Messages

166

Restoration / Re: need a transverse muffler for 69 Z ,

« on: July 29, 2006, 05:55:33 AM »

Aaron,

A chambered system is too restrictive?  That doesn't seem to make sense.  They were developed to be much less restrictive.  Hence the noise issue.

167

Originality / Re: 1969 z/28 driveshaft

« on: July 19, 2006, 08:47:02 PM »

Hey guys!

I just conversed with the owner of a low mileage L/34 '69 Camaro that has a 4-speed in it.  I'm sure he will chime in at some point.
His original driveshaft is offset as we've discussed here.  Additionally, he recently verified an original L/48 Camaro at the Camaro Nationals
and it too has the offset driveshaft.  Stay tuned.....  More to come......

168

Originality / Re: Correct oil pan drain plug for '68 BB

« on: July 19, 2006, 05:49:46 PM »

Looks like there's one on eBay now.  You weren't kidding about being pricey, Jeff  http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4651220126

Did you guys ever notice how things like this have price cycles?  Seems like we address something here, then all of a sudden eBay is alive
with drain plugs.  I'll wait until the price comes down to a reasonable place.  I just can't justify paying $75+ for an original drain plug.

Steve

169

Originality / Re: 1969 z/28 driveshaft

« on: July 19, 2006, 05:30:37 PM »

Yes, an L/35 is a 396 ( 325hp ).  The bigger question there is if the car had a THM400.  That would tell us more.

All of my research over the years has indicated that only THM400 ( big blocks ) used the in-line yoke driveshaft.
There has NEVER been as explaination as to why this is the case.  I have looked into it many times myself.

I also agree that this should be a research topic.  We should poll all the members here to go look under their cars
and report back with their findings.  That in itself will not be conclusive proof, unless you know for sure you have
the original driveshaft.  I might suggest that this topic be posted on yenko.net since some members there have
original cars as well.


In my case, I am positive I have the original driveshaft on my car and I will go look today and report back.

Steve

170

General Discussion / Re: 1968 Camaro 327/210 - I want to convert to 4 barrell carb/intake

« on: July 13, 2006, 07:32:19 PM »

Guys,

Isn't there also a cam difference between the 2-bbl & 4-bbl 327 engines?

I've been into big blocks for far too long, so the small block stuff has blurred a bit.
We did this very same 2-bbl to 4-bbl thing as kids all the time.  Caming always seemed
to be the limiting factor there.

Perhaps some of the SB guru's here can comment further.

Steve

171

Originality / Re: What were the original nuts used on the '69 rear spoiler

« on: July 13, 2006, 04:48:05 PM »

Sorry Dave,

I mistook the 07A for an 09A and I was thinking early build vs. late build.

Steve

172

Originality / Re: What were the original nuts used on the '69 rear spoiler

« on: July 13, 2006, 03:09:17 AM »

No acorn nuts there!  Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong.....

173

Originality / Re: What were the original nuts used on the '69 rear spoiler

« on: July 12, 2006, 04:33:26 AM »

Do you guys have any sense if these same acorn nuts would be correct for my 10-D-68 car?

Steve

174

Originality / What were the original nuts used on the '69 rear spoiler

« on: July 09, 2006, 06:00:20 AM »

Hey guys!

While at the Camaro Nationals a couple of weeks ago, I got into a discussion with a very low mileage COPO owner
regarding the original nuts ( and washers? ) used to affix the rear spoiler.  His car had domed-head nuts vs. the
standard nuts I've often seen.  I honestly never gave this much thought.  The owner of this car also thought that
possibly early Camaro's used these different different nuts vs. what was used on the later production cars.  Can any
of you confirm this for me?

As always, it would be nice to see some images to go with the dialog. 

Steve

175

General Discussion / Re: 1st Gen Driveshaft Design - Did GM Make a Mistake?

« on: July 06, 2006, 09:17:15 PM »

This topic is a real riddle.......

176

General Discussion / Re: 1st Gen Driveshaft Design - Did GM Make a Mistake?

« on: July 06, 2006, 12:32:12 AM »

 2. have the yokes lie in one plane or in-line with each other so as to constantly maintain the same included angle between the drive and driven ends. If the yokes are not in line, it will be impossible to maintain the same included angle between ends of the driveshaft. If the included angle is not equal, the instantaneous angular velocity will aslo be different from one end to the other.

I'm no engineer but I think you just answered your own question. You say why not on TH400 cars? Th400 transmissions were behide the 396 engines. If i remember right the 396 engines were offset to the right about an inch. If I understand what you stated, the yokes are not in line, and the instantaneous angular velocity will be different. Would that be the same as the offset yokes on the dirveshaft?

Mike

Mike,

Your right about the big block being offset about 1 inch or so to the right.  I'm embarrassed to admit that this fact
never entered my mind when considering the big block & THM400 combination in relation to the driveshaft yokes.

I wonder though why the 4-speed cars didn't use the in-line yoke driveshaft though.  The engine & Muncie would
still have been offset to the right.

Steve

177

General Discussion / Re: 1st Gen Driveshaft Design - Did GM Make a Mistake?

« on: July 05, 2006, 04:51:04 PM »

Maybe the guys over on the yenko.net site can shed some light here.  Also, some of the NCRS members were racers from back in the day.

I may post on both sites in an effort to enlist help.

Steve

178

General Discussion / Re: Your worst 1st generation Camaro fears - realized

« on: July 05, 2006, 04:47:43 PM »

Rich,

I wonder if there will be any financial beneifts for swapping VIN & cowl tags from an original Camaro vs. doing an initial registration on the Dynacorn body.
In other words, would insurance be cheaper on an "original" Camaro vs. a kit type car?  I don't know myself - just wondering.  That could be one of the
principal reasons people swap VIN's.  Well. other then the obvious attempts to make an RS/SS big block convertible from a pile of new sheet metal.  

What if someone buys one of these cars already built and then down the road they swap the VIN & cowl tags.  It might be harder to trace now because
the car has been on the road and has that "driven" look, etc..  In these scenarios, I always look to the darker side.  So lets say someone buys one of these
Dynacorn bodied cars thinking it is an original Camaro.  They later learn they got dupped and their only out is to put real VIN & cowl tags on the car and unload
it in an attempt to get their money back.  I can foresee a lot of ethical issues here.  Just look at all the COPO, ZL-1, and Yenko clones on eBay all the time.
If there was no way to trace the lineage of the real cars, you can bet that almost none of these fake cars would be sold a clones.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I think the fit on these bodies is crap.  They should be easier to spot.  Maybe we should all start to learn the differences
between original GM bodies and the Dynacorn reproduction.  Perhaps we could start a sticky thread here with known Dynacorn body irregularities.  I hate to
play the Camaro Police, but we have to protect the values of our real cars - don't we!

Steve

179

General Discussion / Re: 1st Gen Driveshaft Design - Did GM Make a Mistake?

« on: July 04, 2006, 08:57:27 PM »

Richard,

Your thorough analysis of the dynamic forces involved in driveshaft design is an interesting read.  That leads me to question all the more why THM400 driveshafts
were in-line and all others were out-of-line.  When you consider the revving capabilities of the Z/28 and the L/78-L/72, you wonder why this condition existed at all.

Steve

180

General Discussion / Re: 1st Gen Driveshaft Design - Did GM Make a Mistake?

« on: July 03, 2006, 12:28:13 AM »

Hey John,

Thanks for chimming in.  I tend to agree.  It's doubtful that the Engineering Group would have let something like this ride for three years ( at least ) if it was of
no significance.  I would like to know what makes the THM400 so unique to require an in-line yoke configuration though.

Steve