muncie case 19N636350 P9D15A 3925660

« on: April 05, 2017, 12:24:17 PM »

Yours, or spotted for sale?

1073

General Discussion / Re: FREE CAMARO!!! Also, A Nice Request for Homepage Camaro Pics. DO NOT LOOK!!!

« on: April 01, 2017, 09:24:34 PM »

Interesting home page April Fool's Day car pictures today..... I prefer the '1969' version, at least it appears to need the least work of the three 

1074

Restoration / Re: Power Brake Booster Valve: A Comparison between Original vs Reproduction

« on: March 30, 2017, 07:32:48 AM »

.....and as stated in the Team Camaro thread linked to in Chick's post, credit goes to Bentley for finding and tipping us off to the latest reproduction valve, as per his ebay URL just above.

1075

Restoration / Re: Power Brake Booster Valve: A Comparison between Original vs Reproduction

« on: March 29, 2017, 03:02:05 PM »

Looks good Chick, thanks for the comparison - certainly getting closer to the original aren't they.
I don't have one of the latest repro pieces myself, but from the photos, it looks like there are a couple of differences that are probably only noticeable when side-by-side with an original:
- the orientation of the 3 dots relative to the vacuum hose spigot varies (but that 'clocking' may even vary from valve to valve as part of the manufacturing process to join the two parts of the valve body?).
- some original valves seem to have a letter or number on at least one of the dots.
- the dishing of the hole in the center of the original valve seems a little deeper than on the new one.
- the inner raised ring appears thicker on the reproduction.
- the original valves seem to have a 'wavy' line (highly technical term!) around the face, between outer and inner raised rings; can't see clearly if the repro also has this.

1076

General Discussion / Re: Aftermarket Spring Perches

« on: March 25, 2017, 02:10:31 AM »

I bought the Moser perches, just be aware that you will probably need to ream the bolt holes out a little for a bolt to fit cleanly, as the perches seem to be manufactured with the holes drilled first and then the plate folded into shape. You can see the hole distortion in the photo posted above.
The following drawings by former Team Camaro regular 'mark x22' (who sadly passed some years ago) may help set the perch angles up before welding. These are for multi-leaf but I'm not aware that the angles would be any different:

1077

General Discussion / Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.

« on: March 23, 2017, 09:31:28 PM »

Nothing wrong with discussing those differing opinions though...

Agreed, but re-stating the same opinion again and again isn't really a discussion, it's trying to win an argument. Express viewpoint and move on.
And BTW this isn't aimed at anyone in particular.

1078

General Discussion / Re: I'm pretty sure this is illegal.

« on: March 23, 2017, 08:48:13 AM »

There will always be differing opinions on this subject in the hobby.....

1079

General Discussion / Re: Camaro Rear End Axle housing bumper

« on: March 19, 2017, 08:37:17 PM »

The rectangular hole has rolled over edges, something is just not right and why the 2 unthreaded holes on each side?

Because there were two types used, a push-in and a bolt-on type (see AIM extract above).

1080

General Discussion / Re: 1969 Cowl Induction

« on: March 19, 2017, 12:21:54 PM »

You should have a switch mounted on the throttle arm/lever, inside the engine compartment, a relay on the firewall on the passenger side, and a solenoid attached to the flapper valve at the opening in the back of the cowl hood. Switch on the throttle lever should only be activated at wide-open throttle, which then actuates the solenoid via the relay to open the flapper valve. Wiring harness should run from the firewall just above the fuse block to the throttle lever switch, and also through the firewall wiring gutter to the relay and flapper solenoid.
Can you post a picture of what you have?